The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Encore Presentation - Moore-Butts -- The Politics of The Lie

Episode Date: August 14, 2023

Today an encore presentation of an episode that originally aired on May 15th. Our two political heavyweights, Conservative James Moore and Liberal Gerry Butts, move their latest non-partisan discussion to the question of lies and their growing place in modern politics.  Like it or not the lie is in the toolbox of politics and Donald Trump isn't the only one using it.  How did that happen and where does it lead?  Those are the questions we tackle in Moore-Butts #8.

The following is an encore presentation of The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge, originally broadcast on May 15th. And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You are just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. The topic today, the politics of the lie. The Moore Butts conversation takes that subject head on today. And hello there, welcome to a new week. Peter Mansbridge here in Toronto for this day. And it's a more butts conversation number eight today. And you know, it's amazing that we've got to number eight.

When I first started this off, you know, sometime last year, the whole idea was to put these two, you know, political heavyweights, if you will, together in a room and let them talk about subjects and hope they wouldn't go over that partisan line, but stay in an information line so we could try to understand whatever the particular issue of the day was. Well, it worked. And it keeps working. And today in conversation number eight,

I think we may well have the best one that we've done so far, although they've all been pretty good. James Moore, the former Conservative cabinet minister in the Harper government, had a number of different portfolios. And today he's a senior policy advisor for the Denton's Group and also works for Edelman as well

with similar kind of advice to that big, huge international public relations firm. As for Jerry Butts, Jerry Butts is a former principal advisor to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. He's a liberal, of course. He is now the vice chair of the Eurasia Group, which advises governments and businesses around the world on questions of foreign policy and others. Climate change.

He's a climate change expert himself. Anyway, so there you go. That's kind of the setup. The conversation this week is on the politics of the lie. We've all watched, you know, and some of us feel, oh, well, there's always been lying in politics. Well, yeah, to a degree, to some extent, but nothing like it is today. And we tend to point at one person for being responsible for this,

but there's more than that. Although there's certainly enough grist for the talk mill in talking about that one person, and you know who I'm talking about when I say that. So enough from me. Let's get to our conversation, because I find this one really, really good. There's some very good moments in this conversation.

So here we go. The Moore-Butts Conversation, number eight. All right, gentlemen, I want to start with your basic reaction to what we witnessed on Thursday night on CNN with Donald Trump. James is actually on the record with his Thursday night tweet. This is what it said. Trump tonight refused to call Putin a war criminal, continued to fuel insurrection-inducing lies

about the 2020 election, laughed about sexual abuse, promised to pardon January 6 rioters, and claimed he finished the wall. The disgrace never ends. Got anything to add to that today, James?

It wasn't just the spectacle of Donald Trump that was upsetting. Actually, the most upsetting part was him dismissing and continuing to abuse the character of a woman who was found to have told the truth that Donald Trump sexually assaulted her. There was a it was a unanimous jury decision that found of Donald Trump's peers who decided that Donald Trump did sexually assault a woman and that he defamed her in his efforts to to defend himself. And about that conversation, there are people in the audience who laughed and thought it was really funny in the way in which Donald Trump continued to insult this victim of sexual assault. I think that was kind of the nadir of it. On the other hand, I don't agree with those who have said that CNN should not have platformed him. Donald Trump is the former president of the United States. Donald Trump is the likely nominee for the Republican

Party. Donald Trump has the support of over 40% of Americans who want this kind of stuff back into the White House. It's shocking to say, but the truth is the truth. Donald Trump and the reputation that he's built around his economic policy, and I'm using air quotes with my fingers, his economic policy and the perception of what it is, which is pro business and tough and fiscally responsible and all that, None of that is true. It's all a meme. But his economic policies and the perception of them are far more popular in public opinion polling than are Joe Biden's. And there's also the perception of a genuine border crisis now with Mexico. If the Mexican border crisis continues to emerge and gets exploited and

gets torqued up and the economy continues to be an issue, if America does slip into a recession later this year and Joe Biden continues to underperform, Donald Trump could very well, and it's absolutely plausible that he'd be the president of the United States again. So those are the two most shocking things to me is the substance of what Donald Trump said, yes, but the audience reaction to it. And then the fact that people are talking and criticizing CNN for platforming a guy, people who are opposed to Donald Trump better start getting serious and honest with themselves about the fact that

there is a large number of Americans, a massive cohort of Americans, almost half of Americans like what they saw, like what they see and want him back in the White House. And people need to be honest about that. How do you, and I hear you on that, but how does that square with your last line, the disgrace never ends? Well, a lot of people like disgraceful things. Politics is not about, politics is about the choices in front of you, right? And it is what it is. And for a lot of Americans because of the polarization of American politics Donald Trump represents a lot of things that they like which is that he's an outsider he breaks the mold the Bushes the Obamas the Clintons the Bidens the media and Hollywood all hate him and just therefore you know uh ipso facto he he

must represent them because he hates all of the establishment because their lives aren't going well they're not happy with the way the world works and if they hate him he must be my guy so so in spite of all the and also you know both political parties have spent generations um smearing politics tearing down politics saying the other side are a bunch of corrupt liars you know bill clinton was responsible for, you know, for sexual assault. Clarence Thomas is a rapist. Bill Clinton is a sexual assaulter. Bill Clinton was responsible for the death of his friend who committed suicide in a park

just near the Pentagon. We could spend many, many years, many decades tearing down and destroying the reputation of politics and government and politicians. So when a guy like Donald Trump actually comes along, who tries to incite an insurrection, who has actually now been found guilty of sexual assault, who has twice been impeached, who has 34 indictments against him in New York for business fraud, people just go, yeah, I know. Well, they're all kind of scumbags, aren't they? And it's like, this is where we are. And it's shocking.

Jerry. Well, it's hard to follow that, James. I certainly agree with almost everything you said, though. And it's in particular this last point of the long-term. I've used this analogy many times that it's like the public square has been flooded slowly with toxic sludge. And it's happening here, too, at a much lower velocity. But in the United States, it's impossible to overstate how corrupt your average American thinks your average politician is. And once you establish that as a base rate, it's very difficult to,

there are a lot of cliches about this and fairy tales and lessons from history, but this is a boy who cried wolf situation about American politics as a whole. There actually is a wolf in the public square now, and nobody can recognize it, or at least 40% of the American public is not recognizing it. And I, you know, I've been banging this drum for a little bit, Peter, but I think Donald Trump is the clear front runner to become the next president of the United States. And I think that Joe Biden is in trouble. And it's not because of anything he's done as president. But the visual presentation of those two men side by side is not going to favor the Democrats in the election. You're talking about the age factor?

I mean, it's not like Trump. I'm talking about everything about it. I used to say when I was in active politics that the people who win the pictures usually win the campaign, right? And building momentum is about creating a consistent visual narrative that tells a story that paints a picture of a community of people

that you want to belong to and that's true in business it's true in politics it's true just about everything and biden's got no energy and i know people make fun of the way trump uses that all the time that he's low energy but like most of the um memes that and donald trump is nothing else if not a meme factory every time he opens his mouth most of the memes that he has generated there's a kernel of truth to them and i really worry about what that looks like side by side because we forget the 2020 campaign was a very unusual campaign jo Joe Biden could get away with not campaigning because we were all in our basements, right? Famously. And the Trump campaign tried to make an issue of that. And when Trump did start to develop some momentum at the end of the campaign

was when he said, screw it, I'm going to go do these rallies anyway. Right. And tens of thousands of people saw Donald Trump and those pictures got broadcast on the national news and all around the social media, various social media platforms. And it created this sense of momentum. And I think that we really underestimate the we've kind of lived through this peaceful interregnum, right, where we've had a couple of years of Joe Biden and the United States has almost felt normal. If you're in Canada or in the United States is doing a bunch of things that we expect the United States to do. It's alliance building. It's facing down Russia. It's leading the charge against climate change. It's doing a bunch of stuff that a lot of people, especially Canadians, would prefer to see the United States doing. But that structural polarization that James mentioned is still very present,

and it could return with a vengeance if the campaign breaks in the wrong way. The point Jerry just made about the 2020 campaign, you know you talk to and i've talked to many democrats in the united states they say well everything is easier the second time biden beat him the first time and it's easier the second time and now trump has been indicted and so so therefore like there's just there's just too big of a gap there's no way and i and it i it's so foolish for people to think that, you know, Joe Biden will be four years older than he has been. The cycle of the economy is trending in the wrong direction. The immigration crisis that I just said is a reality as well. And also the dynamics of 2020, like every single election campaign in Canada, every single election campaign in the United States, it's a science of single instances, which is to say it's no science at all. They are all it's a it's a moment in time influenced by a constellation of issues around

that particular date on the calendar that are unique to each circumstance. And the COVID point that Jerry makes is an important one. And I think thoughtful observers who now that we have some distance from November 2020, thoughtful observers have all said Joe Biden didn't win by actually that much. There's about 80,000 net votes in three swing states that were the difference between him and Donald Trump getting a second term. And so if you take COVID out of it, and the entire narrative, because that was peak COVID, right? The vaccines were just coming in, we were starting to get back up, we were starting to glimpse into 21 but but summer and fall of 20 was peak covet in terms of the accumulated deaths and the accumulated lies about cobit that were then being spilled by the trump

administration about you know about you know invermectin and and all this sort of nonsense and this is no big deal it'll go away in a year and like all that stuff was catching up so he was caught in a lie that had massive public consequence that ultimately a million, more than a million Americans have died of COVID. There was a real public policy failure that had, it wasn't just a matter of opinion, like all that's going to be gone. And Donald Trump looks vibrant and young and energetic and thoughtful and articulate against, you know, Joe Biden at this point in his life. And that's in terms of energy and going forward.

And, you know, everybody has their strengths and weaknesses. Like, I think you can say in a pure marketing analysis, like the strengths of Donald Trump in the moment, he is he looks strong. He presents as tough. He presents as jingoistic. He does habitually present himself as America first, and I'm going to have America's back. Like people, if you're looking through the lens and you want to believe that message, he looks like a consistent and firm and clear messenger to the audience that he's trying to appeal to. It's very hard to say that about Joe Biden.

All right. Let me, I could sidetrack and go into a debate about how articulate he looks but I'll ignore that and and stay on on his audience yeah his to his audience perhaps but let's stay on the focus that we were trying to achieve here and that is the this whole question of the lie. I mean, Jerry mentioned a few moments ago that there's a kernel of truth in a lot of what Trump says. Yeah, there's also kind of an avalanche of lies that tends to blow up that kernel. But I want to try to understand how we got to this point

because, I mean, there's no doubt that Thursday, the basis of his performance was was the lie i mean he told that repeatedly time after time after time uh it's not a surprise we've known trump was a liar for years i i can recall days after the inauguration i called him a liar on the air and i i got kind of taken to the woodshed by not only my colleagues but but CBC management at that time said well you can't use the L word and a lot of people had that same theory in the American networks but now it's common like everybody calls him a liar all the time there's no hesitation in using the in the L word how has it come to this where lying seems to have become,

and it's not just Trump, but he's the most obvious target when you go this way, but how has it become an accepted part of the political toolbox, if you wish? Jerry, you start us here. I think Trump is a special case. There are other liars in politics politics but it's sort of like comparing when people compare someone to hitler right there's only one hitler there's only one donald trump and nobody has as success has created as big and successful a political career out of

constantly lying quite like trump and i think it it gets back to, as much as I hate to say this, it's part of his personal brand. And it always has been. I remember when I was a kid, my dad used to read what he called the papers every weekend. And those were the Globe and the Star. And I don't mean the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star uh and the National Enquirer and we would get them at the grocery store every weekend and he would read them and he would pass them around to his friends and they would uh this is a retired coal miner right so put put yourself in that picture and many of us including some of his kids used to scratch our heads at it but it was entertainment for him. He never confused it with news, right?

He was also a huge fan of yours, Peter, and he watched you religiously and he loved public affairs. But somewhere along the line, we've lost the ability to differentiate streams of information. And this gets back to the analogy of flooding the public square with toxic sludge. Donald Trump has been part of that from the very beginning. So when the Democrats tried to tell Americans in 2016 that Donald Trump was a bad guy, Americans already knew that. They had seen him in the pages of the National Enquirer for 30 years. They had seen him in the middle of the ring in WWF and then WWE for 20 years. He had made himself part of the lifeblood of popular American culture in a more intimate way, I would argue, than anybody who'd ever run for president successfully.

So there was nothing you could tell the average American in Ohio about Donald Trump that he or she didn't already know. And they bought into the spectacle. So the lying was part of the brand, but it was never the point. And I think people are willing to overlook it. The people who love him and are part of his tribe, they just expect it. And for people like us to stand back and say, oh, how can they believe that? They look at us and say, well, we've known that about this guy all along, but he's our guy, right? He's our guy. And that, of course, is the big lie because he couldn't be more the opposite, right um but he's created this almost unbreakable brand for himself that is impervious to any individual action he takes or individual statement he utters

james there's also i agree with all that also this context because because you you frame the question sort of we're around today we we have had now, you know, about 15 years, it's hard to pick a date on it, but sort of collapsing trust in major institutions that have led people to sort of say, well, you're asking me, like, don't let the lie, you're asking me to trust. It's like, well, what? What? I remember the most trusted man in American politics, Colonel Colin Powell, who became Colonel Colin Powell, who became General Colin Powell, who became Secretary of State Colin Powell. I remember him going to the floor of the United Nations and making the argument for WMD Iraq.

I remember that. I remember. I remember. And it's not even just on a large scale like that. And you say, well, you know, so I can't trust. We could never trust politicians. But Colin Powell was at one point the most respected man in the united states he if he ran for president he'd win in a shoo-in and all that like and and he he did that and then you you look at other institutions and

it's it's a collapse of institutions everywhere you think about um the national football league lying about what they knew about the ray rice incident knocking out his his his girlfriend in an elevator and covering that up you think about the con rice incident knocking out his his his girlfriend in an elevator and covering that up you think about the concussion crisis in football and them trying to cover the thing about major league baseball lying about the steroid scandal you think about you know the year the year that donald trump won the nomination to be the republican nominee for president you know what movie won best picture that year in 2000 and and 16 or the 15 the year that he launched spotlight which is a movie about what?

Collapse of trust in the Catholic Church and the covering up of the sexual abuse and torture of children. Collapse of trust. And you can go institution after institution. The 2008 economic crisis, the collapse of trust in institutions, banking and regulations and protecting people and their assets, their homes and the financial structure about the most important economic decision of your life and the collapse and the hundreds of thousands of people who lost all of their life savings. So no matter where you went, sports, football, military, the treatment of our veterans, our most trusted people in public life, it was just a collapse of trust everywhere. So Donald Trump comes along and he's a liar. Well, yeah, well, whatever. What isn't lying

to me these days? And the tectonic shift that was the economic crisis and the collapse of trust and everything around it. And people say, well, look at Donald Trump. He's lying. He's not really going to build a wall like Mexico is going to pay for it. Come on. They say, well, it's as good a lie as any other one out there. And I remember going to the 2016. I was in I was in Cleveland at the Republican Convention as an observer doing some media and walking around the halls of that convention chatting with delegates there, right? And I would say, you know, and it was interesting because they were kind of in two groups. There were people sort of who were just trying to will their version of the world into reality. As I say, there are people who it's like they believe that professional wrestling is real. And you think, wow, like I don't know where to start from with this argument.

But then there were other people. And it was interesting because they were really cognizant of what they were seeing in front of them. And they would say, well, I'd say, why are you support Donald Trump? Because he's going to change. He's going to shake everything up. He's going to build. And I said, but he's not really going to build a 25 foot wall all the way across the like, that's not real. And he said, no, no, he's going to build it. And I said, he's not really going to build it. And he goes, well, if anybody he's gonna build it and i said he's not really gonna build it he goes well if anybody's gonna build it it'll be him and at least he's gonna try and and he's he's saying what i want to to hear because it's it's good like that's that's how it should be and at least he's gonna try it and and screw like let's just go for it like what what do we have to lose just go for it and so they they knew it was a lie they knew it was a meme they knew there was a lie. They knew it was a meme. They knew there was a skit going on. They were playing their part in the crowd. But it was comforting to them to try to take a of surrender to a mistruth and the hope that you could will it into existence, even though it's not quite true now.

So there's a psychology behind this in our democracy that I think we have to be aware of. This conversation is so good, but it's so depressing. I mean, you know, I seem to say that after my interventions. You're both in sync on a lot of this stuff i mean i'm old enough to to remember when a when a lie could be the basis or end up as a resignation you know that's not even on the on the charts anymore nobody even thinks about it um but the picture you both paint is like so ugly uh about now i mean like where's this heading what does this lead to if this goes on like unchecked so here here is the uh good news and it's very good news i'm not sure if it's good news in an absolute sense but it's definitely good news in relative to the in relation to the immediately previous conversation.

General Malley Dillon, who ran a Biden's campaign in 2016. I remember talking to her and in 2020 talking to her in the run up to it. We were planning our own campaign in 2019. And I said, so what's your message? And she said, Joe Biden's a good man and Donald Trump is a bad man. That is our message. And we think we can win the campaign on that because there are enough people in the United States who want a good person, not a bad person in the White House. And I immediately thought, I'm not so sure about that, but it's really simple and clear. And if you stick to that, maybe, and it's obviously true.

So if it's simple, clear, and obviously true, and you stick to it and paint the picture in compelling ways, you can probably win. And they did. Now, I still think that is true. But what has intervened in the meantime to mitigate that is I think Biden, notwithstanding what his doctor's reports say, notwithstanding what is actually going on inside his anatomy, he looks old and frail. And generally, Americans do not want someone in the White House who projects frailty. So I think it's going to be, as James said, it's 80,000 votes in a couple of, in a few states, and they're going to be hard to reconstruct. But I don't think, I don't think we should take from the Donald Trump phenomenon, the thought that all is lost about politics. There are very grave consequences, I think,

that need to be managed and mitigated. If you're around the NATO table, if you're in the EU, if you're in Canada, if you worry about a lot of things, there are a lot of things that need to be managed and mitigated. But I don't think we should come away from it with the nihilistic conclusion that therefore all is lost in public life. Good people can still do well. You agree with that, James? I do. I do agree with that. The lying eventually catches up with you and lying eventually catches up with the country. You know, you can talk about, you know,

the accumulation of lies in any jurisdiction. We're focusing on Trump here. I mean, you know, we can come home to Canada and talk about different political parties, you know, and, you know, we can put our, you know, we're parking our partisan hats here. But eventually you accumulate and eventually the public just says, I just, I'm listening to this person because I just don't trust them anymore. And I just sort of shut them out. What maybe is required in particularly in the United States is that there comes a point where a big lie doesn't just have consequences for Donald Trump and whether or not he has to pay a couple million dollars to somebody who he's been found guilty of sexually assaulting, you know, a couple decades ago but when when a lie has a consequence for me we know when when it was when when gordon or so when glenn clark you know was seen to be lying about the benefits of fast ferries in british columbia and cost the treasury millions of dollars in a boondoggle project well

now that affects me politicians will lie but when it affects me well the the you hope though that the lie doesn't doesn't result in um you know a catastrophic um public policy the you know wm iraq cost thousands and tens of thousands hundreds of thousands of lives and this is unnecessarily as it turns out i think history is pretty clear on that and then of course lost to the treasury and all that and the public said wait a minute so my i know a friend who lost a friend and another buddy of mine who served is not being treated well. They've never really recovered PTSD, et cetera, et cetera. So, so that lie is now why the Republican party has only won the popular vote once in the last, I think nine presidential elections. So the Republican party has,

which is among the reasons why the recorrection of the Republican Party now into an isolationist anti-war party in its own way is because they have to overcorrect to try to scrub that, that they're not the party that will go into useless wars, actually won't even back, you know, appropriate military action in places like Ukraine, because they were so stung by the overcorrection of the public against their party being in favor of wars that they don't need to be. So the overcorrection in that direction. So I think when the lies accumulate and have public consequence, that's when everybody sort of retreats back and there'll be a counterbalance. To Jerry's point, though, is that, you know, there are very good people and honest, decent people.

But I just think it's very, very hard now because noise and heat is what is rewarded in politics, not reason and substance and accomplishment. And the other day, this passport issue in Canada, which you talked about on your podcast this week, I know, Peter, about the symbols and all that. I was literally standing in line at Starbucks and I saw people rattling around on Twitter about how Terry Fox and Vimy Ridge are taking that. So I put forward a tweet and I just said, wait a minute, they've scrubbed Terry Fox and Vimy Ridge Memorial from the passport. Who approved that? That's crazy. And I literally put that tweet out and it's had like five or six thousand likes and retweets. And there are literally 10 or 20 streams of conversations going on

about how this is how the Nazis got started. It's like, whoa. We've spiraled. It's like whoa like like like we've spiraled it's like holy cow who wants to who wants to put their hand up and their family into the grinder of this public square at this time um it's it that's the that's genuinely depressing things but anyways i i i hope that there's social learning and people realize there's consequence that politics cannot just be about incitement it has to be actually about problem solving and governing yeah and i i i think you make a really important point in here james which is there's you like to think in a kind of cosmic way that lies always have consequences for the liars but you know often they don't have many consequences for anybody else and the difference between a lie that hurts somebody

in your family and one that is just seen to be grist, the Daily Mill of politics, there's a big gulf between those two things. And I don't think it's a stretch to say that Donald Trump lost in 2020 largely because of COVID. I think that is what you were inferring earlier, James. And there's a lie that cost people their lives, right? And in the most profound and traumatic way, left an indelible scar on families, millions of them in the United States. So in a way, I think that I don't want to say there's something hopeful about that, but maybe there's something reassuring about it that you can, you can basically lie until the lies have consequences for real people and real ways. And then they, um, they kind of stop listening to you or they

turn away from you. Okay. We're going to take a quick break. I want to bring the other element into the story, which is the media, how it plays things now and how it's got to reconsider, if at all, how it's going to play things in the future as a result of the politics of the law. That when we come back. And welcome back. You're listening to The Bridge, the Monday episode of Moore Butts. This is conversation number eight. James Moore, the former Conservative cabinet minister, and Jerry Butts, the former top Liberal aide to the Prime Minister, both in new jobs, away from Parliament Hill these days, but giving us their thoughts on the issues of the day. You're listening on Sirius XM, Channel 167, Canada Talks, or on your favourite podcast platform.

Okay, I want to talk about the media, because after Thursday night, CNN is in the crosshairs for giving an exposed liar, a twice-impeached, multi-indicted, convicted sexual abuser a platform. Where are you on the media's role in this? James, you start. I mean, as harsh, if not more harsh because like the media quote quote like it's it's a difficult thing and it's a hard thing to analyze because people talk about the media quote but i often think like to say let's have a conversation about media is like saying let's have a conversation about sport what sport hockey baseball olympic amateur professional collegiate like what kids like what so so media is a massive umbrella that constitutes a lot of things

those who chronicle what has happened and put it and try to synthesize it and put it out for information conversation and to keep the public informed that's one form of media but that's a shrinking island and and it's being overwhelmed by people who think that that's what they're getting, but what they're actually getting are people who are running businesses, and they're feeding people the substance that they want. And you see it on the right, of course. You see it on the left, of course. You see it in both fronts.

The right tends to get scrutinized more, which says more about the nature of the ideological composition of those who go into journalism, but it happens everywhere. And I think a lot of people, as Jerry said earlier, don't often have, they don't seem to disseminate between them all, and they think that one is the other, and the other, which is essentially feeding the audience what they want to hear and placating their base instincts and ideologies and biases for the sake of the audience's comfort.

And who pretend that that's actually sort of informed objective. Here's what actually happened news. I mean, those are the bad actors, but it's hard to smoke them out. Tucker Carlson has been smoked out, but he's welcomed onto a platform is going's going to be making a lot more money on Twitter because he's, he's cultivating an audience and he's, he's running a business and he's not actually in the media and news environment. And so, you know, the, the, the media are broadly speaking quote,

quote are very culpable because they don't govern themselves. We see this frankly, the press gallery in Ottawa and it's been going on for why is you know you know why are some of the clear bad actors members of the press gallery like frank magazine isn't our members of the press gallery and have been for years some of the independent journalists who are clearly just activists for on ec and on either end are credentialed members press gallery who go to the press gallery dinner, who spend their evenings on laptops trying to destroy people for no other reason but fun and sport rather than actually being driven. So, you know, where's the self-government amongst journalism to have an honest conversation about their own profession? You know, I think that's something that's very

much missing in Canada and missing in other jurisdictions around the world as well. Jerry? Well, I find myself saying this a lot. I agree with James entirely. The thing I would add to it is there's no ballast in the ship anymore. It used to be that there were kind of out there media outlets in Canada, but overall they were kind of balanced by a few key, uh, and, um, people will see this as evidence of some conspiracy, but a few key outlets that you could count on to kind

of tell the truth over time and that they were more interested in getting the public square righted than they were in selling newspapers or in this day and age driving clicks. And I just don't see that anymore. I was talking to a friend who works at CBC, not in front of a camera, but she was telling me about how at CBC headquarters these days, the walls are filled with screens telling you what's moving and what's not. It's kind of like you're in an old style stock exchange where you're looking at price fluctuations over seconds minutes and hours if that's all you're focused on and this is certainly true of the globe of mail and the way they run their business now if all you're focused on is which stories are moving fastest and what's attracting the most attention, then there's no way you're going to be focused on telling the news over time.

And, you know, I've been a harsh critic of the Globe and Mail. I've been a harsh critic of other media outlets, but I think I've been a fair one. I think they're following a business model and not the public interest. And the ones that I worry about aren't the ones that you expected from the far reaches of the left and right it's the ones that used to be in the center that are behaving in the same way that you would have expected yellow journalism to behave in yesteryear okay let me let me but what do you think peter you always ask us questions you have a lot more experience in this than we do well can i get peter mansbridge on record about canadian journalism

and where it's going well i've actually said a few things lately even about my old employer the cbc which is you know hasn't put me in good stead with some of them but let me um let me pull the two of you back to this the the issue of the lie and the liar. How do you cover an unrepentant liar? That was part of the debate surrounding last Thursday, right? Why did they ever give him a platform? Why didn't they challenge him more? Although I thought Caitlin Collins did a hell of a job, all things considered.

But how do you cover that person, whether it's Trump or whether it's somebody else you're convinced is constantly putting out, you know, lies, conspiracy theories, what have you? How do you cover that? Well, I think, again, I'm not a journalist, but I think that the way to cover is to describe the connection between the lie and what kind of effect it has for the audience, right? That it's not just that Donald Trump is lying about COVID. It's that COVID is now affecting millions more people than it

would have had he been truthful about it in the beginning. And I think that that's, it's a difficult connection to make, but I think it's the most important connection to make. Otherwise it all just sounds like talk. I don't think you should get, I don't think you should let lies go unchallenged. That's for sure. Yeah. And, and, you one of the I think one of the saving graces of a lot of this is it is the fact that we that the tools are out there for for citizen journalists and people just to sort of expose people. Right. And there's a law of averages. Even the best communicator, you know, the worst communicator will will drop the ball in one out of every five media interviews that they do. And then eventually the party, you know, Canada parties, you say, well, let's go ahead and not put that person on a panel anymore, or,

or let's have them, you know, not go out and scrum after question period. You know, great communicators will drop one in every 10,000 interviews, but eventually you will hit your mark. Eventually your law of averages catches up with everybody and the ability of the public now to sort of talk about this and put it out there and say, look, just, this is just a fact counterfact. This is just eventually over time, there's just an accumulation of weight of evidence on a person. And you never know what is going to be the one lie or the one circumstance that's eventually going to catch up with people.

And again, you know, keeping it contemporary. I mean, it's, you know, what did Justin Trudeau know about China in 2001 with Michael Chong? Like, is it plausible that CSIS did their homework, presented it to PCO, Justin Trudeau either saw it and ignored it or didn't see it? And eventually, like, if that's the thing that you think is the most important to you, because maybe you're a member of the Chinese-Canadian diaspora and you have real concern about the government and the way in which they're handling this, maybe that's the thing in which you just say, you know what, I just can't vote liberal anymore because I just don't believe them in this circumstance

because this has a material impact to me. Or, you know, to be fair and to be cross-partisan, like if somebody says, you know, I've invested 20 years of my life into scientific discovery and the idea that I have to go through the prime minister's communications shop to decide whether or not the weather report that I'm going to put out there that'll have an impact on aquaculture on the west coast of British Columbia, that has to go through the minister's office before I have to say, okay, to do an interview in a regional paper about the shifting tides and the concerns that I have for the next 20 years. And that has to be okayed by a political office, which is wrong. Like, you know so so people now

have tools at their disposal to to talk about these things and put evidence on the table and the public can choose to dismiss them or not that's the biggest biggest anxiety that i have but the tools with which people have to actually expose truth and to put it in in front of the sunlight for for its for its effect, have never been more manifest. I'll give you a counterpoint to that, though, Peter, which is the technology that is currently in rapid development to mislead people into believing lies, i.e. misinformation and disinformation generated by artificial intelligence,

is truly terrifying. And we will soon be able to, video is still very hard, but we will soon see images that we cannot distinguish from the real thing, but they're generated by malign actors using high compute power. And that's in this environment, the one that we're describing, that's something to be truly worried about. And in closed media environments, whether it's Russia, China, North Korea, you know, like you start, imagine these tools in the hands of someone like Ceausescu or where you can close off your borders and you can control the printing presses and the radio waves and so on. And you can control what people see in their television radio and in print you know that we

have seen that world before when you extend it to digital and when there's just mass public confusion about what's real and what's not that that is a very toxic uh toxic dynamic so therefore the the need the fundamental need for us to have clear, transparent, verifiable, peer-reviewed silos or pipelines of objective truth of what's actually happening. You know, the Leafs lose to the Florida Panthers. We know who scored. We know the score. We know it's verifiable. It's a factual.

It's a data point. What was in the federal budget? How much money was pledged? How much money money was spent what's going to come up you know what are they expecting in terms of interest rates what's the forecast for deficits and so like it's an objective truth like people who want to establish platforms of objective clear truth i think the public is craving for that because outside of whatever our bias is the public just you know it part of the reason why we flick on whatever websites or pick up a paper or turn into whatever station. See, I just want to know what the hell happened.

There was a boom and there was a boom in the distance. What happened? Like there's a noise. Did a train derail? Did something blow up? Was it just a firework? Like what happened over there? Did I pick up my phone and what platform do I go to to find out what the hell is happening

around me? Small scale, large scale, there's frankly money to be made, an economic model there for people who can establish a platform of verifiable, objective truth that the public can tap into. So that's maybe my silver lining counterbalance to Jerry is that he's right about the threat, but I think there's opportunity out there because the public at the end of the day, it's a Darwinian impulse. We look for patterns. We look for consistency. We look onto the horizon to see where the dangers are.

And that has to be informed by objective truth. We are wired biologically through our Darwinian impulse to look for risk on the horizon and we need to be informed by truth. And so I think in time, the avenues for people to believe in something that is genuinely true and objectifiably true will present itself all right in other words free markets work i just want the record i want the record to show peter that it was james who raised yes i believe he

went to defeat at the end of the i i was willing to let it go for the whole podcast. He went a bridge too far on that one, I must say. Listen, we're out of time, but I want to stretch it by a minute to each of you with this last question. You know, we like to think as Canadians that we're either pure from all this or we're close to being pure from all this. Trump makes it look like his use of lying makes him a winner, and success is contagious. How does the system prevent that from infecting Canada with the same situation? So a minute to each of you. Jerry first.

I think our greatest and most important antibody or inoculation against that is our public school system, frankly. I think that the fact that I grew up in a relatively poor town in eastern Nova Scotia and had all the same opportunities as people who lived, grew up in Rosedale, uh, is largely due to the fact that we had strong public schools. And I, that's why I kind of spent first half of my career on that issue. But I think, I think as long as we have that where there's going to be a baseline of, uh, inoculation against it, what I think is going to be problematic is just the technological advancement coupled with a chaotic media environment

is making it very difficult for people to sort what's real and what's not. And the ability to find like-minded people has been weaponized by some of the most technologically advanced communications platforms in the world to give you the same belonging to override your rational judgment of what's true and false. And that's really hard. And Canada has no border against that. All right, James, you got the final word. Yeah, well, I think two antidotes. Your question was, how do we not go down the rabbit hole

with having the United States? I think we have two antidotes in One, your question was, how do we not go down the rabbit hole of what they have in the United States? I think we have two antidotes in Canada that are actually helpful. One is actually our system. In the United States, they don't have a question period. We malign question period and attack question period.

But there actually is an infrastructure in Canada and an expectation that the political parties will face each other live on television, live in front of the world and square off and have a debate and hold each other accountable. Sometimes, obviously, it of the world and square off and have a debate and hold each other accountable. Sometimes, obviously, it's ugly and blustery and irresponsible. The United States, like Donald Trump is apparently going to run for the nomination and he's not

going to debate his opponent. And there's talk that Joe Biden will be the Democratic nominee and he's not going to debate Donald Trump because why bother? Why take the risk of exposing, you know, his energy versus Donald Trump's and all that. But in the United States, you have competing press conferences and competing rallies and so on. You don't actually have a direct head to head collision on a consistent basis where people hold each other accountable. Yes, I know sometimes it's ugly, but but in our system, we actually do do that. And it's actually a very important mechanism for for people to sort of see because real recognizes real people People can smell BS a mile away. And you can kind of say, well, that argument is not, no, no, no. I see what

you're trying to do. That's not quite true. And just the fact of the exposure of the actors in an environment that forces accountability, a very healthy thing. And then the second one is the one that I just referred to is that I think it's not just economics. I think we have an impulse of biological Darwinian need for clarity and to mitigate risk for the survival of our communities and ourselves. And that requires us to have an input of truth and data that is clear and verifiable. And we want that. We seek that out with weather, with sports, with stock markets. We seek it out with regard to the safety of our vehicles, with regard to the safety of our parks and all. We need it. We need it. And we need it with government and we need it with what's going on in the world.

And we and as soon as a news outlet breaks that trust, they're no longer trusted. And so I think the market force of the public expecting and needing clarity and certainty in what's happening around them will cause platforms to emerge that have think, of the eight we've done now. I think this may well be the best one. The audience will determine that, and I'm sure we'll hear from them, as we often do. And we'll try and squeeze in another one before we take our summer breaks at the end of June. So, gentlemen, thanks so much for this. Really enjoyed it. Always a pleasure, Peter.

Thank you. Well, there you go. The Moore-Butts conversation number eight. James Moore was in Vancouver. Jerry Butts was in Ottawa. And as I said, I look forward to hearing from you, from those of you who actually listen to the conversation. Every once in a while I'll get stuff, whether it's on our YouTube channel or to the podcast,

which is clearly shots that are being taken by people who haven't even listened to the program, right? They look at the title and then they react accordingly. I just toss those. But the vast majority of you do have thoughtful comments about the discussions that we have, including on the Morbutt's conversation, in this case, number eight, the politics of the lie. So if you want to drop me a line, please do. It's themansbridgepodcast at gmail.com, themansbridgepodcast at gmail.com. So that's it for this day. Thanks so much for listening. Really, really enjoyed today's conversation. Hope you did as well. We'll talk to you again.

You've been listening to an encore presentation of the bridge with peter man's bridge originally broadcast on may 15th