Nuanced. - 188. Mike Le Couteur: Are Politicians Avoiding Tough Interviews?

Episode Date: March 5, 2025

CTV News senior political correspondent Mike LeCouteur speaks with Aaron Pete about political accountability, media bias, the decline of traditional news, and the rise of alternative media.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. What is the state of Canadian media? On the one hand, we have growing YouTube channels and podcasts. On the other, we have legacy media with well-trained journalists fighting to hold politicians accountable. I'm speaking with a senior political correspondent from CTV on political accountability, the future of journalism, and the importance of healthy debate. My guest today is Mike LeCouture. Mike, it is an honor to have you on the show.

Thank you so much for being willing to share your time. Would you mind first introducing yourself to viewers? Sure. I'm Mike Lukutur, CTV News, is a senior political correspondent. And thanks for having me on the podcast. I really appreciate it. The pleasure is all mine. Let's start with a tough question.

What does political accountability look like from your perspective? You're not kidding. That's a tough question. I think it's basically trying to get the answers from a politician that everyday Canadians want. And that's what I think we try and do as much as possible. I know that's what I try and do as much as possible. And really asking that question about why is it that you're doing this now? And it's so interesting because when I came to Ottawa, I grew up in Montreal, I was a reporter there.

And when I was applying for the job in Ottawa, it was moving to political journalism and something that I had not really done a lot of. And you soon realized that political journalism is not so much about what the policy, is that they're announcing today or what the politician is saying today. But it's really what they're saying today compared to what they said yesterday, the day before, and the record. And I think that's where a sort of political accountability comes in. And it's really that sort of sense of, okay, what does this mean for Canadians and how do we make sure that we get to the root of it? And I think that that's, you know, it may be your next question, but that really is sort of that, that ever elusive, how do we continue to get political accountability in this, in this type of media, environment where everybody is looking at a quick click and a quick clip that they want to digest

their news in. And it's so interesting that I think we all strive for it and we try as much as possible in this highly trained media environment that these politicians are very trained in trying to make sure to get to the root of it. Tell me why you made this decision and tell me why this helps Canadians or any type of person, the people that they are trying to help. That was going to be my next question. What barriers exist in actually achieving political accountability? I do think of getting the interview to begin with can be a challenge. I think that we're seeing more and more of.

And then actually getting the answers in the interview is the other challenge. What am I missing anything? I don't think so. I think it's also trying to make sure that they're being genuine about it. And I think that's sort of connection that Canadians have and seeing a politician being genuine about their answer. I mean, one of the things I can sort of think of is Mark Miller, who is now the immigration minister, and he was indigenous services and crowned indigenous relations minister. And he was one of those people that you would ask a question. And if

he didn't have the answer or if the answer was they're not doing good enough on the file, he would say it. And that was one of those things where you'd go, okay, well, that's refreshing because it's actually this government minister admitting they didn't get it right and they're striving to get it right and that these types of problems to solve are very hard. And getting back to the root of your question, I think the difficulty in A, trying to get the interview is that a lot of these politicians are finding different ways to reach the people that they want to reach when you consider the fact that they have their own channels, they have their own, you know, X pages where they are reaching their viewers. And a lot of times they don't think they need to speak to us anymore. And I say

us, I mean, like media in general. And the media landscape is so segmented, too, and that they can pick and choose where they want to go. I mean, Aaron, it's so funny, there used to be a time, and now I'm going to show my age a little bit here, is that, you know, Walter Cronkite used to be the most trusted man in the world, right? Trusted news anchor on TV. And what came out of his mouth was gospel. And now we don't have that sense anymore of, you know, what people say, and journalism being the record of the day. And there's a lot of information out there that people can get and I encourage people to read all sorts of different viewpoints.

But also the difficulty, I think, is that, you know, there are standards that, you know, if you would want to call the mainstream journalists, you know, or legacy media, have to adhere to. And, you know, you have to make sure that you do adhere to those when you are part of our, you know, our ecosystem. And so I think that is one of those things. and then the accountability in the actual interview as well

that I think is so interesting is that they know, politicians know, that you only have a certain amount of time. But I think what we've been trying to do is really with shows like PowerPlay that I get the host on Friday, that Vashtiapela's host Monday, at Thursday, you can have a long-form interview

where you can really drill down and they can skate, but they can't get away. And as much as possible, we try to really sort of hone in on it and get that answer from them that they think they can get away from in a quick sound bite and sort of talking back to what I was saying before about, you know, it's this weird sort of way that people watch and consume news. I think it's almost like two extremes. People either really like those short sound bites that they can digest quickly, like TikTok or Instagram Reel or something longer. And that in-between period and that in-between time, frame is kind of one that I don't know if people are watching as much, but really to sort of get the information. I hope that people are willing to sort of sit through it and listen to it to really be able to get the sense of what we as journalists are trying to get at from that political accountability. From my perspective, you're up against it. I do see the changes that

you're describing. How do you personally advocate for the ecosystem that you operate within? to try and make sure that you do get those interviews, that you do get those opportunities to speak with them and then hold them accountable. How do you approach that? Yeah, I think it's, there's a couple of things to it. One, you try and make sure that when you are operating in the ecosystem, that whoever you're going to be interviewing knows that you're fair about it, that you will hold their feet to the fire in a fair way, not in a belligerent way and not in a way that you're doing

it for clicks or for views, right? And I think that sometimes that can be a bit of a trap of trying to make sure that. that you're getting those views and that, you know, obviously we want people to see our stuff, but by the same token, don't do it just for the clicks, right? And I think that what we also have to do is I got to do my homework. Every time I'm interviewing somebody, I got to make sure that I am bringing it and I'm talking to that politician and really also asking the questions that I think that Canadians want answers to. I often say to people that it's not about the policy that was just passed on Parliament Hill. It's about how it affects the people. And just a complete side note here,

but I remember one story that really just struck me that it just was so touching to me. It was about conversion therapy, and the government was passing a law to outlaw conversion therapy. And it was when I was working for a different news organization. And we were going to do the story, the announcement was going to be around 4 o'clock, which was just at our deadline. And so I was tasked with trying to do a minute 30 story. And a minute 30 story is not a lot of time in TV. and try to explain to Canadians what conversion therapy was and why it was important that the government was actually going to go ahead and ban it. I found somebody from the LGBTQ2 community

who had actually undergone conversion therapy and told me this heart-wrenching story about how they were essentially excommunicated from their family. And it was just so personal. And I remember coming back to the office and saying, this is how we're going to do the story. We're going to tell the story of conversion therapy through this person's eyes, and we're going to tell people this is basically somebody who's

gone through it, and this is somebody, and this is their reaction to how the government is going to actually move on this. And this is why it's important. And right at the end of the story, it's at the very end, we had the government line and the government sort of saying, this is why we're going to do it, and this is how we're going to do it. And I can tell you, Aaron, I interviewed that person. It was touching. It definitely, I think, broke through as well. He emailed me and my producer later that evening and said that his family in BC, who he had been out of touch with for years, saw the piece, said to them that they never knew what had happened to him, and they felt so sorry for what happened. And they reconnected and they wanted to meet up again. And I

told that anecdote to the minister afterwards a couple months later. And I said, I want you to understand that what you do matters. And it affected one person, at least one person. And to me, I feel like I did my job that day because I told the story through the eyes of a person about a person and it had an impact. And I think that that's what we need to do a lot more of because a lot of people get caught up in the politics on the hill. But this is all about legislation that affects people and the people that it affects. That's a really, really deep story. And I appreciate you being willing to share that on a personal level, just to have your job play that role, I think is really profound and to see that impact. How do you see Canadians digesting something like the carbon tax? And I just

use that as an example because for so long we heard this is the way the future, we should get used to it, then Justin Trudeau steps down. Everybody's on the opposite side now. Nobody wants anything to do with this tax. And I feel like that's jarring for Canadians. watching that they feel like they've in some ways been lied to and then if you take into account that the party system has this process where you're supposed to do that internally and you have a public facing approach but like i feel like that's really jarring for Canadians to hear and that that builds like government goes why don't people want to vote well it's because in these big moments there's such a lack of trust that anybody actually means what they say because if you're willing to switch once

the person who's the leader leaves what do you stand for what is the ground in which you stand. Yeah, especially when you consider that the liberals really put so much of their political capital into it, right? I mean, when you consider how we thought that was going to be the hill, the liberals were going to die on. And in a sense, it's almost that they were going to die on that hill, so they've decided to move hills, even when you have Stephen Gilbo, who came out and said that he's going

to support Mark Carney in this leadership race, and he was the biggest proponent of it. And he still believes in the carbon tax. and saying that, you know what, but unfortunately, the narrative got changed on us by Pierre Pauliev, blaming Pierre Pauliev that he convinced people that it wasn't a good idea. Well, I mean, the flip side to that is, why didn't you convince people that it was a good idea? And I think it's that it comes back down to that communication, right? When you look at the carbon tax, did the government do a good enough job of telling Canadians how it's actually going to impact them and what it's actually going to do for the environment?

I think there's a lot of people out there that still look at the math and say, I still don't get it. I still don't understand how, you know, I'm paying money and then you're going to give me more money back? Like, how does that work? And there are two aspects to it. And we're starting to learn that through the leadership race, liberal leadership race, how it's a consumer portion and industrial portion. And the fact that Mark Carney says he's going to remove the consumer portion.

But even Christopher Freeland saying, you know, we listen to Canadians and we realize, well, that wasn't, you know, what people want. And think, well, then where was your internal polling on that? And I agree with you. I think that Canadians look at this and go, okay, so if you stood for that, but now you don't, then what? And I think that that's a difficulty that Canadians are having now in trusting politicians and saying, okay, if you can switch course on something as key in your mind as the carbon tax, what else can you switch on?

And it's unfortunate because in a sense, you have to applaud a party for going the full way with it, but then when they decide they're going to change course on it, you go, well, you know, did you really stand for it then? And I can understand how Canadians can really look at this and sort of, and be negative about it and sort of think, well, why should I vote? And it's disappointing to me because I believe in democracy. I believe in the process of people, you know, with voter participation.

And it really gets me down when I see. low voter participation rates because I think this is our democracy. This is what we need to be participating in. Everybody has an opinion and a complaint, but you also have a vote. And if you don't exercise that third part of it, well, then what are you doing out there? Then you're just complaining about your opinion. You can do something about it. And I hate it when people feel disenfranchised about, you know, the vote and about politics in general.

It's funny. Another quick anecdote, when I cover campaigns, 2019 and 2021, I was on federal campaigns. And I remember you go to these different campaign spots, you know, with the leader. And then the candidate is there. Sometimes you get to speak with them. Sometimes you don't. And no matter what political stripe, because obviously I'm neutral, I always go up to them and I say, you know what, thanks for doing this. I appreciate it. And they sort of look at me quizzically. And I said, I don't support anybody. I'm neutral on this. But if you don't put your name forward as a candidate, then we don't have a democracy because then it's just somebody putting, you know, one person getting the seat because they put their name forward. But having this discussion and having, you know, this exchange of ideas and this participation, that helps. Back to the point that you were making and what you're asking about, I just, I wish that there were, you know, politicians that would continue on with the courage of their convictions.

And I think part of it, especially with the carbon tax, is not. properly explaining it and not really connecting all the dots so that Canadians could have gotten behind it if they thought it was a good idea. You talked about, you said obviously I'm neutral, and I just want to hone in on that a little bit more because I feel like that idea of neutrality has really been tested over the past maybe five to 10 years where some schools of thought on journalism kind of say there's no such thing as neutrality. That's not real. We all have very deep down biases that we're always operating on and you can never fully get rid of that and that's that's been i feel like in the zeitgeist for some time now and some people have gone all in

like rebel news is all in on the idea there's no such thing is neutrality yeah so how do you approach that because i'm sure that when you you are more connected to these things in in many ways than most people you're meeting the people you get to hear some of the behind the scenes you get to know where this government's flawed where that's government's flawed um what they're right what they're doing wrong where you think they could do better if they were to argue this point or that point like you really get an in-depth understanding how do you maintain that neutrality under under all of that information i think what you have to do is you have to basically try and remove yourself from you know the people and the actual uh i don't want to say your personal

feelings like you said we all have personal feelings i mean i'm not a robot right like i i'm I'm at home, you know, with my kids and, you know, talking with friends and everything like that. And I have my own viewpoints. Obviously, I do. But this is my job. My job is to complete is to hold everyone to account no matter who it is. If you have two seats in legislature, if you have 200 seats in the legislature, it doesn't matter. You have a level of accountability getting to, you know, the first question you asked me is, and you always have to go to that place.

Where do I need to hold you accountable? What are the things that you have said that need to be questioned? What are the things that need to be examined more and that we need to dig a little deeper on? And what are some of the other things that I can sort of poke around with to try and think of, you know, how does this help the Canadians? And the best thing that I can, that I ever think about when I'm doing a story, Aaron, it's, I always say to myself, what would the farmer in Saskatchewan want to know about this today? What would the single mom in Edmonton want to know about this? You know, what is the person in the northern and the northern territories in Nunavut? How does it affect them?

And that's the best way that I can sort of remove myself from it and, you know, my feelings about a story. And you're right. I think it's difficult because even when you consider that there's their media, to your point, some media out there, they really lean into it, but they also, that's their brand. And a lot of more journalists are sort of making their brand being, this is me and this is my lean, this is my slant, and this is what you're going to get from me. And there's a market out there for that. A hundred percent there is because then that feeds into whoever, you know, really wants to listen to that. But I think that there is such, we have such, I don't want to call it a burden. I would almost say it's such a duty that I carry, you know, from.

journalists of your, and I hate to say that like that, but you consider, you know, people name drop like, you know, Peter Mansbridge, Peter Manzbridge, Bob Fife, you know, at this network, Craig Oliver and Evan Solomon, Vashia as well, Vaschapel. She's great at that as well, that no matter who the politician is, no matter what the policy is, my job as a journalist, is to take it apart, examine it, tell Canadians what it's about, and let them make their decision on it and present all of the facts as best as I can and as much of it I can and balanced as well and to say, look, you can make your decision after I tell you all of this. I'm going to tell you in a creative way. And I say creative because TV is, and I think all journalism to be interesting

has to be a little creative. I will tell you in the most creative way that I can in the most informative way possible. And then it's up to you to make your decision. And actually the best stays for me, Aaron, or when I get comments either in my inbox or DMs or whatever, and I get them from both, all sides of the political spectrum, saying I'm a lackey for the other side. When I get them from everybody, I know, all right, I'm doing my job. That is one interesting metric to have to live there. It's not scientific. It's maybe not the best, Aaron.

But honestly, if you get criticism from all sides, then you know you're being neutral enough. The next piece, and we talked a little bit about it, is one of the criticisms from my understanding that was being leveled at opposition leader, Pierre Pahliav, was that he was doing all these podcasts and not as interested in what's called old media, traditional media. He was moving in that direction, but I'm wondering how do you take that Mark Carney is choosing, like in some circumstances, American media like John Stewart or other shows to kind of introduce himself. rather than the, like, the common one I've seen online that you may have seen as well, as like the CBC is funded by, by this government, like, or supported through subsidy. Like, how are you not going on the ones that we're actually invested in? Why are you going to these other ones? How do you digest that, being in the media stratosphere, understanding kind of how things work?

I don't think it's fair either way, and I say fair. I mean, look, if, comparing the two, you know, Pierre Paulyev and Mark Carney, they're equal offenders in this, you know, I mean, the fact that Pierre Pauliev is picking and choosing where he wants to go, and Mark Carney is picking and choosing where he wants to go, I don't think that's right. And it continues not to be right. And even limiting of questions and how long they want to talk and even sometimes the tone they use when you are asking a question and it's, you know, not, I don't want to say not receptive, but certainly dismissive of the question or thinking, oh, I can't believe you're asking me that question. I mean, everybody has to be

accountable. Everybody has to answer questions and you should be open to all sorts of questions and that kind of accountability. They're really, you know, by picking and choosing what they're doing and where they're going, unfortunately, they hold that power. Nobody can force them to come on CTV news on power play and nobody can say you must sit here. But certainly, you know, what we do and what I've done in the past is when either one of its surrogates or somebody, you know, from the conservatives talk about, you know, how Pure Pauliab is out there and speaking to media. I always say, well, he's not speaking to us. So he's welcome. There's always a seat for him on PowerPlay for him to come and actually be accountable to us and have that conversation with us. And same goes from Mark Carney.

And, you know, and to an extent, Justin Trudeau, you know, he has a time when, you know, when he would do the media rounds. And then they do get to pick and choose where they want to go. And I don't think it's right. I think, you know, there was a time when I would say Prime Minister Trudeau would do Christmas interviews, year-end interviews, and he would make sure he would make time for, you know, most of the major media and then even sit down with newspapers and that sort of thing. And he does local media as well. And he goes around and talks to them, and more recently he's been doing a lot of podcasts and making sure that he's sort of talking to the, you know, new media. I hope I'm not using that term wrong. But that type of, those types of venues. But I think that they do,

need to speak to as many outlets as possible because not everybody is going to watch that podcast that maybe they were on not everybody was watching John Stewart when Mark Carney was on and not everybody was watching his appearance on MSNBC

but certainly the Canadians that he needs to speak to are watching Canadian TV and they're watching Canadian podcasts or listening to Canadian podcasts and Canadian radio and reading Canadian newspapers. So it's kind of quizzical to me how, you know, somebody like Mark Carney decides that he's going to speak to

BBC or, you know, people down south before he's going to speak to people in Canada, especially when he wants to lead this country. And, you know, same goes for Pierre Paulyev. I understand, you know, everybody's got a media strategy, but I think it has to include where most people are watching as well. This seems like one of the most challenging things we're going to have to work through over the coming election and in the next few years because I have been a huge advocate for new media and like podcasts. Obviously, I think like I'm able to speak with like Minister Patty Heidu for an hour rather than an eight minute segment. And when I interviewed all of the provincial leaders, I was able to have them all for like an hour and 10 minutes and go through

things. And a lot of people reached out and said, hey, that was way better than watching 18 clips that are four minutes apiece on various radio shows. And I've been proud of that up to date, but the piece that I feel like I'm missing is one, I'm not a trained to journalist. I don't believe you necessarily always need a journalism school, but I'm not like, I have not been mentored to the same extent likely you have been and others have been in the trade and in the operations of how to conduct an interview, how to structure the questions properly, how to do your research in such a way. I've gotten to learn from individuals like Tara Henley, but it is not like something I've immersed myself in for years where I am the person you should. should go to for a real journalistic understanding and a professional journalistic interview. And so I do understand that. But then you run into this challenge that the traditional media is not growing to the same extent as new media. And so you can see where

people are like, well, if I want to get my word out, I can reach maybe 100,000, 500,000 people doing this, then going on something that maybe reaches 30,000. But then you're missing out on the fact that your viewership, I would guess, personally, just having a theory, they're like more politically engaged. If you're tuning in regularly, you're going to have a deeper understanding of what's going on, where the policies are at, and those pieces. And so I'm just trying to find what that balance might end up looking like, because I agree with you. They should, I interviewed Nigel Begar, and one of his points on coronations of kings and queens is that they have to kneel in order to take on that role. And there's something, like I get that

it's somewhat performance, but like there is a deep piece of that that you are subject to the people, that you are at the mercy of, that you are at the behest of us being selected for this position and you, to your point, owe a duty to the people to put yourself before them, to humble yourself before CBC, CTV, global news, and take on those questions, not know what they're going to be and own that. I think the conservatives started this movement of like, hey, we're going to choose where we want to go. And the liberals have kind of gone, well, if you're going to choose, we're going to choose. And we're in this dangerous time where, like, I know Christia Freeland, you posted this on X.

She's going on Bill Mayer's show. That's like he's a well-known liberal individual. And that's no fault to him. I think he conducts really good, interesting interviews. I enjoy his work. But like, you're not necessarily going against somebody who understands the policies, the history, That's going to be a very conversational type interview that's not going to hit quite as hard. And then you see Pierre Polyev going on True North Media.

And like, again, just a phrasing of those questions. I watched that and it was very interesting. The phrasing of those questions are already starting from a position. Jordan Peterson, how are you going to save Canada? Like these questions are not middle grounded. They are picking aside before the conversation starts. And I just, I don't know how we bridge this gap between old media and new media going forward. Yeah, and it's interesting because, you know, like, and you have built such a great following and you have built such a great channel here and a great show.

And, you know, and I think, you know, what you're doing is amazing. And I think that it shows that anybody can do it, but also the way that you ask the questions are very different how I would ask the questions. And that's a good thing. It's a good thing that people are seeing that plurality of media and seeing those different points of view. Because whereas you may think that like, oh, well, you know, that's a good thing. or myself may ask you a question that's a little more hard hitting and whatever. But there's also the format of it is so, is way more relaxed, right? Like I'm coming in here and yeah, I'm in my suit and tie, but I'm very relaxed and I'm, you know,

a little more open to the discussion maybe of a, okay, I've got eight minutes and I've got to make sure that I'm going to say this and, and, you know, a politician probably thinks, well, I've got to get this point across, that point across, that point across, that point across. This is going to sound maybe crazy to you, Aaron, but the interviews that I watch and that I I try and learn from as an interviewer and a journalist as well. Weirdly enough is the now stages of Howard Stern because he has this way of talking to Hollywood actors and music acts and whatever and he makes them feel so comfortable

and they're actually so revealing. Now, okay, it's a different scenario. He's not going for accountability. I get that. But I think there's something to learn from that. And in the sense of sit there, let your guests feel comfortable, but at the same time, ask pointed questions in the way that you are. You're asking me questions that are not underhand lobs here, right?

These are serious questions about serious things that I need to think about. And I love it about this, and I love having this conversation. I think, you know, when you consider where these politicians are going and picking friendly media, John Stewart with, you know, Mark Carney, it's not like John Stewart's no slouch, but we knew he wasn't going to go for the jugular on Carney. and Carney also hadn't denounced yet. Now, Del Marr and Christopher Freeland, we've heard many times from Freeland's camp.

They're friends. So is that going to be a hard-hitting interview? Probably not. And the same thing with Pierre Paulyev and Jordan Peterson, to your point, you know, the basis of that question, how are you going to save Canada? Well, I mean, I think we know where this interview is going to go then, don't we? So the difficulty is trying to convince these politicians

and telling in these people that we not only have a reach, but we have a power and a voice. And when you come on and you are sitting in the chair across from myself, Vasi, or any other interviewer on a political show, that you have to come with it and you have to be sharp. And if you are sharp, then you'll be fine. But if you come and you're kind of half in it and you're not really, you don't know your policies.

Another quick anecdote. There's somebody who worked in a minister's office that said to me at one point in time And they said, look, I tell my ministers that if you know your file, you'll do fine in these interviews. If you go in there and you kind of half know it, then you're going to look bad. And I think that that's the problem, is that sometimes they go in it hoping that they'll just sort of have to half study and that they'll pass the flying colors. But, you know, and so the challenge I think of traditional media is also to expand. And I say that in, you know, think of how. Now, yes, PowerPlay Now is available as a podcast to listen to if you want on your way home and that sort of thing.

But I think what we need to do as well is to think of different ways to get to people and meet media consumers where they are. You know, podcasts, I can tell you, like, this is going to sound silly, but it's very personal. I'm cleaning my house. And yeah, I clean my own bathrooms and everything because it's just, I just do it that way. I don't, you know, I'm vacuuming. I got these AirPods in and I'm listening to podcasts. And I'm listening to political podcasts, sports podcasts, all kinds of podcasts. They are so convenient, taking more, you know, wherever you go and whatnot.

But it's also that kind of sense of that's where people are now. And the segment of the population that are sitting down for appointment TV is less and less. So what we need to do in traditional media is really meet them where they are and give them what we think they want. And if it is longer form interviews and it is sort of a more extended type of thing that is beyond those eight minutes, as you said, then do that because, you know, your conversation with Patty Heidu and your conversation with other people, it becomes more revealing the longer you go because even the long, I can feel it now. I'm, you know, at the beginning of this interview, I was kind of sitting straight up. And now I'm kind of like, okay, well, I got to sit. I got to relax a little bit. And my posture

will sort of inform how I'm going to be, right? And so I think that's the beauty of this kind of long form where, and that's the thing with traditional media. Again, we're fighting this. Do do Canadians, do consumers want it in eight seconds? Or do they want it in, you know, 80 minutes? Like, which one is it? And there's still this sort of reckoning that traditional media is coming to and trying to figure out where are we going to play? Which playground are we in and which sandbox are we in?

And how do we service it all and make sure that we are able to give Canadians what they want and at the same time be true to ourselves about it? I don't know the answer. And I have this discussion about. it in my own mind all the time. And, you know, it's funny. I had a quick story. I had to drive back. I was in Montreal. I had to drive back to Ottawa and then back to Montreal all in one night. Anyway, I forgot my passport. I was going on a buddy trip. I forgot my passport here in Ottawa. I was staying with my parents and my dad said, all right, let's go for a ride. It's the nicest thing

he's ever done for me. And to this day, it's so touching that he was 10 o'clock at night, Aaron. and we took the ride. It's a two-hour drive. And it was the story behind it. And what I'm trying to say is he said, I got some questions for you. So we sat down and he said, where's the media going?

And what are we going to do? Because my dad, believe it or not, I think 76, 77, he's going to kill me for not knowing his age. But I'll go lower since I think that's always best. He watches YouTube shorts. And he said to me, I get sort of caught in it. And I'm just watching. And I'm just consuming.

why aren't you guys there? And I thought to myself, yeah, it's because traditional media are not sure where they need to play anymore and where the viewers are. And so if my 76-year-old dad is asking that question and saying, where are you guys? How come, you know, how is the media going to survive all of this? Because he knows, he can see the segments and, you know, how many people are cable cutting. I mean, who's subscribing to cable channels anymore, right? And so how do we monetize. How do we survive? While at the same time, and I think part of our survival is then being the place that politicians do want to go because they'll say, oh, that, you know, that has X amount of eyeballs. This is where, you know, the prime minister wants to go because

he wants to speak to this type of person. And so we have to sort of continue to shift our minds and innovate as traditional media and go where the people want us to be. And then I think, And we can get those interviews because, you know, those types of politicians will say, yeah, okay, I can see they're in that space. And it's just about changing things up for us and not thinking that the traditional way and the old way of doing things is the best way. I really appreciate you saying that because my, I haven't shared this criticism, but your guys' thumbnails on YouTube are they just need so much work. Like you guys, well, you guys are capable of so much. And like a lot of it, like, and that's the challenge I think of like a big system trying to innovate is because you're used to this system and then you're trying to move over to a new system. Like every thumbnail I put together, the words, the colors, the brightness, the contrast, the title, like that takes, that takes a whole day for me to put that piece together because that's where people, when you're on YouTube, you choose to click or not click, and that's a key element of this, the title, you have to have something that.

pulls people and makes them ask a question like well and that takes for me that takes study because there's nobody funding this like I use my own money to pay for all of this so I have to figure that out or I'm getting four views on YouTube and wasting all of my time I have a need to figure that out and to a different extent than then you guys do because you have a system that's working that you understand and then whoever's managing that is is trying to figure that out as in addition to the existing processes I'm sure you guys already have and that's that's the

adaptation piece that I think is a challenge, but I think that's an overcomable challenge. And then just to the piece about encouraging politicians, like, I feel like I watched the morning show and I really enjoyed that show on Apple. And the only piece that I think of is like, we don't really have anybody in media really right now that's willing to say, like, what are you scared? Like, what are you afraid of to sit down with us? And like, are you afraid of questions? Like Pierre Palliev, particularly, because he swings some. hard at a person eating an apple because you're willing to knock that out of the park. Like I feel like, come on man, like let's see you go toe to toe with the best interviewer.

Like you're the guy who's got it all figured out, right? You're making people look silly when you're doing your press conferences. Let's get the best person and let's go 1v1 and see how you do in a really professional, well-prepared interview. And that will be interesting to all of us. If you get that interview and you have that opportunity to place him against somebody, there's There's marketing opportunities there, there's real curiosity. Is he up to the challenge of facing a tough interview?

And if he is, then he's becoming more qualified for the job that he's seeking. And if he isn't, then that helps voters make him more informed decision. But I feel like that willingness to kind of put him on the line. People have become more careful about how they phrased him. They don't want to come across this too much. Like I feel like we're missing that person who's kind of willing to be like, come on, I'm sitting right here. I'm ready to go.

Like when you're ready to be interviewed, like really just kind of. giving that open-ended threat of like, if you don't, then I think people are right to say that you're scared. And I get that that's a tough position because networks have an identity and they don't want to look at adversarial. But there's this piece here where this guy is just walking around feeling very confident in himself and he's not really doing the tough interviews. And I'm just dying to see one where somebody's willing not to be disrespectful, not to try and corner him, not to do gotcha journalism, but to really just ask tough questions about what is your plan? The part that freaks me out the most about him is my understanding,

and I get all political parties do this to a certain extent. But like making decisions based on what the polls tell you, to me, scares me. Because what does the polls tell you to do something horrible or to mistreat people? Like you shouldn't make decisions purely based on that. And I want somebody who's willing to contend with how to make Canada strong, but not just on the whims of what people are saying. Yeah, or not looking at it through the lens of a, well, you know, this is broken and I'm going to fix it in this way. I'm, you know, to basically say, well, if the liberals were here, then I'm going to swing this way, right? And, and I think that there's a, you know, you hit the nail on the head in terms of if you think you're that good and you think you're going

to be able to, you know, own a guy eating an apple and, and you can do that or you can take shots at a press conference at different journalists, well, you know, get in there and have a one-on-one with somebody that you respect, you know, let's do this, let's have it out. And I don't mean have it out in negatively. I mean, if you are to your point, if you are the person that wants to lead this country and you think that you are that sharp, well, then you will look sharp against somebody who was a qualified and really great journalist and good interviewer who will challenge you on things. And if you have your facts down, then you're going to come out okay, aren't you?

And, you know, it's interesting you say that, you know, what are you afraid of? I think everybody asked that of politicians. Why don't you want to come on the show and spend, you know, 10 minutes? If you have nothing to hide or you think that, you know, you have all the answers, come sharing with us. And if I get to a point where I'll go back to the example of Mark Miller, you know, and ask a pointed question at him and he'll say, you know what, you're right, we could have done there and we should have done better there and we're going to try and do better there. And I'm not trying to blow smoke for Mark Miller or carry water from, but he's an example

of a journalist that, of a politician, I should say, where if you ask him a pointed question, he doesn't have the answer, he'll say he doesn't have the answer, or he'll say, you're right, we didn't do as well. And I mean, Aaron, the thing that I've always, I respect politicians who, first of all, take on that file. is not an easy file. There is so much that Canada needs to do for indigenous communities that it has not done. And these are difficult things to try and get done. There are big projects. They are big things that need to get done. So for him to say, you're right, we continue to fail,

but we're going to try to do better. It's an admission that other politicians in the past haven't allowed themselves to give that admission of saying, we're not doing good enough. You're right. And Canadians connect with that. Regular people go, oh, oh, he's sorry. Oh, he admits that he didn't do a lot well. Okay, well, maybe we'll cut him some slack. But it also makes him more real as a person, right? He doesn't have all the answers. So it's get into the ring, get the questions, take the questions, and if you're as sharp as you say you are, then you'll come out just as sharp and be tested like that. And you're right. I just, I don't know what the switch is to flick for a journalist to go for a politician.

And let's not just go to Pierre Polly, let's go to Mark Carney. You know, hey, get in the ring. Get in the ring there. And yeah, he did an interview with CBC and he did one of the Clards of Canada. He hasn't done everybody. And eventually he's going to have to. And, you know, get in there and get the tough questions. And if you know your stuff, well, then people will see that.

But test yourself in that way, and then Canadians will respect you more. It really does come down to, like, this is our line of defense to make sure that we have qualified, reputable individuals leading our country. And I think that's the points you're making are really important. I want to take it over a bit to the panelist side. I'm a regular consumer of the panel host, panel shows you do. And I'm just wondering, how do you go about selecting the individuals? And how do you go about making sure that it doesn't just become political talking points about the news of the day? And how do you kind of keep, make sure that it's adapting and reflecting the real concerns or perspectives of Canadians?

Yeah. And I think that that's so interesting because, I mean, first of all, how do you select the people? I try as much as possible. You know, we have regulars, but as much as possible, I want the panel to reflect what Canada looks like. And it means male, female, people of color, different, you know, different genders, different persuasions, different everything. You know, I always say that if it's an all-white panel, that's not a good thing. If it's a, you know, we also joke about if I'm hosting PowerPlay and all of our panelists are male, they call it a manel. And it's a bit of a funny term, but it's like we can't do that because then it's all male perspectives.

Like we can't be doing that. So first thing is making sure that it is a reflection of Canada and the people who live in this country and making sure it's from different backgrounds and different perspectives as well. And we always make sure that we have at least, you know, one conservative, one liberal, one NDP here, and then sometimes a journalist as well. And I think we try as much as possible to, and I know I do, is to basically bring it down. The question is always, I always sit there and I go, if this was a kitchen table, how would the conversation go? and what would the person at home be wanting to ask? And how would they want to ask it? And, you know, I as much as possible try, it's not easy

because, and it may not come through here, obviously, but I've got a big personality. I like joking around. I like having a lot of fun. And so, you know, on PowerPlay, I'll throw a bunch of sports references in. I'm a huge sports fan. And much to the chagrown of my producer sometimes,

but I try as much as possible to make it fun. Like the other day we were talking about how that Canada, U.S. game, how does that sort of, and this is one of those ideas that I thought that Canadians might have resonated with, and I thought, how do we take that game or can we take that game and almost give Canada and politicians a bit of a boost, a bit of a, you know, hey, our shoulders are a bit more up and we're sitting a little more straighter up because we beat them in hockey. Is that now going to happen, you know, in negotiations with the U.S.? Because I think everybody thought to themselves, man, if we lost that game, if we lost that game, oh, man, we would have never heard the end of it. And it's coming at this time with 51st date. Oh, my goodness.

Oh, geez, I think Canadians, some may have felt like, you know, throw in the towel. So in terms of engagement, I always try and look at the panel like, okay, you know, if it's part of the media question as well, and expanding our tent. Like you said, like it's a political show. But I look at it and I go, okay, well, If the political class are watching it, great.

That means they may watch it anyway. I want more people to watch it. I want people at home who are maybe not very political to go, oh, that was entertaining. Maybe I'll watch the rest of the show because they saw me throw a joke in there about when we were talking about the hockey and saying, you know, somebody made a joke. And I said, yeah, but sometimes it feels like Canada is getting cross-checked in the face.

And spurring that conversation and making sure the panelists feel like, oh, it's safe to make a hockey joke reference and a hockey reference. joking, that type of thing. And I think that that connects more with viewers and that connects more with people at home in the way that we talk and the way we present it and making sure that all their perspectives, A, are going to be, you know, used and, and, you know, in some cases, challenge depending on the panel, but also making sure that the panelists feel comfortable enough to be themselves and to not just give talking points, but to have a little personal flair to it so that they can be they can connect with the viewers and viewers can understand them

better in that way because if you're just a robot sitting there giving talking points people are going to turn it off in 10 seconds is there anybody at c tv um and i'm not saying you have to go to this extent but who goes pierce morgan is killing it online like he has figured out the panelist approach and i'm not saying you guys have to carbon copy and do that but like i do feel like the amount of debate on issues is really, really low where I'm consuming a lot of US YouTube channels because they're willing to have somebody who's pro this and someone who's absolutely against it and they hash it out for 15 minutes and we see where we land. And that's really, from my perspective, engaging for people because it's tough when it's

this perspective, that perspective. Like it's, they're not disagreeing, they're not challenging each other to the same extent that we see in other media forms. And I think that really captivates people because then they go, this was always my understanding. And I've gone into watching debates where I thought I was going to be on this person's side. I've watched their show or I like their YouTube channel. And then they go in and they debate and they get obliterated. And I go, oh, well, maybe I need to listen to this person. Like this person's made really good points and knew their statistics and stuff. And I just feel like Canada needs more of that, willingness to take two issues and have the smartest

people really kind of go at it. I know we have the monk debates, but like on a regular news show where we're kind of getting that information. Yeah. It's a really interesting point because I think there's a couple of things at play here. One, the format, and I say the format in that if you have people in a room together and a studio together, oh, you can really muck it up, right? Because then there's not that feeling of, oh, wait, am I stepping on them? Am I talking? Is there a delay? I didn't quite hear you. Are you finished? And I feel like our panels are best when there's everybody in the room together. And I know I like them more because then it's a, you can see the body language.

You can, I can sort of, as the person who's basically moderating, is kind of, you know, I can do something and give a hand gesture that makes them understand that, hey, no, I'm going to bring this person in. But then somebody else who's sitting at the table with them feels more comfortable to jump in. That's one thing. And I think that the pandemic was wonderful for being able to do these things. even like, hey, you and I can talk like this over Zoom. It's wonderful. But would I feel comfortable debating somebody over Zoom like this?

I think it would be very tough because I would want to try and, you know, get my voice in and try and speak. But sometimes it's difficult because, you know, then you have that kind of like cross talk and that's tough. I'll be honest and this is going to be a terrible answer for you and but or a great answer. We're Canadian. We're too darn polite about it. And I just said, darn, imagine that. That's not what I was thinking of saying. But we're too darn polite about it.

Like, the people on the panels don't somehow don't really, you know, bare-knuckle brawl. And, you know, and I'm being, you know, figurative about that. Obviously, you know, it's a fisticuffs. But I think that too often it's a, well, I respectfully disagree with your opinion. Oh, I really don't agree with you just said, as opposed to a, no, like, let's really get into it. No, your guy said that, and he said that, and that's wrong. And here's why I think it's wrong. And no, you guys haven't done that.

And it's interesting because, you know, when you mentioned Pierce Morgan, I think Canadian TV, obviously we don't have that or we don't have that yet. But I think that there's an investment or there's, we need to look at, okay, do we want that type of thing? And where's the space for that? And how would we do that? and how would we really sort of get to it? Because as you said, like if you're watching it and that's entertaining for you, well,

that's entertaining for a lot of people as well. And if we're not giving people that and they really want that, then maybe we do need to look at that a bit more. But in the panels that we have, I guess, yeah, I come down to,

we're just too polite to really try and get into it pretty hard. But... Just really quickly. I just want to use the example. Evan Solom, this is when I became interested in news personally, was Evan Solomon being hosted, hosting PowerPlay with Ellis Ross and Pam Palmitter and then just going at it and completely different worldviews on how the world operates on what First Nation communities need more of and less of and how you work towards reconciliation pipeline, no pipeline, how do we support people? like those are the moments that that really stand out to me as key my last piece that I just want to touch on with you is just to really recognize you for for one other thing that you haven't mentioned yet but your attention to detail is very very impressive your dedication to getting the names of your panelists and of guests on correct it's something I've observed over the show and it's very impressive and just shows your commitment to your craft trying to make it light and understand is another piece that I see that you work towards very often.

Having jokes making it a little bit lighter politics can be so serious, so divisive, and bringing that in, I think, is really important. So, Mike, I really appreciate you for being willing to make the time today. Is there any comments you want to leave the viewers with? I just wanted to say on that piece of, first of all, that attention to the, I was warned. Somebody told me you do your research, but wow, do you ever. But I appreciate you noticing that because I do my

Darnedest. As somebody who's got a last name that I anglicized, because in French, it's actually Le Couta. But as somebody who's had their name mispronounced a number of times, I said this to P.J. Akayokuk. And I know I'm not saying it perfectly. He's the Premier of Nunavut. I said to him, I said, it's a form of respect. I have to get your name right. And I'm going to do my darnness to make sure I get it right, because that's the name, that's your name. It's you. And if I don't get it right, and I'm not doing my job as a host. And I appreciate you saying that, Aaron. And I appreciate everything you do, man.

Like, I think the space that you're in and what you're doing with your podcast is fantastic. And I appreciate this opportunity as well. I also think another piece of as a sign of respect is always the suit. I think that's very admirable. I know it's a part of TV, but I do think it's a sign of respect to the viewership. And when I wear a suit to my community, to my First Nation community, they don't always get it. But it's a sign of like I am a leader with it. I'm a counselor on my council with my community.

I have obligations to you. I am a figurehead, a person to be held accountable. And I dress as such so that you know that I am accountable to you and that I am in this position that owes you a debt to the people to be held accountable. So Mike, it's such an honor to get to know you more. I hope we can do this again in the future. Congratulations on all your success and the work

that you're doing to hold politicians. accountable. It's not an easy job and I know there's some dream interviews. I'm sure you have and I hope you're able to get them in 2025. I appreciate. Thanks so much for having me on and everything you say and for all the work you're doing. It's really fantastic. I really, really appreciate you having me on and anytime you call, I'm here. The honor is all mine.