For those of us who became accustomed to holding a broadsheet newspaper in our hands to read quality political content this is a pretty sobering article.
Mr. MacDougall notes that there are many serious questions that the media are not asking politicians anymore, and that is a damning statement of a decline of a quality product. A follow up to that is, ya but what if the questions are asked and the politicians dodge them with non answers or spit balls that insult a mature adult who knows what’s going on? Where is the leverage to get politicians back to a level playing field where serious questions are asked and answered? I certainly don’t know, other than to weed out the worst offenders at the ballot box.
Why does it take months and months to even obtain answers that are self evident? (See: who availed themselves of a $7,000/night luxury suite to attend the Queen’s funeral?) Some responsibility for that lies with the politicians themselves, who need to pass proper access to information laws that compel the government to provide timely information regarding expense matters. Spending money is not top secret, nor is who was on a guest list to attend a government sponsored event. Hiding behind privacy laws to cover up abuse of expense accounts is giving everyone the middle finger.
Lastly, is the erosion of public trust in the media playing into the hands of politicians? Is the poor treatment of reporters by politicians linked to the disdain that many Canadians have for what they read, watch or hear?
We have to take our reading choices into our own hands. We know not all reading is on the same level of legitimacy. MISinformation and DISinformation (worse because it's deliberate) are everywhere. I discarded social media to protect my time and sanity. No one thing is 100% trustworthy, but one needs to read something. The best is to read a variety from different sources and scan widely before reaching conclusions. My choices used to be a forever changing feast as I discarded and added (and still are to some extent as I try to maintain an open mind) Now I have CORE reading surrounded by an eclectic mix. One can't read everything. Discrimination works.
For my money, the National Post and SOME some private online newsletters (like this one) are the most accurate Canadian media today for Canadian POLITICAL content. I have discarded more things than I have kept. Not to say they are perfect, that they never publish disagreeable things and that you need to read everything they publish, but overall the best we have.
I spot-read our Postmedia papers online (what else is there? Postmedia has taken over the landscape) for non-political content and local happenings, and delve into American publications for US facts and content. I use TV for local news and sparingly for US news. Time is valuable and it's limited.
The point is to read and use discrimination. Don't assume traditional newspapers are all the same (bad). Use Snopes.com for fact checking. It's a great little tool.
The mainstream legacy media’s troubles with being accountable and holding politicians to account seem pretty directly correlated with some of the mess Canada now finds itself in. Thank you to the Line and others out here working at creating something new.
Thanks for the curious question Rob. I could write an essay but two things I would start with. One is that I’ve heard even the most ‘in-the-system’ journalists acknowledge that taking government subsidies influences editorial choices in subtle or sometimes not-so-subtle ways. There is a way in which by definition, the integrity of journalists whose pay cheque is partly paid by government is just-a-little-bit compromised, no matter how good their intentions, how high their skill level. The second thing is from my observations of the large events over the last several years, e.g. covid coverage, that if the mainstream media had been just a little more open to presenting all of the information as it unfolded, and trusting the public with that, we wouldn’t have lost so many people to their own media silos. At least in my circles, I saw that the way legacy media covered the stories incited less curiosity, and more polarization in the public.
While not incorrect, I think you are describing a symptom rather than a cause. The decline of mainstream media (and mainstream news in particular) is a result of the rise of social media and the disintermediation that is pushing them to irrelevance and insolvency. Paul Wells has a great series of articles on this.
In other words, people didn't leave mainstream news because it started getting clickbaity and insular. It got clickbaity and insular because it was hemorrhaging readers and advertising revenue. For the vast majority of outlets, preaching to the choir and accepting government funding was seen as the only way of retaining an audience and staying afloat. Unfortunately that has only hurt their credibility and ironically driven them further towards irrelevance, as you have pointed out.
There is a desperate need for quality journalism in our society. But until people are willing to actually pay for it rather than consume free entertainment news online, we are not creating the necessary conditions required for its revival.
I thought that this is what you meant. I just wanted to confirm my thinking.
I recognise the possibility of compromise in a news organization that receives some portion of its funding from the government. The odd thing is that I cannot point to an instance of that happening, or at least one that I recognised as such. My news sources, all print media, have continued to take the government to task for its faults. I do admit, though, that government funding of news media leaves me uncomfortable. It is difficult to bite the hand that feeds you, even if it is only a bit of food.
Your statement about coverage of the COVID pandemic by the traditional media is an interesting one. I don't know if it was the coverage that led to more polarization, or other sources. I am not aware that the traditional media kept information from the public during the pandemic. There was certainly a welter of confusing information, especially in the early days, as scientists struggled to understand the virus. Then there were the plethora of provincial responses to the virus. Simply reporting on all of this would have made stories appear confused at best. Is it possible that this could explain your observations of the reporting?
Thanks for this feedback. I personally was reading direct medical studies and in depth reporting of investigative journalists in US, UK and elsewhere during covid. I did not see much of what I read direct from source reflected in our legacy media —but maybe I missed it. I assume if I had access to those sources so did other writers and journalists. As with so many things, what we see depends on where we have the resource and capacity to notice. What I take away from all of this is the fractured nature of where info is coming from. At times, It’s almost as though everyone lives in different realities—and perhaps we are! Appreciating the dialogue here
Your last line really struck me: “It’s almost as though everyone lives in different realities—and perhaps we are!” That’s it, isn’t it? The information landscape no longer has a single horizon. Even people earnestly trying to be informed—reading studies, consulting international sources—can end up in fundamentally different epistemic worlds depending on where they look, what they’re primed to see, and who they trust. You didn’t miss it, necessarily; others didn’t fabricate it, either. It’s more like standing in a hall of mirrors where everyone is looking into a slightly different reflection, each convinced they’re facing the real thing.
This doesn’t mean the pursuit of shared understanding is hopeless. But it does mean it’s harder—and slower—than ever. And it calls on us to double down not just on seeking facts, but on being open to each other’s frames. That’s why this kind of dialogue matters so much. It builds not consensus, necessarily, but the possibility of it. And in a fractured reality, even that is gold.
I think there is something in particular about the TV news in this country that does a number on people. Those who watch this most legacy of legacy mediums tend to be furthest down the pro-government and pro-Liberal rabbit hole.
I put on CP24 and have to turn it off after 10 minutes due to the level of inaccuracy and the selection bias in stories. I remember when every gang shooting segment ended with them asking an anti-gun activist if it was time for some kind of ban on legally-owned guns. It's the most cursory of news channels but it's also the place where a lot of people tune in to get their highly-distilled news information.
I turn on the CBC news and am treated to a completely different reality than my own, where some of the reporting is fairly high quality but also every politically correct excess is indulged and the federal government is given the benefit of every doubt, where major problems in Canada, like mass immigration, are wallpapered over and never mentioned.
Likewise CTV and Global aren't far off of this alien reality, one where Donald Trump is suddenly the author of all Canada's misfortunes, and the elusive tariffs, which haven't caused any noticeable problems in most people's lives unless you are in a few specific industries, are the biggest and most noteworthy threat to our daily existence.
During Covid I was never a major vaccine skeptic, but I will never forgive these legacy channels for how they demonized the people who were, and how they pushed authoritarian levels of government propaganda without question. With all our TV media pushing in the same direction, it makes our superficial-left-skewed political culture make more sense.
Thank you, Mr. MacDougall, for this cogent explanation of news media in society. I suspect that no minds will be changed by this, but it still needs to be said.
Mr. MacDougall, Thank you for a thoughtful article that summarizes the state we are in regarding the Main Stream Media (MSM) and other media. My better half and I left the MSM print media about 15 years ago due to constant inaccuracies in reporting, spelling errors in printed text and a bias that was becoming common. We haven't missed it much.
I agree that there is likely too much cow pie circulating around the social media but I would argue that there are several YouTube reporters/media that are doing a good job of digging, finding facts and reporting on issues. Palmella Wallin has a long form panel channel that provides generally unbiased information and opinion. Northern Perspective does similar work as does True North/Juno though Juno is tending towards opinion but are up front in their bias. Sam Cooper does excellent work in digging and reporting.
Another excellent source of information is Blacklock's Reporters who's staff does the leg work and research that MSM used to do.
The MSM accepting cash from the Federal government has only accelerated the lack of trust in MSM reporting. We can all believe that the CBC and the MSM have an agenda that at least winks at the government in reporting or not reporting issues. Carney has even been heard to ask if funding for certain MSM that asked him difficult questions could be defunded. There is also the obvious 'if elected, my government will increase funding to the CBC' (wink, wink) - what does that tell you?
You can see the difference in reporting just last night at the media scrum after the French debate. An independent media reporter asked Carney about how many genders there are getting a bit of a wordy answer but at least 'two' came out. A follow up regarding safe places for women in sport, washrooms, change rooms, prisons, shelters etc. was met with a word salad that would have done Camala proud. CBC reaction? "I had to look outside to see if this was Canada" as if the question was not important to Canadians at all - news flash CBC et al, gender and safety issues are important to parents, husbands, fathers and women and mothers in this country and we want to know the answer in a straight forward response.
I do not know how MSM can regain public confidence at this point unless they swear off funding and get back to basics of digging, researching, and asking the important questions and making sure that they are answered.
For me, I agree the quality of news has declined faster than anyone could have expected. Opinion journalism I think has replaced a lot of traditional reporting. Again for me, that is not journalism. Sure would love to see the 5ws come back some day.
The problem is only exacerbated by the decline of journalism - low pay and unstable employment have tilted the profession towards young and inexperienced people who lack the perspective, knowledge, and skills to properly challenge the politicians or place the issues in context. They're also going to be closer to campus activist obsessions, and more likely to devote their passion towards those issues rather than the concerns of older people who have established careers, families, homes, and all the mundane issues that come with growing up.
Hmm. Interesting point of view and easy for me to agree with. I note this (sort of?) conclusion:
"The incentives of the new attention-powered information economy encourage the people in power to be the worst version of their nine-year-old selves, when what we need are systems that encourage them to be proper adults. And before journalists get too smug, it also encourages the worst in their cohort, too."
What types of systems are required to encourage this to happen? A new system is disturbingly difficult to imagine. It seems like politicians continue to be eager to have the traditional media impoverished and dependent on government support. I think they have too few resources and the wrong incentives to be the adults anytime soon.
New media? Impoverished but not on government support? Is that better?
Will voters hold politicians to account? Also hard to imagine when we are continually faced with the choice of dumb and dumber on our ballots. The less influence the government has in this dysfunctional system is maybe for the best.
I recognize the importance of supporting true journalism and I am frustrated that many newspapers have become so partisan that they have forgotten about their duty to represent all sides of an issue. I maintain a subscription to the Calgary Herald out of a desire to support journalism, and I have become so discouraged by the breathless UCP fan fiction on their pages that I haven’t read an issue in months. It’s not that I want to live in an echo chamber, it’s that I think the media owners need to recognize that they, too, have an obligation to journalism and, as you point out, they are not taking that responsibility seriously enough.
If the polls tighten up, there's still time for Rachel Gilmore to perform some breathless online reporting of a group of MAGA-hatted Conservatives giving Heil Hitler salutes attempting to burn down an Ottawa apartment building, with the likes of Andrew Coyne and Warren Kinsella dutifully waltzing past the obvious red flags to give the 'story' additional authenticity. Whoops, that could never happen!
The problem may be that our society seems to thrive on anything sensational. When we go home from our sometimes-ho-hum working day, we want something to excite our senses and perk up our day. So, we scour the internet for "news" . As we browse, we may read about the wildfires, a traffic accident, a stolen car, a B&E at the local downtown shop, maybe skip the local Library meeting. In steps social media to fill that perceived need. Increased hits drive the engine to pump out more pulp fiction and subscriptions get cancelled and traditional TV News get dropped. Then come the appeals for tax dollars to keep the bloated MSM afloat and on it goes, worse and worse. Dissatisfied journalists set out on their own to try to make a living on fixing the situation with thoughtful stuff that we all really appreciate.
Thank you for this. It’s a sharp reminder that the real crisis isn’t just in how we communicate—but in how little resistance power now encounters when it does. Without meaningful pushback, without someone saying, “That’s not good enough,” the powerful lose the muscle it takes to think deeply, argue honestly, and grow. In a world where every utterance can be broadcast instantly, the temptation to speak without substance becomes overwhelming. And without editors, challengers, or grown-ups in the room, the stage is left to those who perform, not those who persuade.
Maybe the fix isn’t grand or sweeping. Maybe it’s just this: more of us deciding to ask better questions, to reward thoughtfulness over spectacle, to make space for real challenge. Maybe being an adult in public life means learning to handle discomfort without doubling down, to lose an argument and come back better, to seek clarity instead of control. We can’t expect those in power to rise to that standard unless we do, too.
For those of us who became accustomed to holding a broadsheet newspaper in our hands to read quality political content this is a pretty sobering article.
Mr. MacDougall notes that there are many serious questions that the media are not asking politicians anymore, and that is a damning statement of a decline of a quality product. A follow up to that is, ya but what if the questions are asked and the politicians dodge them with non answers or spit balls that insult a mature adult who knows what’s going on? Where is the leverage to get politicians back to a level playing field where serious questions are asked and answered? I certainly don’t know, other than to weed out the worst offenders at the ballot box.
Why does it take months and months to even obtain answers that are self evident? (See: who availed themselves of a $7,000/night luxury suite to attend the Queen’s funeral?) Some responsibility for that lies with the politicians themselves, who need to pass proper access to information laws that compel the government to provide timely information regarding expense matters. Spending money is not top secret, nor is who was on a guest list to attend a government sponsored event. Hiding behind privacy laws to cover up abuse of expense accounts is giving everyone the middle finger.
Lastly, is the erosion of public trust in the media playing into the hands of politicians? Is the poor treatment of reporters by politicians linked to the disdain that many Canadians have for what they read, watch or hear?
We have to take our reading choices into our own hands. We know not all reading is on the same level of legitimacy. MISinformation and DISinformation (worse because it's deliberate) are everywhere. I discarded social media to protect my time and sanity. No one thing is 100% trustworthy, but one needs to read something. The best is to read a variety from different sources and scan widely before reaching conclusions. My choices used to be a forever changing feast as I discarded and added (and still are to some extent as I try to maintain an open mind) Now I have CORE reading surrounded by an eclectic mix. One can't read everything. Discrimination works.
For my money, the National Post and SOME some private online newsletters (like this one) are the most accurate Canadian media today for Canadian POLITICAL content. I have discarded more things than I have kept. Not to say they are perfect, that they never publish disagreeable things and that you need to read everything they publish, but overall the best we have.
I spot-read our Postmedia papers online (what else is there? Postmedia has taken over the landscape) for non-political content and local happenings, and delve into American publications for US facts and content. I use TV for local news and sparingly for US news. Time is valuable and it's limited.
The point is to read and use discrimination. Don't assume traditional newspapers are all the same (bad). Use Snopes.com for fact checking. It's a great little tool.
The mainstream legacy media’s troubles with being accountable and holding politicians to account seem pretty directly correlated with some of the mess Canada now finds itself in. Thank you to the Line and others out here working at creating something new.
I am curious what you mean by "[t]he mainstream legacy media’s troubles with being accountable". Could you expand on that? Thanks.
Thanks for the curious question Rob. I could write an essay but two things I would start with. One is that I’ve heard even the most ‘in-the-system’ journalists acknowledge that taking government subsidies influences editorial choices in subtle or sometimes not-so-subtle ways. There is a way in which by definition, the integrity of journalists whose pay cheque is partly paid by government is just-a-little-bit compromised, no matter how good their intentions, how high their skill level. The second thing is from my observations of the large events over the last several years, e.g. covid coverage, that if the mainstream media had been just a little more open to presenting all of the information as it unfolded, and trusting the public with that, we wouldn’t have lost so many people to their own media silos. At least in my circles, I saw that the way legacy media covered the stories incited less curiosity, and more polarization in the public.
While not incorrect, I think you are describing a symptom rather than a cause. The decline of mainstream media (and mainstream news in particular) is a result of the rise of social media and the disintermediation that is pushing them to irrelevance and insolvency. Paul Wells has a great series of articles on this.
In other words, people didn't leave mainstream news because it started getting clickbaity and insular. It got clickbaity and insular because it was hemorrhaging readers and advertising revenue. For the vast majority of outlets, preaching to the choir and accepting government funding was seen as the only way of retaining an audience and staying afloat. Unfortunately that has only hurt their credibility and ironically driven them further towards irrelevance, as you have pointed out.
There is a desperate need for quality journalism in our society. But until people are willing to actually pay for it rather than consume free entertainment news online, we are not creating the necessary conditions required for its revival.
Thank you, PJ & Daniel, for a most valuable, respectful and adult conversation. Given the tenor of the times, this is a rare diamond.
I thought that this is what you meant. I just wanted to confirm my thinking.
I recognise the possibility of compromise in a news organization that receives some portion of its funding from the government. The odd thing is that I cannot point to an instance of that happening, or at least one that I recognised as such. My news sources, all print media, have continued to take the government to task for its faults. I do admit, though, that government funding of news media leaves me uncomfortable. It is difficult to bite the hand that feeds you, even if it is only a bit of food.
Your statement about coverage of the COVID pandemic by the traditional media is an interesting one. I don't know if it was the coverage that led to more polarization, or other sources. I am not aware that the traditional media kept information from the public during the pandemic. There was certainly a welter of confusing information, especially in the early days, as scientists struggled to understand the virus. Then there were the plethora of provincial responses to the virus. Simply reporting on all of this would have made stories appear confused at best. Is it possible that this could explain your observations of the reporting?
Thanks for this feedback. I personally was reading direct medical studies and in depth reporting of investigative journalists in US, UK and elsewhere during covid. I did not see much of what I read direct from source reflected in our legacy media —but maybe I missed it. I assume if I had access to those sources so did other writers and journalists. As with so many things, what we see depends on where we have the resource and capacity to notice. What I take away from all of this is the fractured nature of where info is coming from. At times, It’s almost as though everyone lives in different realities—and perhaps we are! Appreciating the dialogue here
Your last line really struck me: “It’s almost as though everyone lives in different realities—and perhaps we are!” That’s it, isn’t it? The information landscape no longer has a single horizon. Even people earnestly trying to be informed—reading studies, consulting international sources—can end up in fundamentally different epistemic worlds depending on where they look, what they’re primed to see, and who they trust. You didn’t miss it, necessarily; others didn’t fabricate it, either. It’s more like standing in a hall of mirrors where everyone is looking into a slightly different reflection, each convinced they’re facing the real thing.
This doesn’t mean the pursuit of shared understanding is hopeless. But it does mean it’s harder—and slower—than ever. And it calls on us to double down not just on seeking facts, but on being open to each other’s frames. That’s why this kind of dialogue matters so much. It builds not consensus, necessarily, but the possibility of it. And in a fractured reality, even that is gold.
I think there is something in particular about the TV news in this country that does a number on people. Those who watch this most legacy of legacy mediums tend to be furthest down the pro-government and pro-Liberal rabbit hole.
I put on CP24 and have to turn it off after 10 minutes due to the level of inaccuracy and the selection bias in stories. I remember when every gang shooting segment ended with them asking an anti-gun activist if it was time for some kind of ban on legally-owned guns. It's the most cursory of news channels but it's also the place where a lot of people tune in to get their highly-distilled news information.
I turn on the CBC news and am treated to a completely different reality than my own, where some of the reporting is fairly high quality but also every politically correct excess is indulged and the federal government is given the benefit of every doubt, where major problems in Canada, like mass immigration, are wallpapered over and never mentioned.
Likewise CTV and Global aren't far off of this alien reality, one where Donald Trump is suddenly the author of all Canada's misfortunes, and the elusive tariffs, which haven't caused any noticeable problems in most people's lives unless you are in a few specific industries, are the biggest and most noteworthy threat to our daily existence.
During Covid I was never a major vaccine skeptic, but I will never forgive these legacy channels for how they demonized the people who were, and how they pushed authoritarian levels of government propaganda without question. With all our TV media pushing in the same direction, it makes our superficial-left-skewed political culture make more sense.
Thank you, Mr. MacDougall, for this cogent explanation of news media in society. I suspect that no minds will be changed by this, but it still needs to be said.
Who needs to be adults? Politicians, journalists or us reading your article? Or maybe all of us?
Well if only the CBC had enough tax payer dollars...
Mr. MacDougall, Thank you for a thoughtful article that summarizes the state we are in regarding the Main Stream Media (MSM) and other media. My better half and I left the MSM print media about 15 years ago due to constant inaccuracies in reporting, spelling errors in printed text and a bias that was becoming common. We haven't missed it much.
I agree that there is likely too much cow pie circulating around the social media but I would argue that there are several YouTube reporters/media that are doing a good job of digging, finding facts and reporting on issues. Palmella Wallin has a long form panel channel that provides generally unbiased information and opinion. Northern Perspective does similar work as does True North/Juno though Juno is tending towards opinion but are up front in their bias. Sam Cooper does excellent work in digging and reporting.
Another excellent source of information is Blacklock's Reporters who's staff does the leg work and research that MSM used to do.
The MSM accepting cash from the Federal government has only accelerated the lack of trust in MSM reporting. We can all believe that the CBC and the MSM have an agenda that at least winks at the government in reporting or not reporting issues. Carney has even been heard to ask if funding for certain MSM that asked him difficult questions could be defunded. There is also the obvious 'if elected, my government will increase funding to the CBC' (wink, wink) - what does that tell you?
You can see the difference in reporting just last night at the media scrum after the French debate. An independent media reporter asked Carney about how many genders there are getting a bit of a wordy answer but at least 'two' came out. A follow up regarding safe places for women in sport, washrooms, change rooms, prisons, shelters etc. was met with a word salad that would have done Camala proud. CBC reaction? "I had to look outside to see if this was Canada" as if the question was not important to Canadians at all - news flash CBC et al, gender and safety issues are important to parents, husbands, fathers and women and mothers in this country and we want to know the answer in a straight forward response.
I do not know how MSM can regain public confidence at this point unless they swear off funding and get back to basics of digging, researching, and asking the important questions and making sure that they are answered.
For me, I agree the quality of news has declined faster than anyone could have expected. Opinion journalism I think has replaced a lot of traditional reporting. Again for me, that is not journalism. Sure would love to see the 5ws come back some day.
The problem is only exacerbated by the decline of journalism - low pay and unstable employment have tilted the profession towards young and inexperienced people who lack the perspective, knowledge, and skills to properly challenge the politicians or place the issues in context. They're also going to be closer to campus activist obsessions, and more likely to devote their passion towards those issues rather than the concerns of older people who have established careers, families, homes, and all the mundane issues that come with growing up.
Hmm. Interesting point of view and easy for me to agree with. I note this (sort of?) conclusion:
"The incentives of the new attention-powered information economy encourage the people in power to be the worst version of their nine-year-old selves, when what we need are systems that encourage them to be proper adults. And before journalists get too smug, it also encourages the worst in their cohort, too."
What types of systems are required to encourage this to happen? A new system is disturbingly difficult to imagine. It seems like politicians continue to be eager to have the traditional media impoverished and dependent on government support. I think they have too few resources and the wrong incentives to be the adults anytime soon.
New media? Impoverished but not on government support? Is that better?
Will voters hold politicians to account? Also hard to imagine when we are continually faced with the choice of dumb and dumber on our ballots. The less influence the government has in this dysfunctional system is maybe for the best.
I recognize the importance of supporting true journalism and I am frustrated that many newspapers have become so partisan that they have forgotten about their duty to represent all sides of an issue. I maintain a subscription to the Calgary Herald out of a desire to support journalism, and I have become so discouraged by the breathless UCP fan fiction on their pages that I haven’t read an issue in months. It’s not that I want to live in an echo chamber, it’s that I think the media owners need to recognize that they, too, have an obligation to journalism and, as you point out, they are not taking that responsibility seriously enough.
If the polls tighten up, there's still time for Rachel Gilmore to perform some breathless online reporting of a group of MAGA-hatted Conservatives giving Heil Hitler salutes attempting to burn down an Ottawa apartment building, with the likes of Andrew Coyne and Warren Kinsella dutifully waltzing past the obvious red flags to give the 'story' additional authenticity. Whoops, that could never happen!
The problem may be that our society seems to thrive on anything sensational. When we go home from our sometimes-ho-hum working day, we want something to excite our senses and perk up our day. So, we scour the internet for "news" . As we browse, we may read about the wildfires, a traffic accident, a stolen car, a B&E at the local downtown shop, maybe skip the local Library meeting. In steps social media to fill that perceived need. Increased hits drive the engine to pump out more pulp fiction and subscriptions get cancelled and traditional TV News get dropped. Then come the appeals for tax dollars to keep the bloated MSM afloat and on it goes, worse and worse. Dissatisfied journalists set out on their own to try to make a living on fixing the situation with thoughtful stuff that we all really appreciate.
Thank you for this. It’s a sharp reminder that the real crisis isn’t just in how we communicate—but in how little resistance power now encounters when it does. Without meaningful pushback, without someone saying, “That’s not good enough,” the powerful lose the muscle it takes to think deeply, argue honestly, and grow. In a world where every utterance can be broadcast instantly, the temptation to speak without substance becomes overwhelming. And without editors, challengers, or grown-ups in the room, the stage is left to those who perform, not those who persuade.
Maybe the fix isn’t grand or sweeping. Maybe it’s just this: more of us deciding to ask better questions, to reward thoughtfulness over spectacle, to make space for real challenge. Maybe being an adult in public life means learning to handle discomfort without doubling down, to lose an argument and come back better, to seek clarity instead of control. We can’t expect those in power to rise to that standard unless we do, too.
Brilliant.
The 9 year olds are paying the salaries of the so called adults. So what results are you expecting? 🙄