The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Death of a Journalistic Icon

Episode Date: May 12, 2022

Shireen Abu Akleh may not have been known that much in North America, but she was an icon in the middle east for her coverage, over a quarter of a century, of the Israeli-Palestinian story.  Yesterday she was shot and killed covering a protest in the West Bank.  Today we remember her, and then as always on Thursdays, Your Turn.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You are just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge, Death of a Journalistic Icon, Death on the West Bank. And hello there again, Peter Mansbridge here in Toronto on this day. It's a Thursday, and on Thursdays, as you well know, we always dip into the old mailbag and get a sense from you as to what you're thinking about some of the issues of the day. And we will do that. But initially, for the first few moments, I just want to talk about something that happened yesterday morning on the other side of the world. Not in Ukraine, but in the Middle East.

In the West Bank in particular. You know, it was early yesterday morning that a legend in journalism in the Middle East got up and began her day by touching base with her office and her crew, her television crew, and said, we're going to the West Bank. There are demonstrations and there is some sense of conflict between Israeli soldiers, the IDF, the Israeli Defense Force, and a number of different groups of Palestinians. Now, this was something that Shireen Abu Akleh had done many times before in her award-winning career. She was one of the first journalists to join Al Jazeera, the Arabic side of Al Jazeera, the Arabic channel, in the sort of mid to late 1990s. And she's won awards, won praise from her colleagues

and those who competed against her in the years since. A 25-year veteran of Al Jazeera. She was only 51. So she went out with her crew to the West Bank. She donned her, those blue flak jackets with press written across them. She wore her helmet

and she was with her crew, producer, camera crew. And at one point, as she had many times before, she was positioned apart from either side, but covering the story of both sides. There was shooting, and suddenly the shooting was directed at her group.

Her producer was shot and injured and is in hospital. Serena Abu-Akhle was shot and died. She's being remembered now across the journalistic world. Not the first journalist to die in recent months. We've seen more than a few die in Ukraine covering this story, that story, the Ukraine story. But this one was a shock, not for the fact somebody died,

not for the fact a media person died, but who died. As I said, for the last quarter century, people have grown up in that region of the world watching Shireen Abu Akhle. She was an iconic figure. You know, reading some of the things that are being said today. You know, one of her competitors from CNN, Abir Salman, he's a producer.

He wrote, One of the first female journalists that we as Palestinians watched on TV was Shireen Abu Akleh. Who, by the way, was an American citizen. Because of the conflict we are living through, news is something we watched every day. It was on all day long, in every home. I grew up watching Shireen almost every day on TV in my house. So when I heard about her dying, it felt like a member of my family I saw every day and was living with was lost. Although she was an icon as a Palestinian journalist, she was very simple, humble, and very funny.

There's no one journalist in this region who was not friends with Shireen. She was friends with everyone, and I think we didn't know how much we loved her until she was shot and killed. Now, is there an investigation going on? Well, there seems to be, but not to the extent that's wanted by Al Jazeera and journalistic organizations around the world. Those who were there and witnessed what happened said there's no doubt what happened.

It was the Israelis, the IDF, who shot her. Was it an accident? Was she targeted? How did it happen? The Israelis have actually changed their story somewhat. They said initially that they were in the area to conduct counterterrorism operations when they came under fire from Palestinian militants and returned that fire. And while they initially said it was likely Abu Akleh was shot by crossfire that came from Palestinian militants, the IDF, the Israeli Defense Force, later softened that statement,

saying it was not yet possible to determine where the shot came from, and they vowed to have an investigation. The big question for many journalists is whether the Palestinians and the Israelis will conduct a joint investigation. Israeli officials said they hope to do so, but no concrete plans have emerged yet. Today is a day of mourning for those who love this journalist.

Tomorrow will be the funeral. Abu Akleh will receive an honor guard ceremony in Ramallah with the Palestinian Authority president, present, sorry, and her proper funeral is tomorrow. That honor guard ceremony is today. It's probably going on right now. I'll just close my thoughts on this this way.

You know, for those journalists who face danger every day covering stories for you, they don't do it for themselves. They don't do it for, you know, profit. They don't do it for awards. They do it because they believe the information they get is important for you to understand the story. And in the morning, as they head out into the field, just like Shireen did yesterday, they don that flak jacket and they put on that helmet.

And while it may be tempting to think, well, that's the protection, that's all the protection I need. It seems like every few days we find out somewhere in the world that a journalist who's done the right thing for the right thing realizes at the last moment it wasn't enough.

So we mourn Shireen Abu Akleh and we will remember her. Alright, I'm going to take a quick break and then we and we will remember her. All right. I'm going to take a quick break, and then we'll have some of your letters. And Peter Vance Bridge back here in in toronto with the bridge it's a thursday your turn is

up next some of your letters and there were many this week and you get to some of them um you're listening to the bridge on sirius xm channel 167 canada talks or on your favorite podcast platform. Okay. As I said, there were a lot of letters this week, and there were a few that took real shots at me or the bridge because they didn't agree with what we were talking about or what we were saying. And, you know, listen, any reasonable letter will make it on this program. And what I try to do, and I'm especially doing this week,

is try to get as many new contributors as possible. So let's get at it. They're mostly short, or at least I've picked short excerpts from the letters that we've chosen. A reminder, I do read each letter that comes in by email, but only some of them actually make it onto the program because there are just so many. All right. In no particular order then, let's get started. Joe Henshaw writes from Calgary. You said there were a lot of letters on this topic. You certainly presented strong feelings about the American Supreme Court justice that have apparently changed their positions on Roe since their confirmation hearings. Maybe they were lying. Maybe they just changed their positions. Take a moment to think how preposterous an idea would be for a person, any person, not to have the ability to change their position

on an issue in their life. Imagine where we would be, the dark ages, as in present-day Afghanistan. That's where. You know, I think Joe was referring to the fact that at least one, possibly two, Supreme Court justices said one thing in their confirmation hearings just a year or two years ago. About whether or not Roe versus Wade was settled law and they wouldn't be in a position to overturn it, have in fact now signed on to overturning it in the draft opinion that's out there. Listen, I totally agree. Everybody has a right to change their mind.

You'd think a Supreme Court justice nominee on one of the supposed big issues of their time, who's had a career, a career, not just a few days to think about it, would have a position that was firm, that was ironclad, that was their position. They're testifying under oath in front of the U.S. Congress about their position on issues. However, everybody has a right to change their mind. I guess, Joe, you'd agree then with Justin Trudeau about changing his mind on parliamentary reform or any of the other different politicians of the day

who say one thing in a campaign and then do something else. That's okay. They just change their mind. They changed their opinion. It's possible. Don't disagree with that. Sharon and Bruce McKay from Dundas, Ontario. They feel pretty strongly about this issue too.

We think that the issue would be less problematic if the need for abortion could be eliminated as far as possible. Two ideas are aggressive promotion of birth control for both men and women accompanied by readily available means of preventing conception, including free before and after medication for females and free vasectomies for males. Yikes. Greater support of single-parent mothers

and low-income parents. Aggressive steps to end child poverty. Guaranteed annual livable income and affordable housing. Thanks for considering these ideas, I think. I think there's some really good ideas there, and there are some debatable ideas. But they're all ideas. Dave Kellett from Lakefield, Ontario.

There's never been a problem on earth that could be solved by forcing people to keep unwanted pregnancies. I know this is a deeply moral issue to people, but listen, if you're against abortion, don't have one. Be responsible for yourself. Raise your children and those you mentor to understand child planning and safe sex, rather than dictate others' rights. This issue is worse in Canada, in my opinion. Tomorrow, our Prime Minister, with his current NDP deal, could legally protect the right, but he won't for the simple reason it's good for him to campaign against the Conservatives with.

We have the gas and oil. The world needs to survive until viable alternatives can be refined. But we shut off the world and ourselves because it's better for political virtue signaling. Politics are not serving us, but rather themselves. Joan Crawford from Havelock, Ontario. I believe the abortion issue will create even more division among Americans in the months to come and will continue to impact us here in Canada as well. I look forward to hearing from Pierre Palliev on the issue. A few months ago, as he became more well-known with the ousting of O'Toole, I looked at some of his earlier comments. Not sure where or when he said this, but I read that he was interested in revisiting the topic of abortion,

but felt it lacked interest at that time. A red flag went up for me as I naively looked at abortion in Canada as a non-issue, a done deal. Well, what a difference a couple of days have made. Mr. Polyev will now have his opportunity to speak on the subject, and we will all need to take note of what he says well he spoke a little bit about it last night he still hasn't given us i don't think his personal opinion on the abortion issue but he did say last night he committed that if he was ever prime minister his government would not bring the issue back to the table. That's what he said.

But once again, he didn't say what his own personal opinion was. And Vince DeLuca from St. Catharines, Ontario, he sent a piece in from the saint catherine's standard vince says love the podcast i've attached a recent opinion piece that deals with a real bugaboo for me politicians who don't answer questions directly i've always appreciated your interview style it was always thoughtful and you didn't badger people. It was never about the gotcha moment. How did you or would you deal with these types of situations? Look, every interview style is different and people develop their own styles. I figure if you ask a question a couple of times and you don't get an answer, it's pretty clear to the audience

that that person won't answer the question. And so you're left making, drawing your own conclusions about why they wouldn't do that. And you say that, you say that in the interview and then you move on. That's my style. Others have a very different style and, and I have no problem with that gabrielle robichaux from montreal i've been a long time fan i would say stay up past my bedtime to sneak some late tv news yes i was that kind of kid i've been listening to your podcast since day one but i've never felt the need to write until now. You are dead wrong.

That's me. Obama was hilarious at the correspondence dinner. I said a couple of weeks ago that I've been to, I don't know, half a dozen other White House correspondence dinners, and some presidents were funny and others were not so funny. And I thought Clinton was quite possibly the funniest. I didn't think Bush, Bush Jr. was that funny. And I didn't think Obama was as funny as Clinton, that's for sure. He did have a few good lines. But Gabrielle says, I'm dead wrong. Obama was hilarious. Maybe your funny bone needs mending okay john minigan john doesn't say where he's writing from and this is based on yesterday's Smoke Mirrors and the Truth with Bruce.

Here I'm so glad you finally admitted that Trump cannot be held down. Your friend today on Smoking Mirrors. Yes, that title really made an impact. Your friend today on Smoking Mirrors, who's in Scotland. Yes, he's in Scotland on a bit of a break. And his opinion of Trump being the worst guy for the Americans' highest position, well, he admitted he was dead wrong.

Thank God. As a Canadian, I'm very proud of it. I wish we had Donald J. Trump as Prime Minister because Justin Trudeau is a disgrace to Canada. Okay, John. As we say here on the bridge, everybody has an opinion and they're entitled to them. Let me just correct a couple of things.

At no point did I say Trump cannot be held down. I said I had become convinced that the various investigations, no matter how high the evidence was pointing to his guilt, if you wish, on any number of issues, there always seemed to be some loophole that he was slipping through. Now, is that going to be the case with the January 6th investigation that goes public in June? Who knows? But I'm not holding my breath, assuming that something's going to happen there, as much as it should based on the evidence that we've seen, in my view. Right? The program's called Smoke, Mirrors, and the Truth.

Bruce Anderson never said he was dead wrong about Trump being the worst guy for the American presidency. He still believes that strongly. But he too has become somewhat less confident that the Americans are ever going to find a way to convict him of the sins of the past. And if you want Donald J. Trump as your prime minister, you're not alone.

There are other people out there who feel that way. We saw many of them on Parliament Hill in January and February, waving the Trump-related signs. Erin Consor, we haven't heard from Erin in a while, Sherwood Park, Alberta. She talks about a number of things in her lengthy letter which i am not going to read all of but she talks about the media she talks about the abortion issue she talks about a number of issues and then she concludes this way i guess i'm really just questioning what the legacy of all these challenges will be as my brother and I deal with our own family legacy,

we were the fourth generation to live on our family's farm, and unfortunately we're going to be the last. My great-grandfather homesteaded our farm in 1908, and we both decided to sell, but to a neighbor of my mom's, whose own family have been neighbors of ours for about as long. There is some relief in that, knowing that the farm will be looked after and that it will stay a farm under a neighbour's name. But there's a lot of guilt as well, at least for me.

A surname can be a blessing and a burden, depending on how large the community impact it carries. Our family has a lot to live up to, a lot of community service in the generations past. I just hope I can live up to it enough. Thanks, Erin. You know, it's always sad when you hear these stories about the family farm that's been in families for generations, for decades, if not centuries, and the decisions made to move on for a variety of reasons but what we like about the consular decision here is that they're they're selling to

a neighboring farmer as opposed to some big huge farming operation that's taking over like huge chunks of the province. John Crawford. John's mad. He's mad at the media. He's mad at me. He's just mad. A brief comment on your concerns regarding the inhospitable climate, which seems to be prevailing for mainstream media of late.

Speaking only for Canada, our Prime Minister has purchased the favour of most of the media in this country. As a result, once respectable news sources have become propaganda, spin doctors, and often outright liars for Trudeau and the left-wing extremists now hijacking our country. Until that changes, nobody with an ounce of discrimination is going to feel kindly disposed towards the media in Canada. It's really that simple, my friend. Those who were once perhaps legitimate journalists have now become clowns for a clown prince. I hope my bluntness doesn't offend your sensibilities over much. Simply put, people who lie don't deserve the attention or indulgence of good people. Therefore, you and your cronies who have elected to collect ill-begotten paychecks or other rewards from a corrupt government and would rather speak bias and propaganda will

continue to be laughed at and ignored by those of us who prefer the truth over misinformation and disinformation. I see. Where are you getting the truth from, John? Tell us about that. You know, obviously I reject. Here's what I reject. I reject your claims that we're on the, you know, the dole for the government of the day, whoever that might be. In this case, the liberals. That they've bought off the media.

That we're all left-wing extremists. I mean, it's just garbage. It's garbage. And you know what? I don't doubt you that there's a lot of mistrust in the media. I've made that claim for quite some time. And that we have to do something about that. And there are ways to deal with it.

And I've spoken out about that. But to suggest the kind of things you're suggesting, well, you know, it's simply not true. And as so often happens when I get letters like this, Well, you know, it's simply not true. And as so often happens when I get letters like this, there's not one, one example of what you're talking about. Give me the example of the misinformation and disinformation spread by the media in general. Give me an example of how all the media is controlled

by the Prime Minister's office. I mean, that's just ridiculous. There are a lot of newspapers and columnists at different newspapers who speak to a right-of-center perspective. A lot of them. And they're also on television, on political panels, all the time. So I just disagree with you on your general slamming of the media. I don't disagree with you on the nature of the lack of the relationship between the media and the public right now.

There are issues there, and I've talked about them before, and we'll continue to talk about them. Sherry Hertz in Toronto. What are we to do with the menu of tricks and treats that our political wannabes trot out at election time? In Ontario, there's been talk about a dollar here for a beer or for a ride on the bus, or about a dollar here for a beer or for a ride on the bus or a billion dollars there for a highway or schools. Which to choose? Yes, it's

important to know these policies that your government will work on, but no one knows what the future holds. There could be an unforeseen world war, crisis in health care, environmental disaster, or even that the books from the previous government are not in as good shape as we were led to believe. You're right about that. There's a common thread, right? When things change, whether they change from liberal to conservative or conservative to liberal, the first statement usually out of the new premier

or prime minister or finance minister is, oh, things are a lot worse than we thought they were. We're going to have to cut. Doesn't that happen a lot? But your challenge at a time when there are going to be some pretty important elections coming up over the next 12 months, starting with the June 2nd one in Ontario, is what to believe. What is truth? And whose truth are you going to believe? And do you believe the media? Sean Hammond from Meaford, Ontario. I'm loving your coverage of the war and the war on the media. I am and have never worked for the media i am just an observer like most my question is this if the media decided not to cover these protests i think she's talking about like the truckers thing wouldn't that take the steam out of these

groups if they knew their message wasn't being broadcasted. Yeah, that works to a point. You know, a lot of protests are ignored by the media because they're small, they're minor, and their message is rather confusing. But when things start to get big and take over parts of a city or a border, it's pretty hard to ignore, and would be not only hard to ignore, it would be irresponsible to ignore.

But somewhere in there is a fine line. And the way you cover these things is extremely important. And having been on both sides of coverage, some that's been good, some that hasn't been so good, I know exactly what I'm talking about on that. It's challenging to deal with these things in a way that's informative and yet responsible. Joe Damiani. I was listening to you and Brian Stewart talk about the war, and in particular the part where you and him talked about at what point material support for the war means the West would be, for all intents and purposes, at war with Russia. I do believe that your concerns in this area are a bit overblown.

I would draw your attention to three examples. The U.S. provided massive support to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, primarily small arms and Stinger missiles. However, the USSR directly supported North Vietnam during that war, including both intelligence as well as massive military and including fighter jets. And finally, the ultimate example, China sent 600,000 volunteers to fight the U.S. directly in the Korean War. The latter two examples dwarf the current involvement of the West in supplying Ukraine, and yet did not lead to a full-scale war between the USSR and or China and the USA. It's a dangerous time to be sure, but let's keep the danger in perspective.

Joe, those are all good points. You're quite correct. Now, time changes things. Attitudes change things. And a country's position changes things. So I think it was a worthwhile discussion to have, but I'm glad you made the point you did. Zoya Delverani.

She writes in from Los Angeles. I was listening to your conversation on Monday with the Ukrainian professor Alexei Harin, and in the middle of the conversation, there was a small mention of his daughter having PTSD and seeking help. There wasn't that much of a discussion on that issue. However, I believe it's a big deal since we're welcoming Ukraine's refugees and helping them to settle in our country.

My question is, do we have any plan helping Ukrainian kids and young adults that are moving to Canada with PTSD? This to me is as important as housing and education. Good point, Zoya. I believe we do. And I believe it's always a part of the conversation with Canadian officials who are interviewing potential refugees to Canada about the state of health of all members of the refugee family. And that would include the issue of PTSD. Zabby Kuchar writes,

Hi Ian, I've been listening for a few months. I find that you are in line with Bill Fox's advice to stay away from reporting facts and move up the value chain towards informed curatorial content. Very refreshing change from the reporting on the horse race. Anywho, I have two comments. One, I think your good friend Bruce Anderson has been dropping subtle hints that you are not picking up on. When he asks you for your opinion in a conversation, he's not only interested in the answer to that question, to be sure,

but probably hinting that your opinion should be more present overall, given that it's your show. Well, at least the last bit is my opinion. Well, thank you, Savvy. The name's Peter, by the way. But I hear what you're saying. I don't always express my opinion on every subject, and I've maintained that position throughout my career. But on this podcast, I do express my opinion more than I've ever have in the past.

On some issues that I feel very strongly about, I tell you what I think. Bruce is always trying to bait me, and that's good. That makes for an interesting conversation. Derek Andrews writes, how are we doing on time here? Oh, we've got a couple of minutes left.

Can't help but notice the weekly COVID check-ins aren't happening since you've returned from vacation. Quite frankly, it seems to have quieted for the most part across the country and in the West in general. Would love to get a Peter Mansbridge update on where he thinks COVID now stands as a news story in the West and where you think it's going. We're in a lull and we'll be in a lull till the next big wave

hits covid's not gone it's still around and there are a lot of people suffering from it and as we've said a number of times over the last month everybody knows somebody who's had covid or is having covid if they themselves are not having covid. And that's just going to continue. Now, we're into the warm weather in most parts of the country. It's actually been quite gorgeous in southern Ontario for the first time this spring, and you get the chance to see life coming to nature. And it's wonderful to witness. The story's not going away, Derek.

Derek's writing from Frederictericton new brunswick sherman reimer from winnipeg i don't know whether you're listening last week we're talking about ties and what i've done with past ties you know ties that you know you wear with a suit and how you know a mark bulgitch's daughter made a skirt out of ties to to do as a school project and i was saying you know i got lots of ties i'm not sure what i'm going to do with them well sherman reimer in winnipeg writes here's a great idea not to profit you but to donate to charities brilliant love your show discovered it recently now that you addicted that's all good sherman i'm glad you raised this point because for the last 35 years, I've been donating ties to charity.

Whenever there's, you know, there's been nobody cares now. It's a little past the point. But while I was in the job, I would take ties and sign them and give them to various charities across the country who were raising money at, you know, dinners and auctions and what have you for great causes. And those ties went out or mailed out across the country. So that's been, that has been done in the past. And we'll see how that turned out.

So don't start writing me letters about ties, right? Okay, but I just want you to know that i have done that in the past um william flowers in amherst nova scotia a listener this week made a comment about how pierre paliev is conducting his campaign for the leadership the writer stated and i'm paraphrasing that it's a negative campaign and he polyev comes across as angry in it he cited the example of polyev's comment about indigenous workers while some of the things the writer said about his campaign may be true to be fair polyev apologized for his negative comments about indigenous people in the house of comm, includes the link to the apology.

And then Bill concludes by saying, full disclosure, I'm supporting Jean Charest for leader. Let me just say this about the apology. They were pretty awful comments, racist comments that Polyev had made years ago about Indigenous people and their willingness to work and a few other things and he did later apologize but it's interesting you know last night at the debate in edmonton one of his opponents raised the same issue i think it was patrick brown you said racist things about indigenous people. Didn't mention any apology.

And Polyev let it stand. Said nothing. Let it pass. Let it stand on the record. Didn't say, hey, wait a minute, I apologize for that. I found that an interesting moment in that debate, which was the debate did not rise to the level of last week's debate, which was cutthroat.

This was kind of tame. That's not to say it's bad, but it was tame, which is exactly what I said last week was likely going to happen. This was on Good Talk. Let's just say my fellow Good Talk panelists didn't sort of leap in to defend me. Here's the last letter from Nancy and Steve Abba in Toronto. My husband and I really enjoy your podcast, particularly Smoke Mirrors and the Truth and Good Talk.

We find the discussions engaging and informative. Enjoy the banter between you, Bruce, and Chantel, as I do. Listening to today's episode, however, was the first time that both my husband and I actually yelled at the radio and by extension at you. We were more than dismayed to hear you and Bruce referring to Bill Davis and Doug Ford in the same breath let alone your statement that Doug Ford was becoming a statesman like Mr. Davis. I don't remember calling him a statesman. Sadly we never met Mr. Davis and we hoped to never meet Mr. Ford but in our opinions,

the two men could not be more different. From our perspective, Mr. Davis was a gentleman. We didn't always agree with him, but we respected him, a rare thing for us and politicians. On the other hand, we find Ford to be a bully and a thug, concerned only with keeping his buddies happy. He's failed the province of Ontario on virtually every front. LTC, long-term care, health care, education, libraries, the climate emergency protection of the Green Belt. I could go on, but you get the picture. We are beside ourselves with the thought of him forming the government again.

I'm not sure Ontario can survive. This is the first time I've felt compelled to write, although we have been listeners for a long time. Looking forward to further interesting discussions. Nancy and Steve Abba in Toronto. Thanks for, A, thanks for listening, and B, thanks for writing. I hear you. We did say, here's what we said, or here's the nub of what we were trying to argue.

Was that a year ago ago Ford was in big trouble and he and his people around him decided the way out of this is to try to run the same kind of government, or at least the appearance of the same kind of government, that Bill Davis used to run with the big blue machine in the 70s. And that was to take a more moderate approach, middle of the line, and align yourself with some of the workings of the central government in Ottawa. In Bill Davis's time, it was Pierre Trudeau. In Doug Ford's time, it's Justin Trudeau. And when Ottawa and Ontario get along, it seems to benefit both parties.

And that's what we were saying. We didn't call, I'm not sure, certainly not sure that I ever called him a statesman. He's not to that point yet, if he ever gets there. But they've taken a party that was in deep trouble a year ago and put it in the position to win again. Nothing's guaranteed and no polls that are out now guarantee anything other than this is the way people would have voted at the time the poll was taken. Well, there's still a few weeks to go yet things can happen and have happened in past examples but that's the approach we were taking bill davis i you know i i i put down that bill davis was a friend of mine and he was a friend of mine as he was to you know like many people but we had lunch together we sat on a board together he asked me to be involved in in certain things with him um on the charitable side and i'm glad i did

he was a great canadian and there's no question about that and and stood alone on the landscape um as that kind of great Canadian. Anyway, I'll leave it at that. Interesting week. As I said earlier, people not shy about taking shots at the host, and that's okay. That's good. That always makes for an interesting program.

All right, I've run long, so I'm going to bail out now. That's it for this Thursday edition of The Bridge. Tomorrow, good talk. Chantelle Hebert and Bruce Anderson will be back. And as always, we'll have lots to talk about. Thanks for listening today. We'll talk to you again tomorrow. Thank you.