The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Your Turn -- What Is A Journalist? - Encore

Episode Date: December 30, 2024

An encore of answers came from around the world, and offered an array of opinions. 

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. Time for another holiday edition of an encore episode of The Bridge. For today and then again tomorrow, your turns, special ones. What do you want as a journalist? And what do you want as a politician? We start today with the December 5th edition, What is a journalist to you? Enjoy. And hello there, love Thursdays. Thursdays is your turn and you don't shy away. And no matter what the question is, we get lots of answers from you. There are our regulars who seem to write almost every week. But every week there are also a whole

lot of new writers who have in some fashion been inspired by the question that we've tossed out there and have started to enter the fray and give us their thoughts on the question of the week, give us their answer.

So let's get at it. This week's question was a little different than usual in the sense that it was very straightforward. What is a journalist? And that comes at a time when journalism has gone through a lot of changes in the last few years. People who are kind of in the business seemingly popular program during the U.S. election was the Joe Rogan podcast. And Joe Rogan's not a journalist, or never has been one. He was a comedian.

And he was kind of an event promoter. And he started a podcast, and it's been extremely successful. You know, if you believe the numbers that are tossed around, 40, 45 million regular listeners to his podcast, which is more than all the, you know, 6.30 in the evening television newscasts put together. So it's a huge number with real influence. Remember, Donald Trump went on that program

for three hours a week before the election. And there's been much discussion about why didn't Kamala Harris go on the Joe Rogan program? Was she invited? Did she turn that invitation down? Did she try to get invited and wasn't invited? I'm not sure that I've heard the real deal on that one yet. Anyway, so that provokes this question.

And there are other examples, not just Joe Rogan. So let's get right at it. As I said, some of our regulars weigh in this week, as they often do. But there are also lots of new ones, and we love that. No particular order. Here we go. Daryl Johanson in North Battleford, Saskatchewan. In my opinion, journalism should be investigation of and reporting of the facts of any situation to inform their audience without bias, opinion, or partisan politics.

Unfortunately, with all the misinformation, political partisan spin, and lies fed to us by a lot of the politicians and the media, it is not possible or credible to believe anything we hear. I believe we mostly hear what the politicians and biased media want us to hear, or what they think we want to hear. And we don't get the facts that we would need to make informed decisions. And that's truly disappointing. We don't know what to believe and there is no accountability. Well, Daryl, that's a pretty depressing look at what the situation is right

now, but clearly that is what you feel. Ken Peleshock in Newstead, Ontario. One concern I have with these new podcast pundits is the recklessness with which they make declarations based on, well, based on who knows. For instance, Joe Rogan has strong anti-Ukraine leanings, yet he's refused Zelensky and other pro-Ukrainian voices requests to be on his show. What's more troubling is that the public doesn't seem to care about evidence or facts anymore. So Joe Rogan and the like are just products of their time. What does journalist mean? I'm afraid it's a forgotten profession of a bygone age like Milkman or Lamplighter.

Check some of this stuff out on the Rogan Zelensky non-interview. We don't actually know any of this is true. Though it may be. Rogan said on his podcast last Thursday, so a week ago, that Zelensky asked to be interviewed. Rogan suggesting that Zelensky was part of a group that are about to start World War III. And he said, F you, man. We haven't heard Zelensky confirm that he asked for an interview.

By the way, when Newsweek writes about Joe Rogan, they call him a comedian. And that is how he started. That's how he first came to public attention. Shail Pallawal in Ottawa. I would submit that Joe Rogan is not a journalist, but rather an entertainer. He's capable of interviewing people about a news story or occurrence to solicit funny or entertaining commentary,

but he's not capable of adequately informing an audience about a news event or occurrence, nor is he capable of providing informed and useful analysis of a news event. Kendra Sharp in Montreal. I'm wary of the broadening understanding of what it is to be a journalist. More than ever, with the rise of podcast commentators, misinformation, and now AI-generated content, we need journalists in the old school.

Journalists need to be our eyes and ears and work to keep their own biases out of their reporting as much as possible. They need to dig to show the facts, even if the facts don't always work to support their own personal views. This is noble work. Michael Artendale in Sudbury, Ontario. Your question about what a journalist is has me thinking about when journalists started losing credibility.

It was around the time that those feel-good or tear-jerker pieces started to be published. The minute it stopped being just the facts, it stopped being journalism. If I remember correctly, that was around CNN's start of the 24-hour news channel. What a journalist used to be is no longer what a journalist is now. Nowadays, anyone who reports on something that the public may think is news could be considered a journalist. That includes podcasters. A problem with the field is there are no standards to be kept. There are no regulatory boards that license journalists. We have that for doctors, mechanics, for that matter,

most trades. This forces a certain level of competency on the person doing it. Maybe that's how trust and respect for journalists is rebuilt. I don't know, Michael. Like most journalists, I don't like the idea of licensing. The idea of a government deciding who's a journalist and who isn't a journalist is pretty scary. Now, you might say it could be an arm's-length licensing body like doctors and lawyers and teachers have, but when one of those bodies runs into trouble, like when the public's outraged that in its view a misbehaving doctor isn't punished severely enough, then the government inevitably gets into the act,

saying it'll look into what the doctor's organization is doing. That's the problem. Brooke Cully in Lethbridge, Alberta. As I seek answers to questions I have, I find myself seeking information around the three basic criteria for journalistic excellence. Accuracy, brevity, and clarity. In this technical environment, I consume information from a multitude of sources, the breadth of which astounds me. When one finds the wisdom that a podcast like yours offers, and can cross-reference that with Good point. Susan Volkman in Kelowna, BC.

The idea of creative storytelling underpinned by evidence-based research and opinions resonates with me. It needs to be fair. It needs to be accurate, providing the opportunity for critical review and those with opposing viewpoints to give their perspectives and analysis. Of course, it needs to be published, and these days pretty much any medium can work. While Joe Rogan's podcast might count as a publication, the lack of evidence and balance disqualifies him, in my opinion. Mark Rennick in Guelph, Ontario. Journalism is truth. Without it, are we ever in trouble?

Well, you know, Mark's short and sweet, but he's right. Journalism is truth. You know that saying that I use quite often, which is, truth is what matters. Truth is all that matters. We heard from a number of people overseas this week as well, including Jonathan Young in Brussels, Belgium. About 15 years ago, I heard the term citizen journalist for the first time.

Then recently I heard it again when I believe a guest of yours compared citizen journalist to citizen surgeons. That says it all. A journalist, like a surgeon, is a trained professional who deals in facts and evidence. Just because someone shares their opinions, online or offline, does not qualify them as a journalist. Opinions are like noses. Everyone's got one.

Matthew Sklarsik in Vernon, B.C. A journalist is more than someone who gives you the facts. If they told you the snow is white, am I now a journalist? In its essence, narrating the summary of a series of events is the telling of a story, and the best journalists are able to present the facts in a story that's attractive to the audience, while still leaving them able to decide for themselves what they think about it. A good journalist is not a spin doctor who tries to lead their audience to an opinion.

Good journalists are also good interviewers. They can ask the hard questions, but in a way that keeps the interviewee comfortable and without the feeling of getting trapped. They stay on point and don't let the interviewee dance around the answer. And they give everyone a fair shake. And I finish my letter here with my request to you. Many are calling the latest U.S. election the podcast election. People like long-form, one-on-one interviews because it allows candidates to elaborate on complex issues the way conventional, time-constrained, traditional formats don't.

Would you be willing to be our Joe Rogan for our election? Bring each candidate on your show for a long-form, one-on-one. You have a reputation of being fair, and I believe the candidates and the Canadian people trust you. I know I do, because you're a good journalist. Well, thank you, Matthew. This is what we did in the last election, you may recall. We had the three major leaders of the three major parties on the program,

the three major national parties. So we had Justin Trudeau was on the program, the three major national parties. So we had Justin Trudeau was on the program. Mr. Singh was on the program from the NDP. And so was, man, his name has escaped me already, and he was great. He's actually been on the show a number of times. You know who I'm talking about. I'm talking about the former leader of the Conservative Party.

If you think I'm dancing here, I am. I'm dancing because I'm looking up the name. And I don't know. You know, does your mind blank occasionally? Mine does. And I'm not shy about that okay here we go you've all guessed it by now right

of course you have Aaron O'Toole who is the leader between Aaron O'Toole and Pierre Polyev? Now, technically, she was an interim leader. She was the leader, and we've never heard of her again since. Candice Bergen. All right, we had Aaron O'Toole. We had O'Toole, Singh, and Trudeau. All were on the podcast last time. And the hope, obviously, will be to try and do that again.

We'll see what happens. I've made a number of inquiries about Mr. Polyev in the last while, as have other news organizations, but no luck on that as yet. That may change. Josh Renaud in Montreal. A journalist is no longer just a reporter of objective facts. In a post-truth era where raw facts compete with misinformation, people crave informed voices to interpret meaning and offer context. Audiences are drawn to voices that provide authenticity, analysis, and a sense of connection, qualities increasingly absent in

corporate media. Today, journalism is as much about storytelling and perspective as it is about reporting. Hence, long-form podcasts. Wasn't the point that the Internet was supposed to make information more democratic? Why would I pay for the Globe and Mail if I can read the same story for free, online, the day before? Ah.

But Josh, is it the same story? News isn't magic. If it's free, where did it come from? What free source has the time and energy and willingness to gather the facts and put them in context? And what stories is that free medium not covering that the globe is covering? Free news may sound more democratic, but as a citizen, you may want to pay for news to ensure your society's institutions are being watched from the outside. Anne-Marie Klein in Toronto. What makes a journalist is not necessarily their schooling

nor their medium. Good journalism is a mix of detective work and scientific inquiry where the investigator allows the story to unfold as they follow the leads. At the end of the investigation, they report their findings with evidence to inform the public. By contrast, Joe Rogan is a talk show host, like Oprah Winfrey and Phil Donahue were, with a purpose to influence and to promote his brand and himself through interviews with guests. Colin Finke in Burlington, Ontario. Joe Rogan and Joe Scarborough MSNBC

Morning host Former congressperson They're not journalists, they're pundits Most of your regular guests act as pundits too Even if their day jobs are in journalism Pundits share context and analysis Using facts to explain why something matters, while journalists focus on reporting facts objectively.

Punditry creates the entertainment, news hybrid we all consume today, but it depends on journalists to supply the facts. I think of it this way. Journalists are like farmers, and pundits are like chefs. To take the metaphor further, people seek out chefs based on their style of cuisine and spiciness. We heard from Brandon Mitchell in Ukraine. He's been on the program before.

A really interesting guy. He's Canadian. I think it's New Brunswick he's been on the program before. A really interesting guy. He's Canadian. I think it's New Brunswick he's from. From the Miramichi. He's a volunteer medic on the front lines of the war in Ukraine. Has been for, well, since it started. Amazing guy with amazing stories. Anyway, Brandon writes,

from Ukraine. Throughout the war in Ukraine, I've been interviewed many times within the mainstream and various YouTube podcast platforms. Some of these platforms have millions of followers. I've almost always felt

the interviewer was trying to push their own narrative. The only exceptions being mainstream journalists who are at the top of their game. John Pienaar and Kate Gerbo from the UK. Matt Gutman from ABC News or Chris Brown of the CBC. Too often the YouTubers or many young journalists are playing to what they think their audience wants to hear. Propagandists? Spinners? Perhaps.

Journalists they are not. Doug Witten in Toronto. A journalist is a person who is sometimes tortured and or killed for contradicting or criticizing the political leadership in some countries. That's true. Let's do one more letter before we take a break and hear from the random ranter. There's lots more letters to come, but let's read one more and then we'll take a quick break. John Weiss in Windsor, Ontario. My idea of a journalist was formed by my college instructor from the late 1970s. The strings that fell loosely from the arms of his eyeglasses

accented his white curly hair that protruded from his tweed fedora. I think we got the picture. The rumpled overcoat wrapped up this image of what a journalist looked like. His patience was thin, especially with students of a lazy mind who filled their day more concentrated on the clock and their lunch break than on exercising their curiosity and desire to dig. The instructor was Charlie Whip. He was not a young teacher, but a grizzled veteran,

having served readers of Canada's more consequential newspapers in more than a few cities and small communities throughout the land. Charlie often shared his 900 experiences while his nimble mind would generate question after question to ask the subjects of the assigned stories he generated for our mighty little student newspaper. If in doubt, leave it out, stated the large banner that stretched across the newsroom wall. Truth, spelling, grammar, and fairness were a given in Charlie's reporting paradigm. Charlie was old school, but it was a great school. He and his contemporaries are woefully missed, judging from much of what I consume today. I'll tell you a little bit about Charlie Whipp.

He worked for the London Free Press and the Windsor Star for several years in the early 1950s. He then moved on to editor and publisher of the advertiser topic in Petrolia, taking on the role as owner from 1962 until 1979. He just died a few years ago, 2018, and was inducted into the Ontario Community's Newspaper's Hall of Fame in 2020.

I don't think I ever met him. Wish I had. All right, let's take that promised break. And we'll be right back after this. Welcome back. You're listening to the Bridge Thursday episode. And this, of course, is your turn. The question of the week this week is, what is a journalist?

We're going to get back to your letters, and as I said, there are many of them. But first we're going to take our regular Thursday break for the Random Ranter, because he has some thoughts, not on this topic, but another one that has been in the news of late. So let's get right to it. Here he is, the random ranter donald trump says we better get serious about the drugs on our border or else well if our

government was serious about waging a true war on drugs they would abandon the window dressing of search and seizure and start going after the money i, we've all watched enough TV to know that follow the money is investigative tactics 101. The only problem with that is there's not a lot of actual money to follow anymore because organized crime is moving more and more into cryptocurrency. Crypto is king when it comes to reaping the benefits of crime. It's hard to trace, it's not subject to the same oversight or regulations as regular forms of currency, and it's super mobile. Who needs a Swiss bank account when you can carry your secure crypto wallet on a USB drive in your pocket? And it's not just drug cartels and organized crime who love crypto. It's also a go-to for tax evaders, terrorists, and rogue

states looking to find a way around sanctions. Yet with all that in mind, crypto continues to attract mainstream support from people of all walks of life, including political leaders. Pierre Polyev has in the past been a vocal supporter of Bitcoin, and Donald Trump is the poster boy for an army of crypto tech bros, first and foremost being Doge Master Musk. Now, I don't proclaim to be an expert on cryptocurrency at all. Far from it. I don't own any, and I probably never will. All I know is that it's a decentralized system of currency that knows no borders and has zero fail-safes. I might always like banks or agree with them, but I believe in them.

They're supported by governments. What's there to believe in with crypto? Banks at least offer a level of protection to me and to my money. There's nothing with crypto. And while banks don't eliminate criminal activity, they do make it easier to trace. I mean, if you're supposed to follow the money, then it all comes down to accountability. And there's no accounting for anything with crypto. It's the Wild West. Look, let me take the other side of my argument for a minute and acknowledge

that all my criticisms of crypto so far, to a degree, are also true of regular government issued currency. Both systems are flawed, and both systems are prone to being used to fuel all kinds of nefarious badness. All I'm saying is that crypto is a much more efficient way to do it. But that's where the efficiency ends with crypto. Because putting crime aside for a second, the way crypto actually works, the nuts and bolts, or rather the chips and semiconductors of it, makes it an absolute energy pig. Crypto is produced and supported by a massive infrastructure of energy hungry computers. So in a time where most people agree we should be doing everything we can to conserve energy and reduce our carbon footprint, crypto comes along and goes completely in the other direction. How bad is it? Here's some

interesting facts. Did you know that it takes 155,000 kilowatt hours to mine just one Bitcoin and that the average energy consumed to do just one transaction is 850 kilowatt hours. To put that into perspective, that's about the same amount of power that the average home uses in a month. And here's the thing, Bitcoin is just one of the 9,000 active cryptocurrencies out there right now. So never mind the criminals using crypto, the whole system of crypto is a crime against the environment, and there's nothing we can really do about it. I mean, how would the US react if all of a sudden Canada decided to follow the money and crack down on crypto as part of our war on drugs? How do you think Trump would react when he's got his very own New World Liberty financial token to

hawk? I'm thinking we best just buy some more drones and hire more cbsa officers because as smart as following the money is in the current climate being serious about the problem of drugs on our border would only make our issues with the united states worse the random renter for this week tackles crypto. You know, crypto's been around for a few years now. Do you get it? Do you understand it? Do you have crypto?

I don't know. I've tried to do a few programs on it, and I still don't get it. But I see it's zooming up there on the charts again in terms of value. No, I'm not chilling for crypto. But I enjoyed listening to that one. All right, Anastasia Lewis in Shiloh, Manitoba. That's east of Brandon. Back to our letters on what is a journalist.

A journalist is someone who observes journals and shares information with one's audience. One charged with the ethical and moral duty to report without bias. Through a political science lens, a journalist is one who acts as a connector as well as a check and balance between the people and those who govern them. Journalists should be skilled in their craft to present facts and stories in a way that allows the audience to form their own opinions or judgments, and perhaps point them to where they can take action through an editorial or where to write one's representatives. While I view post-secondary training to be an asset, social media avenues are no different than elites owning media outlets or senior anchors guiding narratives and determining what makes the news.

I suspect the major issue with shows like Joe Rogan's or Tucker Carlson's is less about one's credentials or professionalism and more likely one of control. Marilyn Wallace and Fanny Bae, British Columbia. No doubt many things define a journalist, one of which could be analogous to the expectations. I had to look at that word a few times. One of which could be analogous to the expectations

in my high school science classrooms. Conclusions must always be supported by valid, legitimate data. Today I marked a student assignment that suggested humans will grow taller if they exercise more. Obviously a problem with the data. Genuine journalists are painstaking in their research, offering defensible data that we can trust to form our own conclusions. The rest is just fluffy entertainment. Jason Brough in Naguac, New Brunswick, southeast of Bathurst.

Ultimately, the presentation of the news should be a boring, emotionless regurgitation of facts, as they're known at that moment. Editorial podcasts, social media, and TV programs are fine to a point, but this for-profit national inquirer entertainment style of news popularized by the U.S. has bastardized the dissemination of information and has endangered all of us for a buck. Callum Arnold in Ottawa. A journalist is a lens through which the truth of an event is contextualized. To be a journalist, you can neither report pure facts nor obscure the lived reality in favor of pure narrative.

The best journalism interweaves truth and narrative to produce a text which we use to derive our own meaning, our own interpretation. If you ask me, neither Joe Rogan or Walter Cronkite fully embody what journalism ought to be, but the bridge definitely comes close. Oh, Callum. We're just a ramble. We're just a rant.

But Thursdays is your ramble and your rant, and good for you guys for writing in. Gary Gould, Brantford, Ontario. A journalist is someone who researches, analyzes, and composes facts of a story, of newsworthy topic, for publication and distribution. This harkens back to a vaudevillian image of the news hack or journo with the fedora hat and slick suit armed with a notebook and pencil that chase down facts for a story. In my opinion, a true journalist does exactly that. They ferret

out the facts and report only the facts. Once opinions are introduced, they no longer serve the true purpose of a journalist. One's resume may include journalist as well as influencer, podcaster, or simply reporter, but each stand alone as separate practices. For example, Peter Mansbridge, that's me, is not only a podcaster but is also an accomplished anchor of newscasts and journalists who reported facts for broadcast organizations such as the CBC. Actually, only the CBC. Alex Michael in Thunder Bay, Ontario. To me, a journalist is someone who seeks the truth, no matter how uncomfortable or inconvenient,

and brings it to light for the public good. Julian Assange exemplifies this, though at great personal cost. His release of the 2007 classified U.S. military footage, known as the Collateral Murder video, left a lasting impression on me and still haunts me to this day. This kind of unflinching exposure, however difficult, is what I believe journalism should strive for, holding power accountable and sparking vital conversations.

Okay, let me just say this about Assange. He pled guilty to a felony charge related to his role in one of the largest U.S. government breaches of classified materials after his whistleblowing website published nearly half a million secret military documents relating to the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The collateral murder video was one of those documents. It showed a U.S. helicopter crew in Iraq firing on a group of people and killing several of them, including two journalists, and then laughing at some of the casualties, all of whom were civilians. Assange spent seven years holed up at the Ecuadorian embassy in London,

where he was granted asylum, and then five years in a high-security prison in London. After his guilty plea, he was released to go home to Australia. Those are all facts. Marge Andre in Richmond Hill, Ontario, just north of Toronto. I believe that a comparison to health care is a good way of looking at this. A journalist is like a medical doctor. Lots of training and studying.

Podcasters, social media posts, blogs, YouTube videos are like nutritionists, chiropractors, aromatherapists. These alternatives have their place. Some have more value than others. I'm hoping that you can present what is the actual training of a journalist. What do they learn? What courses do they take? You know, I think of my friend Mark Baldrige,

as you know, he's a co-author of a number of books that he and I have written together. Mark was a graduate of the School of Journalism in Carleton in 1974, part-time instructor at Ryerson, now Toronto Metropolitan University, for 35 years. Journalism students take courses in print and broadcast, writing, interviewing, putting together short and long-form pieces, ethics, sometimes the history of journalism and its role in a democracy. And more and more they are taking courses in how to use equipment

because employers are asking journalists to shoot and edit their material as well. They also take non-journalism courses so that they have a well-rounded education. They may take economics, history, political science, English, religion, a wide range of other courses, but not all journalists come from schools of journalism. That's me. News organizations value people with deeper knowledge of some areas of study, like economics or political science or law. These people often fit well into a newsroom with a little technical training. Or, like me, they have none of that. They have the kind of school of hard knocks, which is what I went through,

for many years before I became a journalist of any kind of influence. But I like Mark's path better, and it is the classic path that many journalists take these days and have done for quite a few years. Doug Haw in Priceville, Ontario. That's north of Toronto, about an hour west of Barrie. I just Googled top journalists, and guess who is number one? Tucker Carlson.

I think Google needs to update its data search parameters. Tucker Carlson? Seriously? For sure an influencer. The top ten are mostly political so-called journalists and definitely lean left or right and have no problem expressing their views. If Biden trips on some stairs and makes a great speech, CNN will report on the speech and Fox will focus on the trip on the stairs. CNN does the same to Trump. I follow a bunch of news outlets on social media and suggest

all news outlets use it to get heard, otherwise they not survive of course there is tons of garbage online but the comments are entertaining to read excuse me mark manchester in toronto i don't think my answer might be what you're looking for but here's how people of my cohort might feel about journalism. I count upon someone else to do the legwork, paying attention to the issues of the day, reporting via various media. I listen to the radio, view the National, read some, not all, of our daily Toronto Star. So first, I hope to be informed about things I may not have known or paid attention to. Second, I look forward to a different point of view regarding some issues. Third, I particularly enjoy columnists who take us along interesting trails over time.

When there is follow-up, I can see and feel their progress as news unfurls. Their digging into it develops and know how their own views can continue to adapt and possibly change over many columns or broadcasts. Unfortunately, I feel some listeners and readers only wish to validate their own points of view and don't use news to gain knowledge. And there are now many who call themselves journalists that pander to this growing tribe. That's a good letter, Mark. No problem with that.

Danny Ryan in Ottawa. Fundamentally, a journalist is a storyteller, one who learns about the world and then crafts that knowledge into a narrative that provides context and nuance without monetization factoring into the story's worthiness. But journalism needs two elements, storytelling and a platform that will allow stories to reach a wide audience. These days, though, many of the stories being successfully promoted

to the widest audiences on platforms propagated by big media algorithms and the angry are not journalism to me. With the current methods of dissemination, it is the angry and uninformed who get to shape my reality with their distorted stories by choosing leaders who reinforce that narrow view. My journalists are those who can

and who want to decouple storytelling from profit and apparently whose platforms are also harder and harder to find. Jane Fitzwilliam in Toronto. A journalist is an impartial observer of current events, who takes multiple actions to ensure that they are not a participant in the story. We have numerous editorialists, podcasters, entertainment personalities that do not take the serious responsibility of seeking truth

over doctrine or advantage. Nancy Kumpf in Sarnia, Ontario. I want someone who works for a trustworthy news organization and will give me a factual account of what they're covering. I don't want a biased interpretation or a personal opinion. As far as podcasts go, I prefer to listen to people who provide a format that I find interesting to listen to, like The Bridge or like my friend David Hurley's podcast. Dallas McDougall in Brisbane, Australia. I think a reporter is a journalist, but a journalist doesn't have to be a reporter.

Times have changed, and like so many things, this includes journalism. A film star at one time was simply a stage actor who was put in front of the camera, and it shows in old movies. A musician once had to play instruments and or have a good voice to be a success. Not the case anymore. A combat or bomber pilot used to have to face danger. Now they can sit in a safe office and control machines of war. So why does a journalist need to remain an old man in a fedora,

licking the tip of his pencil or the anchor of a program in a large corporation? Like each of the examples above, you can critique what was and what is, but you can't change the fact that these jobs have evolved. You're absolutely right. I'm not arguing that. A podcast, blog, tweet, or evening newscast can all be forms of journalism, like it or not. I think the bigger concern is how they go about the trade and the ethics they apply. Opinion is opinion. Fact is fact. But it's up to the

consumer to be wise enough to think critically and do their homework to know when you're being taken for a ride. Sean Hogan on Campbell River, the east side of Vancouver Island. Let me first say I appreciate you and the stories in your end bits. I think that's a vital part of journalism. You're sharing facts that involve human-relatable facets of society. Maybe light or fair in context of journalism, but it's not on the spectrum of encompassing what journalism does. But is it not?

You're delivering information not for a major legacy network, but you have credibility and have done it all. And it's nice to break from the heavy, dire and dark aspects of wars, racism, overdoses and all manner of other sad social activities. You know, I get lots of reaction to the end bits. The one program we did on Tuesday, I had all kinds of mail on that one. Jeff Goldhar, he's in Bradenton, Florida, a good Canadian, but a snowbird right now. Finding a true journalist is much like

seeking out a juror for a trial. Someone who can separate truth and fact from lies and personal biases. Some are better than others at this. Norm Busolaro in Port Sydney, Ontario. It's in the Muskoka area. In my opinion, a journalist works for a long-standing, reputable organization and is tasked to investigate, research, and report on a current event or topic

in an unbiased, respectable, and verifiable manner. A journalist is not rewarded by clicks on a social media platform and can be held accountable for errors or inaccuracies. Joshua Winters in Surrey, B.C. A journalist to me is any storyteller who is committed to getting it right. Not necessarily first or most entertaining, I believe a true journalist is someone bound to follow the facts of a story whether wherever it may lead them, especially if it takes them somewhere unexpected or contrary to any

preconceptions or biases that journalists may have about the story. Being committed to the truth and divorced from it is to me the hallmark of a true journalist. Sorry, being committed to the truth, not divorced from it, is to me the hallmark of a true journalist. Leo Bourdon in Ottawa. Someone who reports on the news, period. Okay, I know what you're thinking. What does that mean exactly? Well, it means someone who informs the public. It doesn't mean someone who is providing an opinion. So that disqualifies Joe Rogan, even if he has millions

of listeners. And yes, that disqualifies Chantelle Hébert, even she describes herself, even if she describes herself as a journalist. I know that's what she used to do, but as you pointed out on your podcast on Tuesday, a podcast is not a newscast. And no, you don't need to go to journalism school to be a journalist. What about you, Peter? In your case, I would say you used to be a journalist, but you aren't anymore since you retired.

I'll give you an answer to that in a second. Tom Smith in Antigonish, Nova Scotia. I was a journalist in my 20s before going into advertising. I believe journalism is about self-identification. Does the person consider themselves a journalist? I don't consider myself a journalist anymore, even if I use journalistic techniques and philosophies all the time and occasionally still produce journalistic content.

So I turn it around to you. Do you still consider yourself a journalist? It's a good question. And I've loved listening to all your answers about what a journalism is journalist is it helps me kind of come to my area you know my answer is is still yes you gather information for use by the public you You use traditional journalistic methods. You care about the truth. You don't knowingly put lies into the public sphere. In fact, you work to make sure you don't.

You don't overlook inconvenient facts. You also transparently separate fact from fiction and fact from opinion. And even the opinion is based on fact. That's the attempt. Now listen, what I do today is different than what I used to do. There's no question about that. When I was chief correspondent of the CBC, anchor of the National,

truth is all that mattered. And that's the way we approach the news portion of the National every night. And if we got something wrong, we were the first to admit it. I don't have much time for some opinion makers and some columnists who can make a mistake and never concede that they made a mistake. We did, at least when I was there. Made a mistake, we said it. Today, I do a podcast that's full of opinion. And, you know, Fridays is a classic example.

Good Talk is opinion based on experience. And Chantel is one of the best in the country, acknowledged by most of her fellow journalists as the best. Bruce Anderson is not a journalist, never has been a journalist. He's a pollster and an analyst, somebody who's worked for both the two major parties and still at times advises members from different sides of the house. But he has a vast amount of experience in the politics of today.

And so the three of us get together on Fridays and just chat it up. We're not there to lie, cheat, steal. We're there to give our opinions based on our experience of what we see happening. That's why we don't always agree. Can't be right all the time. Anyway, thanks for these letters. They've been great. They really have been great.

I'm going to do a lot of things following this program, and one of them is start putting together the letters I want to write to Justin Trudeau's people, Jagmeet Singh's people, and Pierre Pauliev's people, to see whether they'll agree to interviews during the next campaign. We'll see. Maybe they will. Maybe they won't. Maybe some will. Maybe some won't. Maybe some will.

Maybe some won't. Then you're left with that dilemma. What do I do? You know, only one of the three said they'd do an interview. Does that mean I still do it? When we don't have the other two, what about balance? What about this, that, the other? Anyway, we'll sort it all out.

Hope you've enjoyed the program today and thank you so much for participating. That's what it's all about. Participation. Hope you enjoyed that December 5th episode of The Bridge. We'll have more tomorrow

when we deal with what you feel is a politician.