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

Episode Date: November 27, 2024

An encore of today's topic revolves around the relationship between politicians and reporters.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. It's the summer of 2025, and that means our encore special Wednesdays will continue through the summer, focusing on some of the best programs we had in the past year. And that past year has changed, right? At the beginning of the year, Justin Trudeau was prime minister. The liberals were in government. Well, today, the liberals are still in government,

but it's a different prime minister, Mark Carney. So some of the things changed as a result of that but some of the topics are still incredibly relevant. Hope you enjoy this edition of our summer repeat series. 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 Buntz. 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 nonpartisan 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 Moore Butts. 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 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 went back and forth back and forth and then one of the candidates aid stepped in said no you've gone beyond what our agreement is and the reporters 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, 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 always necessary, not 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 is 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. 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, 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 a question period, you defend the government's position or you defend the choices that you've made as a minister, you talk to, you do your thing in question period, you would, you know, 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. But 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 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 out 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'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 Jerry'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? Not in those words.

Does that ever happen because you get the sense that most of them are kind of cheerleaders, right? 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 up, so did I do it? Okay. But you know when you screwed up, you come, kind of come out, you go, I didn't do it. I didn't get it right, did I? Or you say, they go, well, it was good in French. Or they'll say, well, we'll fix it in the blues. The blues are the actual transcripts of a promoter.

I said, and I would just say, do I need to go out and scrub and fix it or take another run at it? They'll go, yeah, because you want to put this part first instead of second and just really emphasize that. We'll do a one-on-one with the one journalist who really cares about this. We won't expose you to everybody and multiply the story, et cetera. So you kind of tactically handle it, but 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 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 politics, 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 with each other. But it seems at times that the politician is like overly defensive or feeling 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, 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, 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 shivving 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 people may think Bob Fife is a bad person. I don't happen to be one of them, but they recognize the kind of journalism that Bob Fife practices. So when they see him, when they see his team come up on their phone, they're like, this can't be good news for me. And it's not personal to Bob Fife. It's just the way that he does reporting. And it's the way most journalistic outlets have gone as the business models 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 news, because I think it's kind of vanished. On the government side, you asked the question broadly, Peter, and it's a good way to start it. But what's the reputation of journalists? Well, as a cohort, there's a general view about,

as Jerry said, treat them cautiously, recognize that 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, 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.

So I think it's individual assessments, and then there's good, bad, and ugly on the political side and government side, right? So I think it's individual assessments and then there's sort of matchmaking. One of my epiphany moments was, you know, name names in this context because it's so public, Rahim Jaffer. Rahim Jaffer, for those who may or may not remember, 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 there was a bunch of them. Jason Kenney was one, Rob Anders, Raheem Jaffer. In the conservative movement,

we've had Pierre Poliev later was one, he came in 04. So Raheem Jaffer in 97, Jason Kenney in 97, I was elected in 2004, came in, Andrew Scheer, Pierre Poliev in a different cohort. So I looked up to other young people who had been elected to sort of came in, Andrew Scheer, probably having 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 wrong, how do you carry yourself as a young person, what works, what doesn't and so on. And so Rahim 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 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, I'll go back to Southwest Ontario. He got caught for excessive speeding and in the search term searched his car and they found cocaine in his car. And that was the beginning of the end of his political career basically. And that was the beginning of the end of his political career, basically.

And what was interesting to me about that was that Raheem Jaafar was really well liked. Out of 308 members of parliament 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 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, that's what happened with Raheem Jaffer. And I remember like looking at literally a couple of them and thinking, you were out drinking with him on Wednesday. Like two days ago, I was there and I'm walking by Darcy McGee's or going by by, like 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. 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 there was a choice for journalists at that point. You could either go with the crowd on publicly uniting him or look a little deeper into the story, which is what I did. It's not.

Yeah. It's 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. But again, I think, you know, there's speed. Yeah. I mean, you know, so yeah, but it's what it is.

And so that was kind of a lesson. Like the journalist did what they had to do because it was a story that was out then it was known. So the other guys are covering it. We have to go. I get it. I get it. But again, it's just kind of like, okay, so doesn't 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, if you screw up. It doesn't matter. That's right. No, and I think the point is that it's gotten, 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 politicians shouldn't, I think it was 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 all, 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, let me just back up a little bit on this

because 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 interviews. Talk about that because there is a level of this involved in this story. It's not like the naive, inexperienced politician is suddenly 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 of media training. Yeah, but media training then was like, it was media training for earned media, for interviews, for scrums, for sit downs, for double-enders, for one-on-ones,

media training for print versus radio versus television. Now, I think the current generation is media training on 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 a West block and being really outraged by the latest liberal scandal. And my God, this is really going to hurt you, my constituents. And 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, 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 it 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 the approach to it is quite a bit different. So, you know, when I was in politics and as in government, you used 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 all that is necessary. But then you have this massive second component. So you talk to members of parliament now, and one of the first staffers that they'll

have, 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 earn media. It's a lot. It's a lot. 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 the 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. 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, I guess it was 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, 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 secondary and Michelle Rempel probably reaches more people with their sub stack 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. Well, 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 on television heard on the radio.

I think people, I think people should and we should have 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 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, um,

sort of binging a couple of 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 that? 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 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 if you're just clicking onto 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 Substack, I mean, I have a whole list on YouTube. I've subscribed to YouTube now, by the way,

in my view, the best streaming service that you can get 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 and 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. Either thoughtful, learned, engaged opinion or outraged stuff or funny stuff, 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 the bridge, it's not the rest is history. But 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, that'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, you know, 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, right? Like, 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 tried 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, 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 More Buts Conversation Number 16, I think we're at right now. We've got 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 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, you know, AIDS to the politician kind of pulled the politician aside and that was the end of it. They never did get the answer, but it, 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 journalists 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, you know 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 the, we've consumed so much content you know BS when you see it a mile away. We've all seen Prince Andrew try to answer questions and talk about, well, I don't sweat. We've all seen the memes and the answers. 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've seen like little snippets of interviews where people are on the red carpet and they talk about how impactful 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 it like so we've seen this since here we know what it looks like we know what it it feels like. And so the insincere pops. 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 this week or last week, Jagmeet Singh had a really bad scrum. He had a really bad moment, right? Where he's, you know, media asking him about this report

on foreign interference and they ask him, so 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? He's like, no, no, no, no, that's not the real question. Was the real question actually just asked? So, and he He'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.

He 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 hear what you're saying, but the real question that I think Canadian, it's a no, that's not the real, the real question.

And so around and around we go. So I think the risk for politicians, getting back to your question is, is that because we all consume so much content and it's like we just swipe our thumb and we're going, literally going through just dozens and dozens and dozens of real and bad moments of politicians and journalists and athletes and actors

and everybody where we see the really, really good and the really, really sincere and the really, really bad that if you're not being honest, people notice it straight away. It does not take long. Yeah. I think it is happening more often. And I think it's because journalists are becoming a 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. It's combat, it's a great way to set that dynamic in motion. I think it's really funny. It's 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 questioned 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? And they're much more comfortable 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 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. Most of the questions are, not all of them, but most of them seem to be directed at Republicans of some sort. The question revolves around Trump, and it revolves around whether or not the last election was valid or not. 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 ask again, and again, and again. And then finally, you say, that's it. You're out of here. I don't want to talk to you any longer. And he's been challenged about this process. And he says, 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 didn'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's also, he's just sort of come to the. Two is I think he's also, he's just sort of come to the realization that very few people, I mean, he probably sits down with somebody and does 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 gonna do all that, you're better, and also very few people in his viewing audience are viewing it on traditional media platforms where they kind of sit down, sit through the ad, up next is our interview with, Defense Secretary James Mattis, or 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 gonna watch a clip on a device in their hand. And so if the interview lasts 17 minutes and it's curated down to 4 and 1 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 of 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 I think there's more of that. I think it's just recognizing that, long form interviews of five or 10 minutes, it's dying in terms of a business model. It's not dying in terms of its value. But if you wanna stay relevant

and you want a new generation of people who don't remember 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, but now he's cool again because he's confronting the MAGA world. So for his audience, he's maybe decided to sort of walk away from a cohort of prospective audience members who will now think that he's just a left-wing guy. But he'll say, that's fine. But 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 it's a great story. 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 mind, I think, tell me if I can't speak for you on this, James. It's suspension and disbelief has just gone. Like we don't, political people no longer believe that journalists carry around some sort of special public purpose. And I think that there are lots of good journalists

out there that don't want to pick on journalists, but the practice itself, it doesn't have the same special status as it used to as the only way you could get public information out to average citizens. And because of that, as that has eroded, it's a familiar 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, okay, well, you know, there's not much point in carrying on this interview? Sure, he has that right. 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, imagination. 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. Okay. We're running out of time here. So let me roll 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 is our 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 how important is journalism and what do you believe in journalism? That's not what 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 agend 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 diversity of stuff. But you know, what 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 Devois. 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. They're 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 they just didn't like me because he thinks that I'm arrogant or rude or whatever

and abrasive. And so he's not, 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 ministry 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 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. Am I talking to a bunch of journalists or who am I talking to? By the way, it's all streamed on CPAC and it's being digitally archived forever. If I screw up in any event, the person in my local newspaper will put it on the Coquitlam Now website as, you know, oh, our local member of parliament did a bad job of whatever. So, you know, 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 with 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. What do politicians and politicals 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 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. 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? And what you're seeing develop is a breakdown in the centrality of traditional, as many people call it, the dreaded mainstream media,

in the breakdown of the mainstream media as the sole proprietor of that territory. I personally, I think it's a really disruptive thing. It's happened a bunch of times in history. 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 and 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 look forward to talking 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 holders in Canada. There you go. Do you want to say anything to that, James?

No, I subscribe as well. And it's important, as I mentioned, I subscribe 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, 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, journalism is shifting. And I think in a, in a, in a, actually in a, in a very interesting 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 couple of years now. 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 that was another from our Summer of 2025 Repeat Series of our programs from 2024, the fall, and the winter and the spring of 2025. I'm Peter Mansbridge.

I hope you're enjoying the summer. We'll talk to you again soon.