A good chat. Enjoyed it very much. I like Shannon's take on the potential of the moment while recognizing the weight of pessimism expressed by Supriya, because that is the challenge of the moment. How do we collectively address the challenge to democracy from discourses that fund raise off rage-fuelling amplifications of grievance? That's on all of us, media, pols and voters. So I'm with Shannon insofar as the "tables set", so let's see how good we are as a democracy in dealing with it. I think your podcast makes a helpful contribution to this moment.
Pierre was very correct that he'd never heard any journalist heckle the PM. So, what gives with this journalist? Yes, Pierre can rankle but when the journos are part of the story, they're losing, imo.
As was mentioned in the podcast, I think it's generally agreed that Akin crossed a line (he apologized, so he apparently agrees, too). But I think the context is important:
Poilievre has avoided media scrums and interviews throughout his leadership campaign. In his first public appearance in front of the media in months (and the first since he became leader), his team tells the gallery he'll go to the foyer of the House of Commons (where the gallery hangs out) to use the gallery's pool camera to make a statement, and that he won't take any questions.
Akin objects to this (there are varying reports of what he said, but the one I've seen is that he said the gallery "wasn't Poilievre's f*cking stenographers") and so when Poilievre comes out, he starts shouting questions at Poilievre. (I don't think it is accurate to call them heckles.) Akin only stops when Poilievre agrees to take two questions at the end of his statement.
I think that context puts this in a bit of a different light. This was Akin's way of saying that if Poilievre wants to use the media to get his message out, he has to play their game, too. I don't think this was the right away to go about it, and he gave Poilievre fodder (and it was rude, to boot, two wrongs don't make a right).
Trudeau isn't "heckled" by the media because he routinely talks to the media and takes questions. When he is walking through the foyer and stops to make a statement, the gallery always yells at him with questions both before and after he stops to speak. He often ignores them and just says what he wants to say, but it isn't correct that journalists don't shout questions at Trudeau from time to time.
I appreciate the nuanced analysis. I do have to say, even given the tone of the podcast today, that it feels like the media, for years, gives the Cons more flack, more scrutiny all the time. Harper's sweaters were atrocious but the PM's makeup mistakes get skipped over right fast? (I'd love to see a study on that tbh since I'm aware it could be just my small perspective. Then again, I hear this over and over again how much this seems to be the case - drub the Cons for little things but quickly move past the Liberal's errors). For middle Canada, this is preposterous. So, when Poilievre sticks it to the media, well, maybe they need to have some introspection about just what their job is: promote the Laurentian consensus or report the facts. There's been way too much blurring of these lines, especially in recent years, so I'm not bothered at all that Poilievre doesn't want to play their game.
This country really needs to reckon with its media because I've been watching since I can remember, I've studied politics for more than half my life, and I'm tired, of the bloviating, the ignoring of basic facts, the narrative nonsense that treats me like a idiot, and especially the we-know-what's-good-for-you attitude. I know a lot of that is the cut and thrust of politics but there is a real problem now with how issues and events are approached in our media landscape. I mean, I had a real hard time swallowing the podcast today. I wish I could have been there to provide the 'other' side from the usual. Nothing the guests said surprised me at all and that points to a problem with understanding what's happening on the street in this country, how other people might regard what happened, and just how much that is legitimate too, even if it isn't getting covered (or only covered on the new-er media sites).
I hope my own tone is not combative, I'm just trying to share as honestly and authentically as I can that I disagree, but in good faith, regarding the style and tone of Canada's media and how much I think it's failing at its important role in our democracy.
I appreciate you sharing your perspective and especially that we can discuss this respectfully, which is unfortunately all too rare in comments sections these days.
I understand that this is a delicate balancing act — I've gotten some push back from the other direction on some of the Conservative leadership episodes, for example. Not every perspective is going to be heard or expressed and I will inevitably leave some people out of the conversation. Let me know if you have ideas for guests that you'd like to hear on the podcast in the future.
The points you bring up about the media are fair — I agree with some of them and one of the reasons I wanted to go off on my own is that I don't always agree with how the media operates, what it prioritizes and how it views itself.
In the specific case of Poilievre vs. Akin, though, I'm more interested in how Poilievre interacts with the media because it will inevitably be an issue in the next campaign. People will be voting according to how they view his temperament and judgment in these situations, not whether the media was fair or not. And, if the media is being unfair, I'm not sure Poilievre needs to use a sledgehammer to make his point — people are smart enough to judge for themselves.
A good chat. Enjoyed it very much. I like Shannon's take on the potential of the moment while recognizing the weight of pessimism expressed by Supriya, because that is the challenge of the moment. How do we collectively address the challenge to democracy from discourses that fund raise off rage-fuelling amplifications of grievance? That's on all of us, media, pols and voters. So I'm with Shannon insofar as the "tables set", so let's see how good we are as a democracy in dealing with it. I think your podcast makes a helpful contribution to this moment.
Thanks Robert!
Pierre was very correct that he'd never heard any journalist heckle the PM. So, what gives with this journalist? Yes, Pierre can rankle but when the journos are part of the story, they're losing, imo.
As was mentioned in the podcast, I think it's generally agreed that Akin crossed a line (he apologized, so he apparently agrees, too). But I think the context is important:
Poilievre has avoided media scrums and interviews throughout his leadership campaign. In his first public appearance in front of the media in months (and the first since he became leader), his team tells the gallery he'll go to the foyer of the House of Commons (where the gallery hangs out) to use the gallery's pool camera to make a statement, and that he won't take any questions.
Akin objects to this (there are varying reports of what he said, but the one I've seen is that he said the gallery "wasn't Poilievre's f*cking stenographers") and so when Poilievre comes out, he starts shouting questions at Poilievre. (I don't think it is accurate to call them heckles.) Akin only stops when Poilievre agrees to take two questions at the end of his statement.
I think that context puts this in a bit of a different light. This was Akin's way of saying that if Poilievre wants to use the media to get his message out, he has to play their game, too. I don't think this was the right away to go about it, and he gave Poilievre fodder (and it was rude, to boot, two wrongs don't make a right).
Trudeau isn't "heckled" by the media because he routinely talks to the media and takes questions. When he is walking through the foyer and stops to make a statement, the gallery always yells at him with questions both before and after he stops to speak. He often ignores them and just says what he wants to say, but it isn't correct that journalists don't shout questions at Trudeau from time to time.
I appreciate the nuanced analysis. I do have to say, even given the tone of the podcast today, that it feels like the media, for years, gives the Cons more flack, more scrutiny all the time. Harper's sweaters were atrocious but the PM's makeup mistakes get skipped over right fast? (I'd love to see a study on that tbh since I'm aware it could be just my small perspective. Then again, I hear this over and over again how much this seems to be the case - drub the Cons for little things but quickly move past the Liberal's errors). For middle Canada, this is preposterous. So, when Poilievre sticks it to the media, well, maybe they need to have some introspection about just what their job is: promote the Laurentian consensus or report the facts. There's been way too much blurring of these lines, especially in recent years, so I'm not bothered at all that Poilievre doesn't want to play their game.
This country really needs to reckon with its media because I've been watching since I can remember, I've studied politics for more than half my life, and I'm tired, of the bloviating, the ignoring of basic facts, the narrative nonsense that treats me like a idiot, and especially the we-know-what's-good-for-you attitude. I know a lot of that is the cut and thrust of politics but there is a real problem now with how issues and events are approached in our media landscape. I mean, I had a real hard time swallowing the podcast today. I wish I could have been there to provide the 'other' side from the usual. Nothing the guests said surprised me at all and that points to a problem with understanding what's happening on the street in this country, how other people might regard what happened, and just how much that is legitimate too, even if it isn't getting covered (or only covered on the new-er media sites).
I hope my own tone is not combative, I'm just trying to share as honestly and authentically as I can that I disagree, but in good faith, regarding the style and tone of Canada's media and how much I think it's failing at its important role in our democracy.
I appreciate you sharing your perspective and especially that we can discuss this respectfully, which is unfortunately all too rare in comments sections these days.
I understand that this is a delicate balancing act — I've gotten some push back from the other direction on some of the Conservative leadership episodes, for example. Not every perspective is going to be heard or expressed and I will inevitably leave some people out of the conversation. Let me know if you have ideas for guests that you'd like to hear on the podcast in the future.
The points you bring up about the media are fair — I agree with some of them and one of the reasons I wanted to go off on my own is that I don't always agree with how the media operates, what it prioritizes and how it views itself.
In the specific case of Poilievre vs. Akin, though, I'm more interested in how Poilievre interacts with the media because it will inevitably be an issue in the next campaign. People will be voting according to how they view his temperament and judgment in these situations, not whether the media was fair or not. And, if the media is being unfair, I'm not sure Poilievre needs to use a sledgehammer to make his point — people are smart enough to judge for themselves.
Appreciate very much your thinking. I'd recommend Rupa Subramanya as someone currently in the middle of the media debate in this country.