The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - The Story Behind The Photo

Episode Date: January 14, 2021

A little "behind the scenes" in a typical newsroom, one story that's just fun to tell, and one that's important to tell.

and hello there peter mansbridge here the latest episode of the bridge daily it's thursday of week 44 and we got a few things to talk about today. I'm going to try and take you kind of inside the average newsroom. And give you a kind of hint of what some days are like and some things are like. So I got two kind of anecdotes for you. One's kind of serious. Well, it's definitely serious. And the other is not so serious. So let's start off with the not so serious one, because I was spurred on to this by

something that happened on Instagram yesterday. I, you know, let me back up a little bit. Last week I got a friend, a good friend of mine, John Whitten, who used to work at the CBC at the same time that I worked at the CBC. We did a lot of traveling together around the world and around the country. He's a producer, was a senior producer and an executive producer of The National at one point. John's now at City TV in Toronto running the place as the sort of overall head of news. But we still talk. And he'd found a picture. He was going through his computer.

He'd found a picture he thought I'd get a kick out of, and he sent it over. And it was a picture of David Bowie visiting the National. And we're not sure the year. It was somewhere in the mid-'80s, going by what he looked like and going by what we look like, because there's a bunch of us in the picture. And so I'll tell you the story of how it happened, because I posted it on Instagram with this kind of cut line. Did I ever tell you about the day David Bowie visited the National?

Well, I got hundreds and hundreds of responses on Instagram to that, and people wanted to know. No, he never told us. Like, what happened? What was David Bowie doing there sitting at the National? So I thought I should explain that. So I said, I'll explain it on my podcast tomorrow. So here we are at tomorrow, and here comes the explanation.

As I said, it was somewhere in the mid-'80s. It was a prolific time for David Bowie in terms of albums. In that kind of mid-'80 period, he did Ziggy Stardust, he did Let's Dance, Tonight, Labyrinth, there was a bunch of them in that period. So he was extremely successful, obviously already was, but it was kind of a high point in his career with some of those albums, and you can tell just by the names of how powerful they were.

So he was an artist, a musician, an entertainer in demand. He was in Toronto for a concert. But something had come up, and he needed to do an interview with, I think it was a television network in Australia. My memory serves me right. I know it was definitely overseas. So what they were doing was they had to find a studio in Toronto where they could do this from. So they could hook up with their interviewer in, let's say it was Australia.

So they called around Toronto because of the odd hours and the big time differences. There weren't a lot of studios that were available to them because they either weren't open or they weren't staffed. Nevertheless, what happened was they ended up, the only studio they could find was at the CBC, was the old studio number two on Jarvis Street. And that was the studio that the National came out of in the evenings and in the mornings. It's where Friendly Giant came out of.

Anyway, so they booked this studio and it was, they booked it for somewhere around 11 o'clock. Once Friendly and his gang were out of there, David Bowie was going to come in. And we didn't have time for any special setup, so the deal was he'd sit in my chair at the National. So I get this phone call at home early on whatever that morning was And it's Fred Parker who's the director of The National Saying Peter look I can't really tell anybody because it's supposed to be a secret But David Bowie's coming in here to do a hit with Australia And he's you know rented the lease the studio coming in here to do a hit with Australia.

And he's, you know, rented the lease, the studio. So you should come in here and you, you know, you'll get to see David Bowie, get to meet him maybe. I thought, Hey, that's, that sounds like fun. So, and I went. So I get there and of course, by then Fred had told quite a few people the secret. And so there was a bit of a lineup waiting for David Bowie. And he came in.

He was brought in by limo. And there were a bunch of people waiting outside the building for him, CBC people. It wasn't, you know, publicly known. And so he came in. And he was very gracious, you know, publicly known. And so he came in and he was very gracious, stood there, shook hands. Fortunately, this was before the era of cell phones. So nobody had, you know, I shouldn't say nobody had cameras, but everybody didn't have cameras like they would have now. And anyway, so he came in, into the studio, and there were, as you can tell if you look at the picture, there were about, I don't know, 10 or 15 people in the studio. And we asked him politely, you know, would you mind if we took a picture at a group shot?

And he said, no problem. Go ahead. I mean, he had his hangers on with him who were all sort of wanting to get things organized. But David said, hey, no problem. Let's do the picture. So you get this glimpse, and you can sure tell just from the way we all look, including me, I had hair. So it really was a long time ago. I'm standing kind of at the back of the picture.

David Bowie's sitting in my seat at the National and Nolten's seat. Nolten was still doing the National then as well. And we took this picture. And it's great to look at it because the dominant thing you see in the foreground is this white styrofoam cup. And I'm looking at it and I'm thinking, that was David Bowie's cup. He'd asked for a glass of water. We didn't have glasses in the studio.

We just had like styrofoam cups and an ordinary tap on the wall to pour water out of. We didn't have bottled water or anything like that in those days, at least not in the studio. Anyway, so we gave David his water. So there's his styrofoam copy sitting there in his leather jacket. And, um, and we took the picture now visitors don't often come to the national. We don't encourage it because it's like, it's busy. It's not like a

tourist spot. Um, but we did cartwheels here on that day to make sure he was happy. And, uh, and, and we all got our picture, um, which we did one group shot. That's it. He wasn't like doing solo shots. And I don't think any of us asked for it either. Um, but it's funny looking at the set. When you look at news sets now in television studios, they're so elaborate and so, you know, they're fancy and they're colorful and there's monitors and special tables and desks and glass tops and all that stuff all over the place. Not here. It was your basic kind of wooden or prefab desk.

And the wall behind it was the classic, you know, painted map. Map of the world. Because, of course, we covered the world. Just like every network newscast. And that was it. You know, nice chair. basic desk, painted wall. Bingo. There you go, the National.

Anyway, so that's the story behind the story about David Bowie and his visit to the National back somewhere in the mid-1980s. And I think he was definitely the only rock star, and he might have been the only other kind of visiting celebrity to ever sit in the chair for the anchor of the national, David Bowie. All right, there's your fun kind of inside the newsroom story. Here's a different one. You know, we're just a little over a week now since the January 6th,

well, what are we going to call it, that happened at the U.S. Capitol? And that's what the topic is here. What do you call what happened on that day? And that's been a discussion and a debate that's taken place probably in every major newsroom, well, perhaps in the world, certainly in North America, certainly in the U.S., but in Canada as well. And these things happen. Words are important.

Discussions like this take place not every day, but on many days about what words to use to describe certain things. And in the initial going on that day, last Wednesday, January 6th, was, well, this was a pretty big protest. And then as the day went on, you became cognizant of the fact that this was more than a protest. But what are you going to call it? How far are you going to go in describing what you witnessed? And there was much debate and discussion around the use of the word coup. Was this a coup?

Or was it a riot? Was it a protest that got out of hand? Was it an act of sedition, an act of treason? But most of the debate surrounded that word coup. Was this a coup attempt by an organized group of people led perhaps by the outgoing President of the United States to seize power? So how do newsrooms make decisions like that about the use of which word? And have feelings changed since last Wednesday

as more and more information comes out? You know, we saw the videos in the last few days, many of them taken by protesters, if you want to use that word, rioters, coup planners, thugs, Nazis, neo-Nazis, you call them what you want. But many of the videos we've seen, they took themselves. And without realizing they were incriminating themselves in some cases, they posted them.

Well, the FBI and various other agencies grabbed those videos very quickly, and many have been released to the public, and they're astonishing in their clarity of what happened. But so, too, are some of the witness descriptions of what happened. I was particularly struck yesterday when Nancy Pelosi, in her news conference about the impeachment process, someone asked her what happened in her office, because her office was everything but torched by those who broke into it

and into the surrounding area where she and her staff had been trying to hide when it first became evident that something was going on. So she was asked about that, and here's what she said. I found this really telling, not only about last Wednesday, but about the era in which we live. Pelosi said her young staffers knew to barricade the door, turn out the lights, and be silent, because they learned that in school.

They learned that in school. Pelosi's young staffers who, you know, five, ten years ago were students in grade school or high school. At a time when it wasn't infrequent to hear stories about gunmen bursting into schools and shooting things up. And so kids have been trained not only in the US but in and elsewhere, on what to do if their school is under siege. And one of the things is to close the doors, barricade the doors, turn the lights out, get under the desks or what have you, and stay silent. That's the era in which we live and young kids who have grown up with that are now young adults

and clearly in the case of Pelosi's office knew what they should do alright what do you call such a brazen, dangerous All right. What do you call such a brazen, dangerous, and undemocratic act? There's a magazine online that's called Quartz. And they had a good piece by their reporter, Nicholas Rivero, on this very question of what do you call it? And he wrote

this early, wrote this like within hours of the situation unfolding on Capitol Hill. So some things have changed since then. Our knowledge of certain things has changed. But nevertheless, the question is still the same.

What do you call it? You know, Joe Biden, the president-elect, will be president next Wednesday at 12.01. Joe Biden settled on insurrection is the word he's been using. Other commentators have dubbed it a coup or appended the legal label of sedition. Some newsrooms, like CBS, told reporters they could call the people

who stormed the Capitol protesters, while others rejected that label. The Washington Post went with mob, while NPR, National Public Radio, landed on pro-Trump extremists. The truth is, it's tough to fit the day's events under a neat label. By thinking through the words we use, we can better inform how the country responds. And I'm reading, of course, from this court's article. And the reason I'm reading from it is because I want you to appreciate the fact because often the criticism of the media is they don't think about what they're saying. Well, in fact, responsible news organizations do think

and think hard about the words they use. And on that day and in the days since, I'm sure most responsible news organizations have thought through this very carefully. And senior managers discuss it. The ombudsman discusses it at news organizations that have people who fill the role of the ombudsperson. So the question comes once again to, is this a coup?

The short answer, according to Quartz, is probably not, if only because it was too chaotic and too pointless to meet the bar. Now, keep in mind, this was written within 24 hours of the episode that unfolded on Capitol Hill, and some things have changed. But the short answer at that time was probably you don't call it a coup because it was too chaotic and pointless to meet the bar, which kind of relates also back to something I said earlier this week, where I questioned who was leading? Who was the leader? I mean, you can say Trump

was the leader and he certainly was the inspirational leader, exciting the riot, but who was the leader on the ground or was there a leader on the ground? Was somebody directing those who were causing the damage, those who might have been trying to kill people, those who were trying to find Mike Pence, Nancy Pelosi? Was somebody leading those? If they were, that's a little closer to saying, hey, this was a definite coup attempt. The dictionary definition of the word coup, going back two quarts, is relatively straightforward. Merriam-Webster says it's a

sudden decisive exercise of force in politics, especially the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group. But the picture gets a little fuzzier when you start asking political scientists their opinion, going to the universities. And a lot of what happens inside newsrooms is doing exactly that. You go to the experts and you say, what is this? How would you describe this? Would you use the word coup? Well, some argue that a coup, back to courts reporting here,

some argue that a coup must be a secret, premeditated conspiracy by a small group of blotters. Others argue that it must involve the military. Both of these factors would knock the events of January 6th out of the coup category, at least at the time this was written. There's reason to believe now that there was a small group. And just who was in that small group is a question. The issues about the military, there's no doubt the U.S. Army was not behind what happened. But some elements, some, as we discussed yesterday with Bruce, may well have been aware of what was about to happen. And if not encouraged it, stood by while it happened. Today's violence, although egged on by Trump,

this is Quartz again, and his allies, and organized by supporters on right-wing social media platforms, remained haphazard and disorganized. There's no evidence that it was a carefully planned ploy by the president, who is not known for careful planning. Yeah, that may have changed in the last week too. Not the part about careful planning, we know that's not the case, but that he didn't know what was going to happen?

Some think he did. Similarly, although the National Guard was puzzlingly slow to respond to the storming of the capital, the military did eventually step in to remove the trespassers. Trespassers? That's a nice way of saying it. Anyway, you get it. This would have been the argument that was going on the day of and the next morning,

well before the facts were known, but at the time you had to report on it, and you had to make decisions about the kind of words you used. Joshua Tucker, he's a politics professor at New York University. Argues that coup plotters try to seize power for themselves or their leader in a very direct way. Merely delaying the certification of election results probably doesn't meet that bar. This is what he said. This is not traditionally what we would think of as a coup. This is a riotous mob aimed at doing damage to the quality of U.S. democracy. That's serious enough.

To me. But others, you know, disagree. And it all boils down to the labels you choose to use and the fact that those labels matter. As Quartz mentions near the end of their article, as George Orwell famously argued in his essay, Politics and the English Language, our words can shape our thoughts, our politics, and our actions. If we apply misleading labels to events, it can be harder to figure out how to respond. Those labels matter a lot because they're going to form answers

in the public mind around, is this a problem? And then, what is the solution to that problem? Said Syracuse University political science chair, Shana Gadarian. There you go. Some things to think about on the use of certain language in describing what happened last week. But the main point I was trying to make by telling you that is not asking you necessarily to pick a word, but I am asking

you to appreciate and understand that in fact, news organizations do think these things through and they do discuss them and debate them. They may not always be right in the answer they come up with at the end of it, but they think it through. They think about it, and they argue about it. As I've often said to young journalists who say, gosh, I can't decide which newsroom I want to join, I say, make sure you join a newsroom where there is room for discussion and debate around the stories you cover, how you place them in your newscast, and the language

you use around them. There should be a healthy discussion and debate on those things. And if there isn't, you should probably stay away from that newsroom. Because it's not going to be good for you. You want to go to a place where you can take part in a healthy debate. You're not going to win every argument. You may never win an argument, but at least you will have been afforded the opportunity to make it.

Okay, last point for today. And this is another one of those ones about us, about who we are, about how this year has impacted us. 44 weeks now. So let me ask you this question. If you're, especially if you're married or if you're in a serious full-time relationship. Here's the question. Is that relationship, is that marriage stronger today than it was 44 weeks ago?

Or is it weaker? Does it still exist as a relationship? Or have you gone your separate ways? There's some interesting statistics. As usual, the Americans are ahead of us on stats. We kind of, we seem at times to be slow on statistics. But this gives us some indication, perhaps, of what things might be like.

I mean, what do you think? Do you think divorces are up because of the last year? Or do you think they're down? Do you think marriages are up or down? Well, marriage is the easy one, really. Marriages are down. And they're down because, well, you know, because it's awfully hard to get married in the middle of a pandemic.

Finding a hall or a church or wherever to have the wedding ceremony, the wedding party is pretty difficult, especially when places are in lockdown and weddings are prevented. So it's not surprising that weddings are down. I'll give you the numbers in a moment. Here's the question though. What about divorces? Are divorces up or down? What's your guess? You've got three seconds to make up your mind.

Three, two, one. If you said divorces are up, you'd be wrong. They're actually down. And I find that interesting, perhaps encouraging, because I would have guessed when I asked the question that the stress level for most people has been challenging, to say the least. And that could easily lead to divorces.

But that's not the case. I'm reading this story from Bloomberg News. In Florida, the largest state analyzed marriage numbers. They analyzed five states. In Florida, the largest state analyzed marriage numbers from March through September were 33% lower than researchers would have expected based on previous trend years. Divorces in the Sunshine State dropped 28%. So as Bloomberg says, if trends in Florida and other states, Arizona, New Hampshire, Missouri, and Oregon, were repeated nationwide,

the U.S. had an estimated shortfall of about 340,000 marriages and 190,000-plus divorces. Amazing, eh? The sharp decline in divorce doesn't mean couples are necessarily happier together in the lockdown. Instead, the pandemic may be forcing dissatisfied spouses to stay together for practical reasons. Divorce can be expensive and couples may be reluctant while facing economic uncertainty and or health issues, said one of the sociology professors who's looked at these numbers. He's the director of the Center for Family and Demographic Research.

These folks may feel stuck, and they could be delaying divorce until life feels more normal. Yeah, okay, maybe that's true. Maybe it's also true that they got to appreciate each other a lot more going through this struggle together. That's what I'd perhaps argue. Both divorce and marriage rates have been declining for years as Americans have changed how they approach the institution of matrimony.

Young people are waiting longer to tie the knot. Many couples are forgoing marriage entirely, choosing to live together without a wedding. Those who do marry tend to be better educated and more affluent, a self-selected group that's also likelier to stay together. Hmm. I thought that was... I mean, there's a lot more in this article and a lot more data and stats

on the past as well. But you can find it on Bloomberg and it's called Divorces and Marriages Tumbled in the U.S. During COVID Study Shows. That came out in the last week or so. So there you go. Now you know something you didn't know before. The bridge came on today.

You can dazzle your friends with that at your Zoom dinner parties. And try and have a close look at the different friends you've got on that Zoom call to see where do they fit in this study? Okay. That's your Thursday Bridge Daily Tomorrow is the weekend special

Friday of course Of week 44 And I've had You know A fair amount of mail this week And it's Being scattered across

Various different subjects And I'll pick some of the best ones to go through tomorrow to talk about with you. But I would encourage anybody who's got anything on their mind, especially if you've never written before, a lot of new writers this week, which is great. Love that. So send that along to the Mansbridge podcast at gmail.com, the Mansbridge podcast at gmail.com because tomorrow is the weekend special. Look forward to reading your questions and comments and thoughts. I was hoping this week, and it may still happen tomorrow, but it's probably going to be early next week, that I'll be able to give you the details on what's going to happen to the podcast in the near future.

As I've said, there's been a lot of interest on the part of some of those who would like to be involved with the distribution of the bridge. And I'm excited to say that there will be a new arrangement on that. You'll still get the podcast just the way you're getting it now. I will still be doing the same kind of things that I'm doing now. I'll retain full control of the editorial and content direction of the bridge, which I've been doing, as you know, for almost a year and a half off and on, all at my own expense. And that has added up somewhat, but I've enjoyed it nonetheless. But then I suddenly discovered I wasn't out trying to sell it.

But apparently people who had seen the numbers on how well it's doing, the demographics of those who listen to the bridge and the geography of those who listen to the bridge, because it's all over the country and that's great. And so as a result, that's apparently worth some money. So we'll try and find the most responsible way of doing that. And I'm looking forward to that. It's been a fascinating year, obviously, with the success of Extraordinary Canadians

and the success of the podcast. It's been a lot of fun. So we'll keep it going. We'll certainly keep it going through this pandemic. We've got another year of that, I think, before we can really turn around and say, you know, goodbye, COVID-19. We're looking forward to seeing you going out the back door.

In the meantime, we're still in the fight, a real fight. And so we remember all our basics about staying at home, washing our hands, wearing a mask whenever we go outside. We still try to get some fresh air and exercise outside, but we've got to do it in areas where we're not running into others. So respect the rules, respect yourself, and respect others. Right? Wash your hands, wear a mask,

social distancing, stay away from others as much as you can. Obviously, you've got to go to grocery stores, drugstores, pharmacies when you have to, but take all precautions when you do. All right, I'm Peter Mansbridge. We will look forward to talking to you tomorrow on the weekend special, which, well, you know, it's only 24 hours away. Thank you.