The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Moore Butts #16 -- What Do Politicians Really Think of Journalists?

Episode Date: June 18, 2024

The latest in our regular feature teaming former Conservative cabinet minister James Moore and former Justin Trudeau principal secretary Gerald Butts. Today's topic revolves around the relationship between politicians and reporters. What do those in politics really think about the people who cover them? How do they prepare for the sometimes tense situation that exists between them?

Hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You are just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. What do politicians really think about journalists? The More Butts Conversation, number 16, coming right up. And hello there, welcome to Tuesday of this final week before we take our summer hiatus. And what a program we have in store for you today. Once again, the Moore-Butts conversation. This one's number 16. We've been going for a couple of years now with the former Conservative Cabinet Minister James Moore

and the former Principal Secretary to Justin Trudeau, Gerald Bunce. They get together every month or so and we have a conversation that we hope takes you somewhat behind the scenes of political power in Ottawa and gives you as best they can a non-partisan look at the situation in terms of what really goes on behind the scenes. We've been really pleased with how this has gone, and so apparently have you, because it's been one of our most popular episodes, the continuing series with more buts. This one, once again, is number 16, and it deals with the relationship between politicians and the media. Hope you enjoy it. Here we go. Well, let me start this way. I was watching the BBC the other day

and they were showing clips from a kind of a scrum that was going on between a reporter and one of the candidates running in the election here. And it got quickly out of hand because the candidate wasn't really answering the questions and the reporter was demanding that the candidate answer the questions. It went back and forth, back and forth, and then one of the candidates' aides stepped in and said, oh, you've gone beyond what our agreement is. And the reporter's saying, what do you mean agreement? I'm just a reporter asking questions. It has led me to want to have this discussion.

So as opposed, we'll get back to that example a little later. But in a general way, what do politicians think of journalists generally so don't give me the oh we respect you know the role of journalism blah blah what do you basically think of journalists when you're in the political role james why don't you start a usually necessary pain in the ass but not but not always necessary not always always a hassle. There's an important challenge function that exists. But in Canadian democracy, I think it's a little different perhaps than American democracy and elsewhere, because certainly in government, when you're in government in our system and the expectations that we have had historically for question period,

when you're a cabinet minister, it's like, wait a minute, I sit in a room that's lit up and televised and streamed everywhere where there's no margin for error. And I'm being yelled at as I'm giving my answers and the media's in the room and the public is in the room and my colleagues are in the room and everybody is there. And the opposition gets to stand up and fire a question at me for 35 seconds that's crafted and pointed and meant to embarrass me. And I have to stand up and answer it. And sometimes you do, sometimes you don't. And people can judge whatever on a curve. But I feel like I'm being held accountable. And so to me, sort of as a minister, you kind of think, now on top of that, journalists are going to have different questions

than the opposition because their goal is a little bit different than the opposition, or they might have a scoop or an angle or perspective that's different than what's just accretive to an opposition party, right? So there's that. So I understand that. But generally, I think, you know, you can sort of feel like I don't have to talk to a journalist if I don't have to.

Sometimes when you're a cabinet minister, you do your thing in question period. You defend the government's position or you defend the choices that you've made as a minister and you think you've done a decent job. And I would leave question period and I would go to my staff and i would say did i do a good job like did i did i get the message out did i make my point across and they would say yeah it was perfect clip is out there you've defended it we're fine we're good then i would say great then i would leave out the back door and not strike because otherwise you go out the front door you scrum with journalists and then you you mess it up or you add an element and then you invite a follow-up. No, if it was clean and it's tight, it's done in question period,

then you move on. So on the political side, political brain, my experience is through that lens of question period media and accountability. Things have obviously, goalposts have shifted dramatically now with social media, 24-7 news cycle, the collapse of journalism as it's traditionally been known, and the rise of journalism that is agendized, pointed, more aggressive, and is feeding a specific beast of a particular audience that happens to open its wallet for certain kinds of perspectives and heat. So that makes it, I think, the relationship between governments and politicians and journalists who are chroniclers, who are just trying to tell the public what's happening, much more distant because you're more afraid of the press gallery and the other journalists who are up there who are genuinely sharks, who have a business model that's designed on trying to embarrass and destroy you. And they existed when I was in government.

There are more of them now because that's the business model that seems to work. But they mix and mingle with the people who are just chronicling and trying to tell the public what's happening. And so you kind of have to treat the whole group with the most defensive posture. Okay. Lots to pick up on that. I want to get jury's view first of all, but before I do that, when you walked out of the house in those days and your staffers were waiting there and you said, how did I do? Did they ever say to you, you really screwed up? Does that ever happen?

Because you get the sense that most of them are kind of cheerleaders, right? Well, if it's a minor mistake, they go, uh, so scenario, i come out so did i did i do it okay but you know when you screw it up you come kind of come out you go i didn't do it i didn't get it right did i or or you say they go well it was good in french right or they'll say or they'll say uh well we'll fix it in the blues right in the blues or the actual transcripts of a promoter and i said and i would just say like do i need to go out and scrum and fix it or take another run at it? And they'll go, yeah, because you want to put this part first instead of second and just really emphasize that. And we'll do a one-on-one with the one journalist who really cares about this.

We won't sort of expose you to everybody and multiply the story, et cetera. So you kind of tactically handle it. But, you know, there weren't too many of those moments. If there are too many of those moments, the prime minister's office tends to notice. And then you'll find a way to fix it in other ways that are more brutish. All right, Jerry, where are you at on this in a general sense? How do you feel about journalists? Well, I mean, I think that when you're talking about the relationship between politicians and journalists, it's sometimes a symbiotic one, it's sometimes a

parasitic one, but it's always mutually guarded, I think is the way I would put it. And politicians and political people don't like to admit it, but most people in politics love journalism. They like reading journalism. And the self-regard with which most politicians hold themselves, if I could put it that way, Peter, means that they like journalism that they're in even more than other journalism that doesn't feature them as the primary subject. I mean, most of these people love to read about themselves, right? So there's a very strange, intimate relationship between politicians and journalists that both sides I've seen mostly stay on the right side of, but can get really emotionally off kilter between, uh, with each other.

But it seems at times that the politician is like overly defensive or, you know, feeling that they're, you know, that the journalist is out to get them no matter what they have to say or what they're defending or explaining that the journalist is out to get them. Is that a general feeling? I think it's, well, yeah, get them. Is that a general feeling? I think it's, well, yeah, I do think that is a general feeling. I think that, but I would explain it in a slightly different way because I don't think most politicians think it's personal. I think that, and I think this is true and it's become even truer as the business model has developed the way James described it, that the old saying that

if it bleeds, it leads is even truer today than it was in the past. So there's a kind of don't take this personally, I'm shiving you because it's going to move copy kind of approach that most journalists take. And most politicians recognize that. So they don't think that, you know, Bob Fife is a bad person, although some think that Bob Fyfe is a bad person, although some people may think Bob Fyfe is a bad person. I don't happen to be one of them, but they recognize the kind of journalism that Bob Fyfe practices.

So when they see his name come up on their phone, they're like, this can't be good news for me. And it's not personal to Bob Fyfe. It's just the way that he does reporting. And it's the way most journalistic outlets have gone as the business model's gotten squeezed. And they feel like they need to be ever more sensational to capture people's attention. And I think that's been bad for everybody. It's been really bad, ultimately, for citizens who depend on disinterested journalism to get their, their news,

because I think it's kind of vanished. On the government side, like, like you, you asked the question broadly, Peter, it's a good way to start it, but you know, like what's the, what's the reputation of journalists? Well, as a cohort, there's sort of a general view about sort of, as Jerry said, you know, treat them cautiously, recognize that they can, they can sink or swim you pretty quickly and all that but the truth is i think is that it's a science again of single instances right that there are good journalists bad journalists horrible journalists agendized journalists and all that just as there's good bad and ugly on the political side and government side right so so it's i think it's individual uh assessments and then there's sort of matchmaking one of my epiphany moments was um

you know name names on in this context because it's so public raheem jaffer raheem jaffer for those who may or may not remember was a it was a conservative reform member of parliament elected in 1997 he was 25 years old i was elected at 24 in 2000 so i looked at raheem jaffer as a little bit of a mentor because he was a young guy elected into office and and there's a bunch of them Jason Kenney was one Rob Andrews Raheem Jaffer in the conservative movement we've had Pierre Pauly up later was one he came in in 04 so Raheem Jaffer 97 with Jason Kenney in 97 I was elected in 2004 came in uh Andrew Scheer Pierre Pauly up in a different cohort so I looked up to other young people who had been elected to sort of see what did they get right what did they get right?

What did they get wrong? How do you carry yourself as a young person? What works, what doesn't and so on. And so Raheem was really well liked. He was a really effective member of parliament. He was a good opposition critic. He was very good in media scrums. He was out there.

He was a public face of the party very often. He was deputy leader at one point. He was deputy speaker at one point, bilingual, thoughtful and all that. And then he got caught for speeding in coming out to your neck of the woods but i'll go to uh to um to southwest ontario he got caught for excessive speeding and in the search to search his car and they found cocaine in his car and that was the beginning of the end of his political career basically and um what i what was interesting to me about that was that raheem jaffer was really

well liked out of 308 members of parliament all across all parties he was probably one of the top two three four most liked most popular guys who everybody liked and would high five and talk and he was jovial and everybody liked him including the press gallery and he was going to every press gallery dinner he was the cool kid in the conservative world and all that. But the second that he screwed up, the second that he made a mistake, the knives were thrown at him. And he was, and I remember,

I remember walking out of parliament and walking down Spark Street in Ottawa and seeing multiple journalists doing streeters, like, you know, doing the end of their news piece, standing in the middle of Spark Street with a microphone and saying, you know, and that's what happened with Raheem Jaffer. And I remember like looking at literally a couple of

them and thinking you were you were out drinking with him on wednesday like like two days ago i was there and i'm walking by darcy mcgee's or going by like you got you've been friends with him for like three years i've known you know him and you guys were like best friends and laughing and all like two days ago you were drinking with this guy and you were good friends and now here you are and you threw a knife in him so fast because a young member of parliament speeding getting caught with cocaine and this guy you are standing over his body and doing a story about him and i just thought yeah it doesn't matter how good of friends you are standing over his body and doing a story about him. And I just thought, yeah, it doesn't matter how good of friends you are. The business is the business. And your editor says, do a story about this guy who is your friend.

And you've been friends with him for 10 years. And here you are just putting the knife in him. And I thought, there's a lesson. I don't want to turn this into the Raheem Jaffer show, but, you know, there was a choice for journalists at that point. You could either go with the crowd on publicly knifing him or look a little deeper into the story, which is what I did. It's not, yeah. Which is what I did because he got screwed.

He got screwed. He got screwed by the cops on that. They broke the rules on going through his car, and they eventually had to drop all the charges on the cocaine and other stuff. I think they got him for think, you know, Yeah. I mean, you know, so yeah, but, but it's what it is. And so that was kind of a lesson that the journalist did what they had to do. Cause it was a story that was out there and it was known. So the other guys are covering and we have to go, I get it. I get it.

But again, it's just kind of like, okay, so it doesn't, you know, this whole idea of like, take a journalist out to lunch, get to know them, let them see the whites of your eyes. They're likely to give you a little bit of margin in case you say something that was a little off color or whatever. No, you screw up. Doesn't matter. That's right. No.

And I think the point is that it's gotten, if that, if that happened 10% of the time when there was a story, now it's the journalists are constantly looking for the story because it's the only thing they can use to move copy. And I think that's really, that's tough on them. So I feel a lot of empathy for what they're going through, but it's politicians shouldn't, it's the, I think it was, was it Eisenhower or Truman who said, if you want a friend in Washington, get a dog. That's certainly true in general, in my experience, but it's especially

true in the relationship between journalists and politicians and political people. You can't ever forget for a single moment that nothing is really off the record. Let me just back up a little bit on this because you know it's not like politicians don't prepare themselves for this relationship and parties prepare their candidates for this relationship I mean there's a degree of media training there's advice on what to say and what not to say how to engage in in interviews Talk about that because there is a level of this involved in this story. It's not like, you know, the naive, inexperienced politician is suddenly, you know, bombarded with media, challenged them.

They are to a degree ready for this or are supposed to be ready for it. James, you went through this, I assume, a degree ready for this or are supposed to be ready for it james you went through this i assume a degree of media training yeah but media training then was like uh it was media training for earned media for interviews for scrums for sit-downs for double-enders for one-on-ones uh media training for print versus radio versus television right now i think the current generation is is media training on like how to walk and talk into a phone that's on a gimbal and that's being held by your staffers. You're walking by West Block and being really outraged by the latest liberal scandal. And my God, this is really going to hurt you, my constituents. And, you know, please like and subscribe and don't forget your $10 donation at the end. Like it's a different kind of media training, right? Because you have have because now before it was about trying to get your message like you have your base of support that you need

to keep with you and keep animated and keep exercise and then you're trying to bridge out of that and grow your current base of support and so media training was typically about messaging in a way that you're just not appealing to your base but you're broadening it to a bigger audience so that maybe they'll become part of your base. And I think media training now is about, it's about speaking to your selected audience that you've curated and grown, and you're trying to build that audience greater and greater. And it's about sort of adding, you're adding to your choir and making it bigger and bigger. And so the nomenclature, the language, the approach to it is quite a bit different. So, you know, when I was in politics and as in government, and by the way, the approach to it is quite a bit different. So, you know, when I was in politics

and as in government, and by the way, people who are in politics now, you have to do both. I didn't have to do that second part, which is sort of build your digital audience and all that because it didn't really exist. The tools weren't there. So I think current politicians have a lot. They have to do the earned media part because earned media still matters like regular daily grind of feeding the beast and being in the news cycle and and all that is is necessary but then you have you have this massive second component so i you know you talk to members of parliament now and one of the first staffers that they'll have you the first staffer you probably hire is your constituency assistant who's taking care of constituents back home and doing casework stuff and all that and the second

person that you hire is probably somebody who's just a cracker jacket, you know, turning out and just grinding out content on digital platforms and social media of you going to the local Canada Day event and you, you know, doing community events, but also, you know, trying to mirror what the leader is doing in his messages tone and his emphasis on the daily message

and applying it to the local riding and going to the local gas station because the carbon tax is doing this to this station that's impacting you and all that. So the burden of as media, traditional media collapses, you can just try to have a relationship with regular media and hope your message punches through to now developing your own universe of base support and feeding it and trying to grow it while still having the responsibility to talk to earned media. It's a lot. It's a lot. And by the way, somewhere in there, you're also still supposed to have a family, be a good member of parliament, read some books, be thoughtful and network and do all this stuff, fundraise and all that. So the burden on members of parliament to stay relevant in this media environment is pretty massive. Jerry?

Yeah, I think that's a great point. You know, I had two stints in politics. One was pre-social media and one was post-social media. And they could not, it was almost like doing, it was almost like two different professions completely. This is a true story. I remember the last strategic communications meeting I chaired in Premier Dalton McGinty's office in June of 2008.

One of the items on the agenda was, should the premier have a Twitter handle? Think about that for a second. And then five years later, when I got back into politics, we basically ran the Trudeau leadership campaign from social media. And that changed the posture that, to get to your direct question, Peter, back into politics, we basically ran the Trudeau leadership campaign from social media. And that changed the posture that, to get to your direct question, Peter, I think that changed the posture that politicians and politicos have toward journalists, that whereas they were once essential to get your message out, and they were essential in a way that you needed to be wary because they were at best and they were not going to just echo whatever it was you said, nor should they. Now they were kind of secondary.

And, you know, Michelle Rempel probably reaches more people with her substack than she ever will from doing a scrum in the House of Commons. So they're seen as a distraction now by political people more than as a necessary often evil, as James put it, to kick us off. What has this done to the information flow? You know, Joe Q or Mary Q Public in terms of their information used to be garnered by what they read in the papers, saw on television, heard on the radio? I think people should, and people probably come to you all the time, Peter,

and I have this conversation with people often, is just as we were, it's common to ask people to say, you know, what are the last two good movies you saw? Give me a television series that you're seeing right now because, you know, the old three last two good movies you saw? Give me a television series that you're seeing right now because, you know, the old three-channel model and cable is sort of broken down. We have all these streaming services and say, what's a good series out there? Because I've got some time this summer. I'm thinking about sort of binging a couple series when I'm away at the cottage or whatever. So, what do you watch that's good? I think people should have that, start having that same conversation about what's your news flow? How do you get where do you get your news and how do you get it?

And I think in this sort of era of creative destruction now, as people are taking in information, people who are informed and people are seen to be informed by their by their networks and spheres of influence, either professionally and socially and family. I think people should not be shy and get in the habit of asking people as we're now curating things differently of saying where do you get your news and you know if you're if you're just clicking on to you know globe and mail or cbc or whatever and you're kind of stuck where you were five years ago you're missing an ocean of content that's really fascinating and really interesting and whether like to jerry's point whether it's sub stack i mean i have a whole list on youtube i've subscribed to youtube now by the way in my, the best streaming service that you can get for the, for the money in terms of it's improving the quality of experience, I think it's five or $10 a month for YouTube. And I've got massive channels of news and content and speeches and lectures and people that I like in editorial opinion and news

and sports and all kinds of stuff, technology that I follow. And it's all curated and listen, and I can just sit and you can listen to the audio only or video only, whatever. And then I have my traditional news sources and all that. So it's my long way of saying that people, we should start having open dialogues and people should talk to people about and be not shy about asking about how do you get your flow of information? Because it's not going to be six o'clock news, 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock news, paper in the morning, radio on the way to work in the car. That era is over and you're missing so much content out there that's really interesting. You know, either thoughtful, learned, engaged opinion or outraged stuff or funny stuff,

you know, with, you know, the Jon Stewart version, but there's right wing versions of Jon Stewart and all that. And, but there's so much out there that animates the brain and makes you think about news in a different way. But you just, we just have to start having real open conversations about it, just like we do the most recent Netflix series or Apple TV plus series. I think it's, it's important. I think that's a great point, James. And I think the information environment is richer than it ever has been. It's hard to curate and it's hard to find things that you can consistently rely on over time. But I also think, you know, this is not, this is the, this is the bridge. It's not the rest is history. Uh, but, uh, I think it's important to realize that the relatively stable

media environment that we spent much of our careers in was itself kind of an aberration. If you look at, if you take a longer view of the history that when the telegraph was invented which really created it's why we call the ap wire the ap wire it's still called a wire service because it goes back to the invention of the telegraph when a bunch of largely new york newspapers got together and decided that they would get their feed from one source instead of having to send reporters to cover the Civil War or whatever it was in the mid-19th century in the United States. And that itself made newspapers proliferate along party lines. Why are so many newspapers

in the United States called the Republic or the Democrat? They're called that because they were born to be organs for a partisan point of view of the world. And then I would argue in the last 20 years, we're kind of getting back to that after a relatively long period, call it post Watergate, where journalists were suddenly the heroes of the story. And they were the people who were bringing the, quote-unquote, objective truth to the masses. But that's a relatively short period of time, and it's not what journalists did for most of the time we've had journalism as we recognize it. And honestly, I think that I often say that people are subjects, they're not objects. And the myth of the objective journalist who doesn't have a perspective or a bias is just not, you know, it's not true. And that doesn't mean that they carry a partisan viewpoint, but all of us have biases as humans.

And to pretend that we don't is, I think, as dangerous to democracy as the other extreme. I like to say that, you know, journalists try to avoid bias, but they're not neutered at birth. I mean, they, in fact, do have feelings and opinions, which they try to filter out of doing their job. I do want to get back to the opening anecdote I had, because as much as you've both provided real context of the kind of position and state of the business that we're in right now, I do think that opening anecdote is worthy of some discussion, because I also think it's part of the sort of training that politicians go through, either directly or indirectly, and it ends up kind of destroying, to some degree, the message out there in terms of trying to understand issues. So we'll do that, but first we'll take a quick break.

We'll be right back after this. And welcome back. You're listening to The Bridge, the Moorbutts Conversation number 16, I think we're at right now. We've had some great ones over time. This is the last one before the summer break. You're listening on SiriusXM, Channel 167, Canada Talks, or on your favorite podcast platform.

We started this conversation with this anecdote from Britain where there was a hassle and argument between a journalist and a politician who was running for office about not answering a pretty straightforward yes or no question. And it happened over and over and over again until finally the aides to the politician kind of pulled the politician aside, and that was the end of it. They never did get the answer.

But I think we can all point to interviews that we've seen where this kind of thing happens, where for some reason or other the politician has decided that they don't want to answer the question. And they try to camouflage that with some other answer, and hopefully the journalists will just move on. But increasingly, at least to my eye and ear, the challenge is staying on the table

to the point where the journalist won't let it go. So what's happened here? Do you see this in some ways the same way that I am, that this is happening more often now, journalists, as some viewers will say, get a spine, challenge them, make them answer the question? Do you think that's happening more now? And if so, why? James, start us off here.

Probably because we consume so much content, you know BS when you see it a mile away. We've all seen, you know, Prince Andrew try to answer questions and talk about, well, I don't sweat. And like, we've all seen the memes and the answers, you know, you know, we've all seen the good and the bad. We've all seen really sincere moments of somebody being interviewed before the start of American Idol talking about their family. Or we've seen like little snippets of interviews where people are on the red carpet and they talk about how impactful um a director was to their career or a little kid on you know

going into their you know grade six graduation and talking about their mom like so we've seen the sincere we know what it looks like we know what it feels like and so you so the insincere pops it's like it's why you hold a diamond over a black velvet is for the contrast so we've seen because we consume so much media we know what good looks like we know what honest looks like and so the dishonest or the spin or the garbage it screams at you and you see it right away and so for you know this week uh or last week uh you know jagmeet singh had a really bad scrum he had a really bad moment right where he's a really bad moment, right, where he's, you know, media are asking him about this report on foreign interference. And they ask him, say, why would you support the Liberal government if the Liberal government is as bad as you say they

are? And he effectively says, well, the real question is, what do we do from now? It's like, no, no, no, no, that's not the real, the real question was the real question I actually just asked. So, and he sort of pauses a little bit of deer in headlights. maintains his demeanor he stays calm which rule number one always stay calm never look like you're panicked because you feed the beast so he stays calm and he says well you know i you know yeah i hear what you're saying but the real question that i think canadian it's no that's not the real the real and so around and around we go so i think the the risk for politicians getting back to your question is is that because we all consume so much content and like we just swipe our thumb and we're going literally going through just dozens and dozens and dozens of of real and bad moments of politicians

and journalists and athletes and actors and everybody where we see the really really good and they're really really sincere and they're really really bad that you if you're not being honest people notice it straight away it does not take long sure yeah i think it is happening more often and i think it's because journalists are becoming uh part of the story more often than they used to and in my view that it's you very seldom see just the clip of the person answering the question. Everybody's got to be in asking the question these days because again, it drives the personal brand of the journalist and that allows him or her to create more stickiness with his or her viewers and it allows them to make more money in the end. That's what I think most people think of journalism these days. And it's combat is, it's a great, it's a great way to do to set that dynamic in motion. I think it's,

you know, I think it's really funny. It's kind of quaint and old fashioned, that we think, well, they should answer that question. A whole generation of politicians have now basically questioned the, as Herb Gray used to say very politely in the House of Commons, I question the premise of that assertion or whatever it was he used to say. Most politicians don't feel like they have to answer journalists' questions anymore, right? than they would have been a generation ago, just saying, well, I know you can ask me whatever question that you want to ask me, but I'm going to answer what I'm going to say what I want to say. And I'm going to use this occasion as an opportunity to get my message out. I don't take seriously this fiction that you're here asking me questions on behalf of the Canadian public anymore, because I don't believe in it. And that has ruptured the relation,

the traditional relationship between politicians and journalists. And I'm not sure it ever gets put back together in quite the way it was, Peter. You know, the Trump era has obviously had an impact on this relationship well beyond just the US. But, you know, I bring up another example because I think it's a pretty interesting one.

George Stephanopoulos, who's a host at ABC, but is, of course, formerly has a political background. He worked for Bill Clinton in the White House in the 90s. But he's a major anchor at ABC, and he has, among other shows, he has a Sunday morning show, which is kind of the premier political space for most networks. And in the last month or so, he has started an interesting tactic. He'll have a number of guests on,

and if they don't answer the question that he's asking, which is usually a yes or no answer question. He says, that's it. I'm not talking to you any longer. You know, you can leave now. I have no more questions for you if you're not able to answer this. And most of the questions are, not all of them, but most of them seem to be directed at Republicans of some sort.

And the question revolves around Trump. And it revolves around whether or not the last election was valid or not. And so the question is simply, do you believe in the results of the 2020 election? And so they fudge it, right? They don't say, no, I don't, or yes, I do. They fudge it. And he'll fudge it, right? They don't say, no, I don't. Or yes, I do. They fudge it. And he'll ask again and again and again. And then finally you'll say, that's it. I'm, you know, you're out of here. I don't want to talk to you any longer. Um, and he said, you know,

he's been challenged about this, uh, process and he says, I, I just can't deal with it anymore. And I'm not going to deal with it anymore. What do you make of that? James, go ahead. Yeah, I would say a couple of things. One is George Stephanopoulos is at sort of a moment in his career where he doesn't care. He's got the money. He doesn't really matter.

And he's just sort of decided. One. Two is I think he also has just sort of come to the realization that very few people, I mean, he probably sits down with somebody and does, you know, a 17 minute interview that gets trimmed and curated down to about a five and a half, four and a half minute interview. And so there's a lot that's left on the floor anyway. So if you're going to do all that, you're, you're, you're better. And also very few people in his, in his viewing audience are viewing it on traditional media platforms where

they kind of sit down, you know, sit through the ad up next is our interview with, you know, defense secretary the ad up next is our interview with, you know, defense secretary James Mattis, or, and you sit there and then out comes the interview. And then people sit there and watch the beginning, the middle and the end and the rise and the tension. And like, that's not, people are going to watch a clip on a, on a, on a device in their hand. And so if the interview lasts 17 minutes and it's curated down to four and a half, or if it lasts three minutes and it's curated down to 30 and a half, or if it lasts three minutes and it's curated down to 30 seconds because the guy walks off, well, then there's a little bit more ad space

and a little bit more context to add in after the interview is over and you air it on your platform to talk about what happened and why you did what you did. But now you've got your nine second clip that's being pumped out over all social media. And now people are talking about George Stephanopoulos for the first time in 10 years. And that's good. That's a good strategy to get your brand out there. Right. So, so I think there's more of that. I think it's just recognizing that, you know, long form interviews of five or 10 minutes, that's it's dying in terms of a business model. It's not dying in terms of its value, but, but if you want to stay relevant and you want a new generation of people who don't remember, you know, young, spunky George Stephanopoulos of 1992 in the war room documentary but they see this older guy with gray hair who's really thoughtful

but kind of boring because he you know but now he's cool again because he's confronting the maga world um so for his audience he's maybe decided to sort of walk away from a cohort of uh perspective audience members who will now think that he's just a left-wing guy but he'll say that's fine but the man now my audience likes me even more and they're about to they'll stick around and buy more t-shirts and that's that's good for business like i just think sorry james i think what you're hearing in both of our voices peter is and it's coming through loud and clear at least in my night i think I tell me if I can't speak for you on this, James, it's suspension and disbelief is just gone. Like we don't political people no

longer believe that journalists carry around some sort of special public purpose and that they, and I think that there's, there are lots of good journalists out there that don't want to pick on journalists, but the practice itself is not, it doesn't have the same special dynamic in many professions, as the esteem in which the profession is held has eroded. Ironically, the reaction of the people still in the profession is to bend and break the rules more often, because they're trying to grab a bigger share of a smaller audience. What do I think about what George Stephanopoulos is doing? I think James said this very diplomatically. I'll say it really bluntly. I think it's a narcissistic self-regard.

And who cares what George Stephanopoulos thinks about whether or not a Republican senator or a secretary of defense or a presidential aspirant will answer exactly his question in exactly the way he constructed it. As my grade six, one of my favorite teachers used to say, who screwed God's face on you? Like, why does he get to decide ultimately to be the judge, juror, and executioner of what constitutes legitimate public information? Like, screw him. That's the way I would feel if I were on the receiving end, that kind of tactic. But if the issue is as simple as the person he's talking to won't answer a pretty simple, straightforward question. Does he not have the right to say, OK, well, you know, there's not much point in carrying on this interview? Yeah, but I think this question is a great example. Right.

So the fact that most Republicans will not answer that question is deeply interesting and revealing about the state of American politics right now. And if I were conducting that interview, I would try and explore that. I wouldn't simply say, if you don't answer this question, it's another notch in my belt or whatever, and I can kick you off my show. And then I can go on my Instagram feed or page and tell an Instagram story about how I stood up to, as James put it, magnation. If he's seriously, if his primary concern is to get valuable information out there to his audience, then he should be exploring that very rich topic. Why is it that Donald Trump has such a hold over the Republican Party that otherwise right-thinking people will say things they know to be untrue in order to

stay within his favor? That's a really rich topic. It is. Okay. We're running out of time here, so let me boil it down to one last question. Because you've both come across as not great defenders of journalism as it is today, and many journalists aren't either. So you're not alone on that. But the common theme or belief has always been that journalism is an important pillar of democracy. In its current state, is it still so? I would say, and I think it's a bit of hubris with respect, accountability and transparency are key pillars of democracy. It gets dressed up as journalism because traditionally that's maybe how we've known it, but accountability and transparency are really what we're talking about. And so

journalism is like saying, do you believe in journalism? That wasn't quite your question, but when one asks, you know, how important is journalism and what do you think of the status of journalism? It's sort of like saying, well, what do you think of the status of sports? Well, what sport? Amateur, professional, hockey, football, baseball, Olympics, you know, what are we talking about? And the truth is, it's a mixed bag, right? A lot of journalism, quote, is doing really, really well. Opinionated stuff that's driven, that's focused, that's agendized, that feeds an audience, that pushes for a certain perspective or is obsessed about an issue set that drives that. So it's doing really, really well. You know, if you want a diversity of that sort of siloed opinion and you kind of

curate a universe for yourself, we kind of can take in a bunch of different stuff, whether it's left or right or issue focused or regional focused or whatever. There's a lot out there. There's a lot out there that you can take in and get some get some diversity of stuff. But, you know, when I remember like stepping up to a microphone and you see quotes journalists standing in front of you to interview you as a politician, you know, you sort of pan from left to right and you look around and you don't see journalists. You see, well, she writes for the Devoir. I know she's a separatist. I know she doesn't believe in Canada. And I'm out here talking about Canada's 150th birthday and the program that we have. So nothing I say to her is going to be really popular, going to come out right. And then, oh, there's a guy from the rebel

over there. Well, he's going to come at me and attack me because he's trying to feed an audience about how bad the CBC is. And I'm the minister of heritage. And that's what this can be. And then, oh, there's a reporter over there who kind of doesn't really care. But I know that he just doesn't like me because he thinks that I'm arrogant or rude or whatever and abrasive. And so he's not going to cover anything that I say, but if I screw up, he might ask me a question about what's happening with another cabinet minister who was having a problem with their file.

He's probably going to lob one in to sort of see if I contradict that minister and then feed that into that story. That's why he's standing here, to try to get me to see if I'll contradict the prime minister. So those are the three journalists I'm talking to. So am I talking to journalism and the people holding me accountable? Or am I talking to three people

who have very different perspectives, who are all there to throw knives at me from different angles? So, you know, so you're standing there as a politician doing a scrum, who are you talking to? You're talking to three, three individuals who have specific audiences and agendas, a separatist masquerading as a national journalist, a rebel media person who's trying to feed in some more T-shirts to a Freedom Cruise. And then somebody over here who's trying to get me to embarrass a colleague of mine. Who am I? Am I talking to a bunch of journalists or who am I talking to? And by the way, it's all streamed on CPAC and it's being digitally archived forever. So if I screw up in any event, you know, the person in my local newspaper will put it on the Coquitlam Now website as, oh, our local member of parliament did a bad job of whatever.

So the status of journalism, I mean, let's be honest about what we're dealing with here, right? It's about transparency and accountability. And that's not the agenda of journalists always, in spite of what journalists often think of themselves. I'm amazed you ever even went up to the microphones knowing what was out there ready for you. Okay, Jerry, you get the last word. Well, Peter, let the record show that we answered your question. Whether people, what do politicians and politicos really think of journalists? Whatever people think of our answer,

they can't accuse us of not answering your question. I agree with James. I think it's, you see this with politicians and parties all the time, that they confuse the overall health of their democracy with the health of their political careers. And it's the same thing with journalists, that journalism is the best approximation we had in a historically time bound period to achieve mass market accountability and transparency. Journalism does not own those concepts. Right. the centrality of traditional, as many people call it, the dreaded mainstream media, and the breakdown of the mainstream media as the sole proprietor of that territory. And I personally, I think it's a really disruptive thing. It's happened a bunch of times in history. I mentioned the telegraph. The same thing happened when the radio was invented. The same thing happened when television was invented. And the same thing happened now that the internet's been invented

and people have much more direct and multivariate means of receiving their information. A period of chaos ensues and then stability will come after it. But I don't think that, you know, I kind of think it's a bit laughable really to think that journalists are the only way that the public can achieve accountability and transparency in public affairs. Well, as it always has been ever since we started this little series, it's been a fascinating conversation. I appreciate the time that you've both given to it, and I'm hoping that you both have a great summer,

and I look forward to talking to you again in the fall. It's always a pleasure, Peter. And I should say, before we go, I subscribe to a ton of different newspapers and news outlets. I'm not one of those people that hopes it all goes away. I probably am in the top 0.1% of holding subscription, the subscription holders in Canada. There you go do you want to say anything

to that james no i i subscribe as well uh and it's important as i mentioned i've subscribed to youtube mostly for the news content and all that as well but yeah i know you have to you know you get what you pay for there's good quality stuff out there and if you don't know and if you're listening to this podcast by the way you're you're part of the universe of people who are searching out and and uh you know ask others and say you know what what fills your day and what fills your brain and what keeps you curious and there's tons of good stuff out there journalism is uh journalism is shifting and i think in a in a in a actually in a in a very interesting and and thoughtful way if you seek it out. Amen. Thank you both. Well, there you have it.

More Butts, conversation number 16. And as I said near the end there, we've been lucky to have these conversations over the last, it's a couple of years now. And we try to touch on things that are of interest at the time in terms of that, in this case, the relationship between the media and the politicians. But as you go through the various conversations we've had,

we've touched on a lot of different subjects. And this summer, we begin our hiatus next week, as has been mentioned. And there will be a weekly encore edition on Wednesdays through the summer. And we're going to run all of the More Buds conversations from this year. So there have been a half a dozen or eight, I think, of those conversations. So starting next week, that's what you're going to hear on the encore editions. And they're well worth it.

Even if you've heard them before, they are really quite thought-provoking. Don't have to agree with them all, obviously. And sometimes, you know, Jerry and James don't agree with each other. They did quite a bit on this one, which is interesting because that relationship is so critical, the politician-media relationship is so critical

to the way we tend to, or at least have tended, to understand politics in Canada. So I hope you have an opportunity through the summer To listen to some of the encores I'm looking forward to it Tomorrow is our regular Wednesday encore edition Back Thursday with your turn And the final installment of the best Canadian song

We had so many different entries Well closed off, we closed off the entry list last Friday. So if you've responded since then, it's not going to make it on the program. But Thursday we'll have the second half. We'll also post all the choices on our website, thepetermansbridge.com, where we've posted a number of these contests over time. And you seem to have enjoyed going to those lists, Best Canadian Place to Visit, Best Canadian Book. There's all kinds of things on there that point to Canada, right?

And your choices on the Canadian lists that we've come up with. So this Thursday, the final installment of the Best Canadian Song, and we'll also give you a review of who got the most votes, all of that. That's this Thursday, plus the Random Ranters last rant before the summer break.

Friday, it's good talk, and we'll tend to wrap things up with a particular focus on next week's by-election that will take place in the riding of Toronto St. Paul's and is critical, many people think, to the future, certainly of the Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, but to the Liberal Party as a whole. It's a long time held Liberal seat. What's going to happen?

Okay, that's it for this day. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for listening. It's been a treat giving you this program all along, and especially a treat hosting the More Butts conversations. Talk to you again in about 24 hours.