The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - The Lesson of Roger Mudd

Episode Date: March 11, 2021

Young journalists probably have no idea who Roger Mudd was.,  Here's why they should remember him.Also, how to deal with vaccine hesitancy.  Why health reporters deserve our thanks.  And a 91-year old cop? 

Hello there, it's Peter Mansbridge here. You are just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. It's Thursday, that means potpourri, and boy have we got a lot to potpourri. Yes, hello, Peter Mansbridge here on what we around the bridge call week 52. 52 weeks since the bridge went daily with its coverage of COVID-19. It was one year ago this week, as I'm sure you're tired of hearing on all the different broadcasts and podcasts and telecasts and you name it this week, as I'm sure you're tired of hearing on all the different broadcasts and podcasts and telecasts and you name it this week, that it's an anniversary of sorts when we really started to go into lockdown as a result of this virus that has gone around the world.

It's still there. It's still very evident, although there are lots of reasons to feel more optimistic right now, obviously, than we did a year ago because of the vaccines that are available for them in Canada have been approved for use. Three of them are already at play. And the fourth one, J&J Johnson & Johnson, should be along soon. It's just a supply issue. Anyway, we're not going to talk about COVID, at least initially on the Thursday, Pope Reed Day. We're going to talk about something else. I've been thinking the last little while about a day where I was sitting in the pew of a church

in downtown Toronto in the late spring. I think it was June of 1996. I was there for a funeral. The church was barely one-third full, which really surprised me because the person we were honoring was a rock star, a Canadian rock star, not of musical fame, but just a big name who had made that name on a number of different stages. He was of incredible good looks. His nickname was Gorgeous George. He'd been a star student and a star athlete at the University of Toronto.

He graduated U of T, he spent some time at Cambridge University, and then he went to the Royal Military College. He went into the Army. On the athletic field. He played for the Toronto Argonauts, won the Grey Cup in 1938. So this guy was a big name. Then he went into the army,

and he was a hero in the Second World War. Now, when his regiment was in a terrible battle against the Germans, I think it was in the Scheldt, lost his commander. And the person who was then named the kind of interim commander, to the point where gorgeous George stepped forward and said, I'll command, and he did. He was also injured, and eventually was sent back to Canada to deal with his wounds. He then went into politics, selected as a member of parliament, ended up in cabinets, both in the Diefenbaker years and the Mulroney years.

This guy had an incredibly distinguished record. Were there controversies? Oh, yeah. But they were the kind of controversies that even made his name bigger. He was caught up in the spy sex scandal known as the Gerda Munsinger affair in the 1960s. So there he was. He had covered the landscape in terms of his name being well-known and well-liked. He was well-liked by all members of parliament.

He and Pierre Trudeau used to have this, you know, great back and forth in the House of Commons quite often during question period. And you could tell both these guys really liked each other, admired each other. In fact, Trudeau, in one campaign, I think it was 68, might have been 74, Trudeau decided, I could win that guy's riding.

So I'll go in there, and they helicoptered into some, like a picnic or something. And who's there to meet him? At the Liberal Party picnic but our friend gorgeous George was there he stood there and welcomed Pierre Trudeau to my riding he had a flare now if you haven't guessed already then I should tell you. We're talking about George Heese. Incredibly good looking guy, right? Had the Hollywood style. Had like a touch of Clark Gable. He had it all.

And he had an incredible life. So there I was in the church, barely one-third full, saying goodbye to George Heese. I'd met him a couple of times. I'd covered him. He'd been extremely kind to me. We'd talked many times over the years. And I was sad to see him go. He'd lived a very full life.

But he was only 85 when he died. I couldn't understand why the church wasn't full. But I've come to realize over time that the older you are when you pass away, the less you're remembered by those who are around. By 1996, the He's days in Ottawa were well gone, well past. And many of the journalists of that day didn't know him, didn't remember him, wasn't part of their history book. And you see these kind of things

through various professions. And it's, you know, sad in a way. I was sad that day because I thought the country had let this guy down by not being there. But I've seen many occasions that are similar to that

over the years since. So why am I talking about George Heese today? Well, I remembered that story when I heard the news this week that Roger Mudd had died. Roger Mudd had died. Roger Mudd was 93 when he passed away. An American journalist.

Another incredibly good looking guy. Looked like he was cut out of a rock. He was a hard-nosed journalist. Believed in hard news and challenging interviews, accountability interviews. When Walter Cronkite decided he was going to step down, the decision came down to two people as to who would succeed him. Would it be Dan Rather, CBS journalist who'd made his name coming out of the Kennedy assassination in 1963, being a local reporter in Texas,

and knew how to promote himself? There's no question about that. Still does. Dan Rather or Roger Mudd? The hard-nosed, much-loved journalists. Well, in the end,

they chose Dan Rather. And Roger Mudd and the Roger Mudd fans who are legion, especially inside CBS, were very disappointed. And so Roger kind of moved around a bit. He stayed at CBS for a while. Then he went to NBC, where he was a sometimes anchor of the nightly news, filling in for different people, doing some of his own shows.

Then he went to the History Channel where he was their main anchor for the History Channel. But his moment had been that moment when Cronkite stepped down and it didn't work out for him. But his moment in journalism will always be remembered for something that was, in many ways, so simple that it stood out in its simplicity and still does all these days later and is a lesson to every journalist who ever does an interview. Keep it simple.

The year was 1979. They were approaching the 1980 U.S. presidential elections. Jimmy Carter was president, and there was a lot of dissatisfaction within his Democratic Party about his leadership. And a third and final Kennedy brother was making the decision that he would run for president. The oldest brother, Joe Kennedy Jr., who had been destined to be the president, according

to his father. Joe Kennedy was killed in the Second World War. He was a flyer. He was with the U.S. Air Force. So that left John Kennedy, who ended up running for the presidential nomination and winning it in 1960 and becoming president, defeating Richard Nixon. But Kennedy, as you know, was assassinated in 1963 in Dallas, Texas.

So then it fell to the third brother, Bobby Kennedy, who decided in 1968 he would run against an incumbent Democratic president who stepped out of the race, Lyndon Johnson. And Bobby Kennedy had just won the California primary and looked like he was destined to become the nominee and quite possibly the next president of the United States. When he too was gunned down by an assassin's bullet, Sirhan Sirhan, in California, literally minutes after accepting the victory in California. So that left just one more brother who could fulfill that ambition and goal of the father, that his sons would be presidents.

So Teddy Kennedy decided in late 1979 that he would run for the nomination in 1980. And he decided that he would unveil this decision in an interview with Roger Mudd on CBS. So they sat down across from each other, a conventional one-on-one style. And much anticipation around this interview. There's no doubt that Kennedy Mystique was alive and well, even though Teddy Kennedy had had his problems, Chap Aquitic to name one of them.

But much anticipation. So what was going to happen in this interview? So Roger Mudd looks at Ted Kennedy, who was a senator at that point, and he says, Senator, why do you want to be President of the United States? That's it. That was the question. Very simple, very straightforward. Now, I've told you before, for me, the most telling thing in any interview is when you ask the question, the length of the pause, if there is one, that the person you're interviewing has after the question. In other words, they're having to think before they give the answer. Now, one would assume that a question as simple as that, why do you want to be president of the United States,

would be something that Ted Kennedy and his numerous aides would have given serious thought to. Because it was bound to come up in some form. Even if it didn't come up, you wanted to translate the message about your reasoning. So we go back to that moment, and Roger Mudd, Senator, why do you want to be President of the United States?

Pause. Extended pause. And then a kind of fumbling, bumbling answer that took quite a while to get on track. And then when it did finally get on track, it went on forever. And that was it. He was cooked in that moment, at least in the short term, but he did not win the nomination. In fact, he didn't come close. He gave a brilliant speech at the Democratic Convention the following summer,

but it was that moment, it was that Roger Mudd simple question direct to the point But it was that moment, it was that Roger Mudd simple question, direct to the point that sunk his candidacy. And it was a lesson to all of us. You know, we get into these convoluted questions in our interviews when often the question should be very simple. They're often the most challenging ones. So you can bet ever since that day in 1979

that everybody who's ever run for a political office at any level in any country is grilled by his people beforehand. Why are you running? Why do you want to be X? Why do you want to be the mayor? Why do you want to be the senator? Why do you want to be the president?

Why do you want to be the prime minister? Why do you want to be whatever you're running for? Sad to hear about Roger Mudd going, even sadder to realize, even though a long and healthy life dying at 93 is nothing to complain about. But it was barely mentioned. You had to dig deep to find it.

I didn't even hear about it until my pal Mark Bulgich dropped me a note and said, you should talk about that. And I have. All right. Moving on. You know about anti-vaxxers.

These are people who believe vaccines are wrong for any number of reasons. It's an ideology, and I'm not going to argue with them. I think it's a – I don't agree with their position, but that is their position. So anti-vaxxers are one thing. Vaccine hesitancy is something very different. their position, but that is their position. So anti-vaxxers are one thing. Vaccine hesitancy is something very different. Vaccine hesitancy involves people who are, you know, I probably want to have a vaccine, but, you know, I'm kind of confused by some of the things that are being said, and I'm hesitant about it.

So there's a really interesting article in the Columbia Journalism Review this month, which obviously deals with journalistic issues, about how journalists should cover vaccine hesitancy. And there's a 10-point thing here. I'm not going to read them all. I'll read three or four of them because I think they're important for us as journalists to keep in mind,

but I think as listeners and viewers and readers should keep in mind as well in terms of what they're reading and is the hesitancy issue being covered properly? Is it being, are we making those who are interested more hesitant because of how we're covering stories? It's interesting. So here are some of the key areas that the Columbia Journalism Review points out. It's critical to address the unfounded public concern that the speedy development

of COVID vaccines means they're not safe. Right? We spent a long time saying this could take two to ten years before we come up with a vaccine

and bang, suddenly we're into vaccines in less than a year. And they're being made available very quickly. So did somebody skip a beat here? Is that speed leading to unsafe vaccines? No, it isn't.

They're going through the same process they always would have gone through. It's just that research and science are so brilliant in today's world. And we're so focused like lasers on this challenge. No safety steps were skipped. If anything, they may

have been doubled up to ensure there were no problems. That's one. Two, varying vaccine effectiveness data is causing mistrust. And you know that. There is, you know, we hear, well, there's efficacy rates of like 94% for this vaccine and only 64% for that vaccine.

So obviously one's not as good as the other. Well, is it obvious? As CJR points out, context makes all the difference. Drug companies are reporting efficacy rates ranging from the 60% range into the 90% range, causing confusion and concern that some vaccines might be less effective than others. However, as the New York Times recently noted, just because one vaccine ends up with a higher efficacy estimate than another in trials doesn't necessarily mean it's superior.

Precise comparisons between vaccines are not possible, due in part to differences in tests. They're not all going through the same process in terms of the coming up with the efficacy rates. While a fine print is important, overemphasis on the minutiae can undermine trust unnecessarily. Here's another one. Over-emphasizing the rare instances of adverse reaction undermines trust. You know what we're talking about here.

You can go through like 500 vaccines given on a day in such and such a city in Sweden or the US or wherever and gosh, this guy fainted over here or this person had an adverse reaction. You know, one out of 500 context. 500. Context. As I mentioned at the beginning, one of the other big rules is don't conflate vaccine hesitancy with anti-vaxxers.

Two very different things. Here's another one. This is the last one I'll read of the 10 point. You can find all this at the Columbia journalism review website. It's good. Good article. Beware false equivalence when reporting on popular alternative treatments. While vitamins, minerals,

and other medicines have been used as therapies to treat symptoms of COVID-19. These treatments will not and cannot do what a vaccine can do. Ensure that your news coverage features perspectives that follow and respect the science and avoid those that try to equate vaccine science with holistic alternatives. All right, some good things to think about there. There's another website that is focusing its article today on health reporters. You know, there have been some great journalism done in Canada on health issues and specifically the virus in the past year. And the name Andre Picard comes up all the time, Globe and Mail health reporter, who's been just terrific in trying to stay on top of this story and bring us the kind of information we need to understand what's happening.

But as I said, there have been more than a few. And it's been tough, hard work. And some of the things they've had to deal with and witness have been really hard. Anyway, the Nieman Reports, that's N-I-E-M-A-N, Nieman Reports, has a really good piece that I'm going to just pick on for a couple of things. About how health reporters are actually doing one year into the pandemic. You know, it talks about the national health reporter for the Washington Post, her name's Lena Sun.

Her first story that she wrote was on January 8th, 2020. An outbreak of an unidentified and possibly new viral disease in central China is prompting officials across Asia to take heightened precautions ahead of the busy lunar New Year travel season,

she wrote in a byline piece it's interesting when you look back at that and you say wow that's the first thing i wrote on this story 14 months ago and in my country in her case the u.s 5,000 people have died as a result of that virus. Sun, a longtime healthcare reporter, can rattle off an impressive list of massive health events she's covered. Fungal meningitis, Ebola, Zika, you name it. But the COVID-19 pandemic has eclipsed it all.

There's been a lot of public health issues, but obviously nothing like this pandemic. Nothing like this story. You know, I was trying to think of the kind of stories that, you know, I've been involved in, that I've covered, that have taken substantial time and energy to cover them. And yet at the end of the process,

you know, it's two, three weeks, a month of one's career, and then you move on to the next big story. Not this one. This has been more than a year, and that's taken its toll on the energy and mental health and stress for all of us, including health journalists who are dealing with this story every single day. And some of the most emotional elements of the story. And are dealing with, you know, changing facts. You know, a year ago we weren't so sure about masks. Then we became sure about masks.

Now we're double masking. We never thought vaccines would come this fast. And we were being told they couldn't come this fast. And then they came this fast. Now we're told, after being told initially, it's got to be two doses and they've got to be, whatever, 28 days apart. Now we're saying, well, you know, maybe they don't have to be 28 days apart. Maybe they can be four months apart. So information and facts are changing, and health journalists have to cover these stories, have to demand accountability in covering them.

That's their job. Anyway, on the journalism front, we owe those journalists our thanks, our continued thanks, because they're going to be busy for a while yet. Still to come, some lighter stuff and this is lighter you know in a way i've got three little stories here i found this interesting. You know, Australia and New Zealand have done, you know, well, comparatively speaking, on the COVID story in terms of how the virus has spread there.

But this is going to be something to really watch to see what happens. Last weekend in Sydney, it was the annual gay and lesbian Mardi Gras parade for the LGBTQ community in Australia. And it's a big deal. So were they going to go ahead with the parade? They decided, yes, they would. We'll change the venue. We'll take it off the street. Sort of went down what's called Oxford Street in Sydney. And instead move it to the cricket grounds. Keep it in a more contained area yet open, right?

Because the cricket grounds are open. They're not indoors. So there were a lot of people there 36 000 people attended the festival and they're packed in you know and i'm looking at pictures and i don't see masks i see some masks but i sure don't see very many masks. But something else is happening in Sydney, because they've gone 50 days with no community cases. None. Zero of COVID.

So that's interesting. It'll be more interesting in two weeks if they're still at zero or whether this parade with 36,000 people in attendance causes issues. So we'll keep an eye on that. Now, you know, when I started off in television, I was consumed by this idea that you've got to wear makeup. That's why there's a makeup artist. And so I wore makeup. And I'll admit, in the early days on television, when I knew I was losing a bit of hair,

I thought, there's got to be a way makeup can hide that. And, of course, there is. Makeup can hide anything. It can create anything. So I used to go through this process of having, you know, my head made up a little bit so you couldn't see the ball spots until it became a fight that you could not win, and so I abandoned it, and the funny thing is

the early part of my career, I wore makeup a lot. By the end of my career, last 10, 15 years, I was not a makeup guy. I didn't like makeup. I'd wear a little bit of powder to prevent the glare off one's face and head, but just powder, not the pancake. And so what's happened in this last year? Well, Zoom has created this market for men's makeup because apparently men are not satisfied with the touch up my appearance button that is on Zoom that can accommodate for some

of the lighting you may have in the room kind of smooths the look of one skin and says it can hide imperfections but that's not enough for some guys who are now used to looking at themselves on Zoom for hours in some cases at meetings. And so there's a big market now. Well, big, relative term. Especially in the United States, CBS did a little feature on it. Skincare and makeup products for men, such as moisturizer, concealer, and beard fillers to fix redness and wrinkles

and up their on-screen looks has kind of taken off. I don't know. Let's get this virus over with, please. Okay, here's my final story for today. I love this story. This comes from Camden, Arkansas. It's about a police officer. And, you know, we haven't heard a lot of nice police officer stories in the last while.

But this one about L.C. Buckshot Smith is a nice story. Buckshot drives around in an unmarked car in Camden, Arkansas. He moves a little slow. But when he's not in the car, he's still walking the beat of his hometown four days a week. He's got a badge and a gun. But he says they don't make you a police officer. What makes you a police officer is respecting people. He's been a deputy, or he had been a deputy for 46 years when he retired. But, you know, he said, I don't hunt and I don't fish. There's nothing else to do here in Camden.

So I went back, got my job back after just five months. He's 91. The mayor says, you know, Buckshot knows your mama and he knew your grandmama, so he has the authority to speak into our lives. Over the course of his career, Buckshot said he's taken more people home than I've taken them to jail. The chief, Boyd Woody, doesn't this sound like a movie or a television series?

Chief Boyd Woody. Constable Buckshot Smith. Chief Woody says he doesn't want to retire. In his words to me, he'll retire when the good Lord tells him to. Until then, Smith plans to keep rolling and patrolling. 91. Atta boy, buckshot.

All right, that's it for Thursday. Tomorrow's the weekend special. I've got a fair number of letters from many of you about the monarchy how you felt after this kind of strange week on the story of harry and megan and the way the palace has reacted to it lots of reaction to yesterday's show glad you like that i think it's a real i think it's a master class in communications you know there are any number of angles you can take on this story. And yesterday we wanted to try something nobody else was trying, was to try and deconstruct a particular announcement coming out of the palace on what they may have been thinking and doing it.

And I'm really glad we did it. And I thank Andrew McDougall and Bruce Anderson, of course, for their help on Smoke Mirrors and the Truth yesterday. So tomorrow, it's the weekend special. Later today on Sirius XM, exclusive to Sirius XM, Good Talk with Chantelle Hebert and Bruce Anderson. And we've got a whole list of things to go through today, so that should be fun.

5 o'clock Eastern on SiriusXM. Repeated Sunday at noon. Now, this is exclusive to SiriusXM, but you can get in there. It's a free trial period. You can get in there. Go to SiriusXM.ca slash peter mansbridge follow the links sign up all you got to do is just give your email you don't have to give anything

else and you can get free access for a limited time i think it's for four episodes something like that but you should But you should try that. Our new weekly show, Good Talk, with Sean Talley Bear, Bruce Anderson, and myself. All right, that's it for today. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for listening. And we'll talk to you again in 24 hours. Thank you.