The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Is Too Much News Bad For Your Health?

Episode Date: January 6, 2022

Is all news bad news?  Why isn't there more good news? Is it all bad for your health?  Just one of the questions for today in our Thursday combination of the stories we've missed and the letters you've sent.  Great way to help kick off our first week of 2022.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You are just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. Is news bad for your health? We'll try that one in a moment. And hello there, it's the Thursday edition of The Bridge for this week. And Thursdays is usually, you know, a compilation of potpourri, a number of stories that haven't kind of like hit, our airwaves at least, and many airwaves, but they're worth mentioning. And a number of your letters, kind of the mailbag.

So it's Thursday, let's get at it. As some of you know very well, I was in the daily news business for 50 years at the CBC. Almost 45 of those 50 years was at the National, first as a reporter and then as the anchor, chief correspondent of CBC News from 1988 to 2017. And I had a great

time working with great people. I'm very proud of my CBC years and I'm still proud of the CBC in spite of the fact that I have concerns about certain directions. But there's a lot of great people there. Anyway, one of the things that's happened in the last couple of years, because aside from doing the podcast and doing some documentary work for the CBC, I might add, is that I've written some books, Extraordinary Canadians last year, and Off the Record, which is more or less about my career, which is still a bestseller right now in terms of the current book list.

And so that's good for me and for those who wanted to read it. But it's funny when you have a new book as, you know, my fellow authors of these days currently, whether they're Chris Hatfield or Rick Mercer or Mark Critch or Jody Wilson-Raybould, one of the things you do a lot of is media interviews to promote your book. So I've done, I don't know, 50 or 60 interviews in the last couple of months

while Off the Record has been out. And one of the constant questions I get is, do you miss it? You know, do you miss the daily news? And it's an interesting question because I wondered after all those years of doing daily news, being involved and pumped up every single day, was what was it going to be like when I left that? Well, I'm still a news junkie.

I love news. But I don't, when the question is, do you watch every night? Well, the answer is no. I don't watch every night. I did kind of retire from that. You know, I certainly watch on big nights when I know there's a big story out there, but I don't watch every night.

And sometimes that's because, you know, i'm watching a hockey game or i'm asleep i'm an old guy i get up early in the morning and i often go to bed you know relatively early but i don't watch as much as i used to watch now i came upon an interesting article in the Washington Post the other day, and I'm going to read a bit of it because it's written by a guy who's kind of in the same position as I am,

spent all his working life in daily news. And then he retired. And he wondered, what's that going to be like? And what's the state of the news business these days? And does it really, do I really owe it my time every day? So the fellow's name is John Huey. He's a former Time editor-in-chief. So this is no small potatoes.

John Huey is a big name in the American news world. So he wrote a piece a couple of weeks ago for the Washington Post. It was one of those kind of opinion pieces, kind of an op-ed, as we say. So I'm going to read a little bit of it He says I only make New Year's resolutions When I sense something is amiss in my life Too much drinking Weight gain

Not enough exercise This year is no different But the resolution is to me shocking For 2022 I resolve to consume less news. Having spent more than 40 years reporting, writing, and editing the news, I'm surprised to conclude that overconsumption of news, at least in the forms I've been gorging on it since 2016, is neither good for my emotional well-being nor essential to the

health of the republic. The idea struck me at a holiday dinner with close friends in Charleston, South Carolina, where I was the only journalist at the table. I love this scene because I've seen this movie. I've been in this movie. Our cheerful conversation darkened like a sudden squall in the harbor when it turned to the news. One woman, an intelligent, well-read friend, for whom I have great respect and affection, posed a serious question to me. Is there anywhere you can go for just good news?

I love this question because I get this question all the time. And I've got it and had it all the time for most of the last half century. I do a lot of public speaking. I travel the country. I travel the continent. And I talk to groups who are interested in news, and often in the Q&A section afterwards, a common question is, why is there never any good news?

Back to the article. John Huey, former Time editor-in-chief. After that question at the dinner table, I almost choked on my oyster. No, I replied after a brief pause. The news is what happens, not what you wish had happened. It's not news if the mayor was almost in a life-threatening car crash. It's big news if he was.

There are exceptions. Man lands on moon was both good and big news. Your hometown winning the World Series is good news. But big news is urgent. And bad news is almost always more urgent than good news. Also, my experience is that people may think they want good news, but there's no evidence that they will pay for good news. Only days later, the story of Davion Johnson popped up.

The Oklahoma sixth grader managed to save two lives in one day. First, he used the Heimlich maneuver on a classmate who was choking on a bottle cap. Later that same day, according to the Muskegee Phoenix, he helped a woman escape from a burning house. Then CNN aired footage of two baby bald eagles hatching suddenly i was awash in good news it didn't last part of the problem with news is that there isn't really enough of it good or bad to fill the 24 7 you know kind of laneway that's opened up by cable news, talk radio, and social media. I was there in Atlanta in June of 1980

when Ted Turner threw the switch to launch CNN, which he informally called the News Channel, as in, how could anybody not watch the News Channel? I'd written a page one profile of his venture for the Wall Street Journal, which began with the question, is America ready for Ted Turner? It was the wrong question. It should have been, how can they possibly fill 24 hours with news? CNN programmers talked then of all the stuff they planned to cover, exercise, pet care, home repairs, farm news, and the like.

But they soon discovered Crossfire. Remember that program? Crossfire. It featured two angry white males spitting at each other over politics. That was the 1980s. Well, the rest is history. I'm not going to read the whole article here, but you get the point.

Let me just read the conclusion. I don't intend to stop fretting about my country, nor will I give up reading the newspapers and magazines I deem essential to understanding the world around me. But I am planning a crash news diet. What to take off the plate? I subscribe to way too many insider newsletters, whose pundits fill me with dread and anxiety each day. Maybe I'll allow myself two or three. I follow far too many people on Twitter, which results in a tornado of nightly

angst. I plan to cut my following list ruthlessly, and I already have foregone most cable news. As another year of certain mayhem begins, and we're watching it again today on this anniversary of January 6th, I hope my attempt at moderation renders the desired calming effect. I would dread having to take the next step. Cold turkey, as I did to kick cigarettes years ago. Two addictions with one big difference. Smoking kills you. News in the proper dose is healthy. Key phrase, proper dose.

Interesting, right? And I know you all have, many of you have strong feelings about this issue and about what you listen to, what you read, what you watch, and how much is too much. And why is it all bad news? That not all bad news but there's a lot of bad news because bad news is news sadly so i'll tell you one thing and we heard it earlier this

week when we had science sam on put Put the phone down, especially at night. You're not going to get a good sleep if the last thing you do before you go to sleep is scroll through Twitter or whatever social media channel you use to hear people blathering away. And, you know, check out who you're following. And it's not just who you follow, but, and what they say, it's who you follow and what they retweet. There's so much garbage on Twitter. So much. I, you know, I'm on Twitter.

I use Twitter. And I follow on Twitter. But man, put it down at night. You know, make a make a resolution to, you know, set your phone down. I don't know, 7 o'clock at night and then don't pick it up again until the next morning.

If you can. Let's see whether you can do that. I'm on the intermittent diet program. I'm trying it out anyway, have been for a couple of months. It's worked in terms of weight loss. But man, do I get hungry. But that's a whole other story. Anyway, I thought you'd enjoy that.

I thought it might spark some reaction from some of you about your health versus the amount of news you consume. A couple of other stories that I wanted to mention before I get into the mailbag. And these are sort of, you know, out of nowhere. Did you follow the Elizabeth Holmes trial in the States? You know, she was this woman who raised hundreds of millions of dollars

by what the court determined was a fraud. You know, she claimed she had this magic blood testing kit that could be, you know, could extract one drop of blood from a human and you could tell all kinds of things about that person's body makeup and health and potential issues. And as I said, she raised hundreds of millions of dollars from some big name investors.

Anyway, she was found guilty and they haven't sentenced her yet, but she could end up in jail for a long time. So the Financial Times has a piece, excuse me, just a couple of days ago, headlined Five Investor Lessons from the Downfall of Elizabeth Holmes. So here they are, five lessons. First, investors should apply scientific skepticism to fantastical scientific claims now you think that would be normal right but clearly it

wasn't on this so apply scientific skepticism to fantastical scientific claims hype is intrinsic to the culture of Silicon Valley and this result will gradually push the shift away from over-promising and under-delivering. Second, investors must distinguish between sensible protection for intellectual property and secrecy so intense it signals cover-up. Third lesson is that charisma carries some bosses further than their capabilities merit.

Man, do we all not have examples of that from our own personal past? You know, the old BS baffles brains. I have a plaque on my desk that says exactly that to remind myself about that. Fourth, investors must make their own minds up on a business, discounting celebrity endorsements. That's important.

And, you know, lots of companies use celebrity endorsements. And you got to be careful with that. Finally, fifth and final lesson, a proposition that seems too good to be true generally will be. That's an old one. All right, lessons from the Elizabeth Holmes trial. Next, this goes to our EV file, electronic vehicles or electric vehicles. Mercedes-Benz unveils a 1,000-kilometer-per-charge Vision EQXX prototype. And one of the big issues about EVs has been the charging, right?

You've heard this. We've talked about this on this program in terms of battery capabilities and areas where you can charge up. So Mercedes announced plans in 2021 to invest more than 40 billion euros. That's a lot of money, right? I don't know where the euro is with the Canadian dollar right now, but that's probably somewhere around 60 billion canadian dollars at least anyway they announced plans to invest more than more than that by 2030 to take on tesla in an all-electric car market including building eight battery plants from 2025 all

mercedes new vehicle platforms will only make EVs. That's what they've said. Mercedes-Benz revealed its battery-powered Vision EQXX prototype, which it says will have a range of more than 1,000 kilometers per charge. And we've seen some with as little as 200, 300 kilometers, 1,000 kilometers. That's a lot. This battery, dubbed the most efficient Mercedes-Benz ever built, will have energy consumption of less than 10 kWh

per 100 kilometers. At Mercedes, the shift towards investments in EVs will see an 80% drop in investments into combustion engines and plug-in hybrid technologies up to 2026, which the group said would have a direct impact on jobs. The EU has been pushing hard to build out battery capacity to counter China's dominance of battery production. We got to stay on this EV story because it is dramatically changing the way we look at vehicles,

how we use them, what we use. As we move towards a much different world out there on the highway. And here's the last story that I'm going to pull out of the file of the potpourri file. It's in the atlantic it's headlined the nba and the nfl surrendered to their vaccine refusers and this is a big story out there in the world of sports i mean you saw yesterday what happened last night and it's still happening today with the um uh novak djokovic story in Australia, trying to get to the Australian Open with hopes for him of winning his 21st title, Grand Slam title,

which would make him the winner of more Grand Slam titles than anybody else, including Roger Federer. Well, he's not going to get it because he's being kicked out of Australia. Why? Because he doesn't have a vaccine. He's never taken, he's a vaccine refuser. Wouldn't take the vaccine.

And, you know initially the tennis gods said you have to be vaccinated if you're going to play in these Grand Slam tournaments and then they made an exception for Djokovic

there was only one problem they didn't talk to the Australian government who said you're out of here buddy we don't have exceptions for anybody nobody can come into our country unless they're vaccinated. So he got off his plane in Melbourne, and they stuck him in one of those hotels at the airport that doesn't have a good reputation these days

as one that houses people in the kind of interim period after after arrival if there's questions about their status and then he's he's gone now i put that down as a current uh situation but it's not alone as As I said, the NBA and the NFL seem to have changed all their rules in the last week, basically surrendering to vaccine refusers. And there's another classic example last night,

the New York Nets basketball team. Kylie Irving, who's one of their big stars, hasn't played a game this year because in New York, the mandate in New York is that you have to have a vaccine to play in major league sports with a big crowd in attendance.

And the NBA signed on to that. And so he hasn't played a game this year, either home or away. But they changed the rules last night. They said, oh, you complain. So why are they doing that? Money, in my view. It's all about money and you know good for the NHL or at least good for

Canadian authorities provincial who have stipulated crowd sizes in different arenas I mean the American arenas are all packed. But not in Canada. Not in all the NHL teams. They're all facing some restrictions on crowd size, down to the point where no crowds are allowed in Ontario. And somebody's losing a lot of money

as a result of that. And the pressure will be on provinces. And some of this stuff makes no sense. You can go to a mall, a packed mall, you can't go to a hockey game. You can go to a mall, a packed mall, but you can't go to a hockey game you can go to a mall a packed mall but you

can't go to school you figure that one out explain that one to me anyway those are some of our stories about stories. Going to take a quick break. When we come back, Mailbag. And welcome back. You're listening to The Bridge. It's the Thursday episode.

I'm Peter Mansbridge. Glad to have you with us. And whether you're listening on SiriusXM Canada, Channel 167, Canada Talks, or on your favorite podcast platform, wherever you're listening, we're glad you're with us. Okay, moving on. Some letters.

First one comes from Jeff McRae and it kind of touches on what we just talked about a moment ago. Jeff writes, I listened to you note the difference between stands in American versus Canadian hockey arenas. Like you, I love hockey, but I was unsettled listening to hockey fans complain about politics when the world juniors were canceled. Canada is doing right in being cautious when it comes to a pastime.

We all know it's big business. Happy New Year. You too, Jeff. Maxwell Cowan Maxwell writes from Langley, British Columbia. As a theater artist, it was very disheartening to see Come From Away close in Toronto. It sure was. You know, we have friends who are in that cast.

And, you know, it was very difficult for them and their families and difficult for fans. This is a fantastic production. This was a piece of musical theater, says Maxwell, that put Canada on the map for future productions. This leaves me with two questions. One, what does the closing say about the state of live performance in this country and how the government supports it? Two, what is the point of a Ministry of Canadian Heritage if it's going to let pieces of Canadian art die like this?

Will the government intervene if the Shaw Festival or the Stratford Festival are threatened? Thank you for the podcast. Look forward to it every week. Maxwell Cowan from Langley, BC. Okay, a couple of points here, Maxwell. First of all, if you're out there wondering why did they come from away, they closed it because of the restrictions based on the number of people allowed in the theatre and the cost of that production and the theater and the cost of that production. And the Mirvish family, which runs the theater that Come From Away was in,

said, it's just too much of a loss. We can't handle this kind of a loss. And regretfully, they've closed it and closed it for good, apparently. It's been, I don't know how long it's been up come two three years um and it's been incredibly successful and it doesn't just play in toronto plays in new york london um a couple of other places as well different productions all right to your questions maxwell what does the closing say about the state of live performance in this country and how the government supports it? Well, live performance is going to take a hit in certain areas where

certain jurisdictions restrict the number of people who can go to that live performance. Now, hopefully a lot of most non-commercial theaters operate at a time of year where we're hoping we're going to be past all this or certainly be less of a threat than it is right now. And I make the distinction, and this is important, between commercial theater and non-commercial theater. Because this links to your next question, which is about government support, where you say, what's the point of a Ministry of Canadian Heritage because this links to your next question, which is about government support, where you say, what's the point of a Ministry of Canadian Heritage if it's going to let pieces of Canadian art die like this? Will the government intervene if the Shaw Festival

or the Stratford Festival are threatened? Well, you know, to be fair, Shaw and Stratford are technically not commercial. Certainly Stratford isn't classified as a commercial theater. And therefore, it gets significant government support, federal, provincial, municipal. And that hasn't been affected by the pandemic. They're still getting I don't know the details on Shaw, but on Stratford, millions of dollars.

And the government is supporting that. But they have drawn the line, at least in the past, on commercial theater, which is unlike you know other jurisdictions other countries where commercial theatre is supported as well by government but not here at the moment and I imagine that's a the the Mirvish has spoke out strongly against this and pointed the finger at government saying, this is happening because you won't support us.

You're supporting all kinds of other businesses through the pandemic, but you're not supporting us. And the costs are astronomical for us when we go through a period where we've had to shut down and you're paying for actors and space and rental and et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So I guess that's, you've caught the nub of it here and it's a legitimate question to ask. And I assume, well, we'll see.

The Conservative Party, the official opposition in Canada, perhaps will be asking questions of the government about this. They're asking questions about another piece of Canadian heritage and culture, about the CBC, which is absolutely their right as they should. But maybe they'll be talking about theatre too. We'll see.

This letter comes from Hedy Dab. And I believe Hedy is in Quebec, at least her area code is. Yes, she is. She's in Montreal. I'm an elder woman living in Montreal. I've been listening to you for as long as I can recall, and for the most part, I have found your reports to be well-researched and well-meaning. For the most part.

Did you get that? You're great at keeping your personal opinions to a minimum, if ever, which is why I like your podcast. Thank you for your honest hard work. Thank you for that. Keep in mind, a podcast is not a newscast so I don't feel I'm under the same restrictions I was rightfully

over 50 years doing daily news this is a podcast, I started as a hobby kind of as a fun thing to do but something that also would allow me on occasion to kind of speak my mind about whatever the subject may be. But I appreciate what you have to say about listening to our podcast. I'm writing to you today, says Hedy, because the last show you did with Bruce and Chantel was okay, I suppose, as a year-end wrap-up. I'm hoping that this year you will address in-depth analysis

on effects climate change has had on our country's health and the correlation with COVID-19 and future viruses. Maybe you've addressed these issues during 2021, but the media isn't reporting the science and preparing us for what will be our future solutions, if there are any. How can we take politics seriously when we're shown the Antarctic ice cap melting at a rate we can't do anything about? I wish you good health for 2022.

Please continue to educate us, and I hope to hear more from you on climate change and how our collective health is directly connected to our environment. Hedy, I agree with you. We can't do enough about climate change, and I will try to keep that in mind. But it would be wrong to say we've ignored climate change. I've been big on the climate change story for most of the last 20 years. I've taken trips to the Arctic. I've been big on the climate change story for most of the last 20 years. I've taken trips to the Arctic. I've shown Canadians what's happening. I've had discussions and debates about how to deal with this situation. Just two months ago, three months ago, I was in the Arctic again with this podcast.

I did a podcast daily from on board a Navy vessel going through the high Arctic, going through ice, dealing with the story of climate change and Arctic sovereignty. I've done a documentary, which will air on the CBC in the next couple of months. You know, one of the one-hour documentaries that I do. So it would be wrong to say we've ignored this subject. Because we have not ignored it. But can we do more? Absolutely. Hedy, thanks for your note. A couple more. this one's from

Marty Zillstraw I guess he was listening yesterday I agree that the 40 billion dollar deal that's on the Indigenous Children's Welfare Compensation package should be a bigger story than it has been

this week I sadly wasn't aware of Paul Martin's Kelowna Accord, but once again, I'm bitterly disappointed in Canada, specifically the Harper government back in the early 2000s, for not pushing that deal towards completion. Considering suicide rates among First Nations children in Canada have been among the highest in the world, maybe lives of Canadian children could have been saved. Marty's in Maple Ridge, BC. And here's our final. Letter from the mailbag.

First edition, 2022. It's from Anne ann marie klein she's in toronto i really appreciated science sam's perspective that was dr samantha yameen who was our guest on tuesday and she was great and have had terrific response to what she had to say on the pandemic and living through it. Anyway, I really appreciated Sam's perspective on mental health and wanted to thank you both for reminding people that those on the front lines

are also worthy of consideration as we head into further closures. Like her, I am deeply disappointed by the lack of planning and proactive measures from too many government levels and have lots of empathy for the exhausted staffs in the health and education sectors. Just to add a teacher's view, I taught for 30 years and fortunately retired in June of 2019. During my long career, I taught students from diverse backgrounds, including many who came from the war zones such as Ethiopia and Sarajevo, to name but two. Among them were children who spent their early childhood school years, excuse me, hiding in basements to avoid being bombed and killed, and whose first experiences in a classroom were with

me and other teachers once safely in Canada. There were many challenges to their mental health, but despite their traumatic experiences, they eventually settled and flourished. I remember two boys in particular. One had never been to school until grade two, while the other fled in the cover of night abruptly and had panic attacks in new situations such as track and field meets, the starter pistol was a trigger, or overnight field trips. Both of them are now in their 30s and successful in their professional careers. I know parents and students and frontline education workers are frustrated by the return to online learning, but I hope they will recognize that there is more to mental health

than the inconveniences of lockdowns, and that we will get past this, just as many have done so from much more dire circumstances. Anne-Marie Klein writing to us from Toronto. You know, I didn't think I would be starting 2022 with kind of the same message that I had a year ago and 10 months before that, which is things are difficult. There are moments where things look really bleak.

But because of the heroes amongst us, and there are many, we will get through this. It will end. And all I can hope for is that this time next year, when we're starting 2023, that we look back at 2022 as the year that broke the back of the pandemic.

By the united forces of people around the world, ensuring that they had the tools to combat this, wherever they lived. Not just in Canada. Not just in North America, but around the world. And to do that, we have to remember that we're just part of a big story in the sense of the people who need help. And it was encouraging to see just yesterday, the day before the announcement, that 300 million more doses of vaccines

were going to countries where there's a very low vaccination rate at the moment. Now, that's not enough. It's going to take billions, not hundreds of millions, but we're heading in that direction. So, another year begins, another edition of the Thursday episode of The Bridge. Tomorrow, of course,

it's Good Talk. Chantel and Bruce will both be here, and there's lots to talk about as we launch 2022 Good Talk for you. I'm Peter Mansbridge. This has been The Bridge.

Great to talk to you. If you need to write, themansbridgepodcast at gmail.com. themansbridgepodcast at gmail.com. Talk to you again in 24 hours.