I don't listen to Tucker as i find his voice and a lot of his views annoying so I hear ya on that one. Conservatieve voting against the ukraine Free Trade deal was, I believe, based on the idea that the feds enshrined a carbon tax in the fine print. Call it an error if you want but a lot of folks will disagree as we are tired of our federal government 'virtue signaling' on every topic imaginable - stop already.
Smith's views on transgender meds are right on with public opinion. The medical profession say that blockers are reversible BUT they fail to tell you that they were developed to slow down puberty that begins too early in boys and girls - they were not developed for long term use (apparently that is irreversible contrary to medical expressed opinions). Like you, I would like to believe the medical profession but the last few years have shown a lot of reason to take a jaundiced look at some of what we are being told. Besides, kids are confused during puberty (think back and be nonest folks) so is it any wonder that there is a group think that 'hey I'm xyz gender just like you and (insert movie star here) is - cool'. I also suspect that the Alberta Medical Association knows EXACTLY how many gender change operations are being done on youths and, frankly, one is too many.
Large media companies want to make money and if they can do it by rebroadcasting stuff from somewhere else so much the better for them. The general public have a dim view of a lot of media reporting and turn to private ones, like yours, as you have an up front bias that I can understand. Yes, I listen and pay to hear a disenting view.
Gee, organized crime in Montreal - who knew??!!! Car theft is one of those catch and release crimes that just keeps on giving - just ask the Justice meinister who lost three vehicles in the last three years but waited till PP started expressing concern and putting out a policy on how he would deal with the issue and SUDDENLY the minister recognizes that there is a problem. Don't think on it too much folks as your head will just hurt.
Oh, how the media deals with PP - just listen to some of the questions he gets. It is no wonder to me that he pushes back against the expression of an opinion (the best this week was 'well you are saying you disagree with the concept of presumption of innocence' when asking about car theft minimum sentences. Unfortunately a lot of the media uses a question to promote a personal or employers opinion and then asks a stupid question - if they treated YOU that way Mat, how would YOU react??? Oh, and tell me how many 'reporters' are really taking JT to task about the ArriveCan ap fiasco (for one) and then tell me that PP doesn't get a different kind of treatment from the media , but, hey, I keep listening to you guys!
Canadian politics can be incredibly insular and parochial. Car thefts were a huge problem in BC’s Lower Mainland about 20 years ago. Finally the police, prosecution service, and insurers put their heads together to tackle the issue. They realized the bulk of the thefts were related to a small number of prolific offenders. They set out to trap them with specially modified bait cars (equipped with engine kill switches, cameras, tracking devices, and remotely operated locks), and when they got them, put them away for a long time. It was extremely effective: theft rates went way down, and it had a huge deterrent on would-be thieves. So, there’s a ready-made solution proven to work, but I’ll bet Ontarians have no clue.
Right on George - we need to keep re-inventing the wheel (no pun intended). I recall watching those bait and catch videos and it is an effective program. Just keep in mind that it was developed in the west and not in the centre of the universe soooo
> as we are tired of our federal government 'virtue signaling' on every topic imaginable - stop already.
You're dead right on that.... and ironically, that's why I've been berating my local CPC MP for voting against the trade deal... he and the rest of the CPC virtue signalling how much they don't like carbon taxes.
The Ukrainian embassy says the treaty doesn't impose a carbon tax, so they're either lying (why would they?) or they're too dumb to know what they signed, (seems unlikely).... OR.... they're right and the CPC are just virtue signalling like they're a 2015 Trudeau declaring "Canada is back".
Yeah, I get it, the LPC can't help but virtue signal in the middle of a geopolitically important trade deal... and apparently the CPC can't help themselves either... Sheesh... what depressing qualities in our leaders.
In addition, as Matt himself pointed out, when PP WAS asked a proper question by the Star reporter, he ANSWERED it. Yeah, he then went off on a tangent afterwards but he answered the question - how often does that happen in the HofC? I have plenty of issues with PP (the biggest being my fear he may somehow blow it and lose to the absolute menace that is Junior) but when he blasts reporters asking loaded "gotcha'" questions that import opinions/falsehoods I absolutely love it.
Ah, but how often has a question the Commons ever been answered by anyone in power? QP is a national embarrassment, and a failure of our parliamentary system.....that plays into earlier discussions about a lack of transparency in our governments.
Who would have thought Tucker Carlson and Putin would turn out to be......boring?
I disagree that any company (or government dept) is obliged to retain employees that it doesn't need. That being said, why does Canada protect media or telecom at all? The time to unleash the forces of natural selection are long passed.
I'd agree about the companies not retaining people if we were in a free market but we're very much not, and there is little incentive for new players to join the game.
The free market could easily be unleashed by ending the media and telecom oligopolies (and dairy, poultry, air travel, financial services). Canadian productivity growth has sucked for a couple of decades. Maintaining unnecessary staff by government and protected oligopolies is a piece of that. Not only does it drag down the productivity of those sectors, it reduces allocation of money to more productive sectors.
I do worry about the effect ending those oligopolies would have on national unity. The fact is that Canada is pretty empty, with most of the population and wealth concentrated in Greater Toronto, Montreal, BC’s Lower Mainland, and Edmonton/Calgary. Those areas have been subsidizing services like air travel and telecom for the rest of the country. What’s the effect on the Maritimes when their already expensive air travel simply disappears because the market isn’t commercially attractive? How does rural Canada react when they start losing cell service (or paying a multiple of what they do now?)
I disagree. Most of those oligopolies flow excess profits back to Ontario and Quebec (ex. all media cos, 2/3 big telecoms, all big banks, disproportionate number of dairy and poultry producers, all big insurers, Air Canada) on the backs of other Canadians. Unleashing competition would save money for all Canadians and likely pull some of the profits out of the Ontario and Quebec. This would only help national unity.
As someone who resided in Australia for many years, I don't buy the arguments that Canada's sparse population spread across a vast geography requires the government to limit competition. All of dairy, poultry, telecom and air travel are deregulated in Australia and prices are much, much lower.
100%! I was disappointed when the hosts/proprietors of this fine establishment suggested as a remedy for the telco BS that the feds ought to "flex their regulatory muscle". No, dammit!! The solution is to REMOVE the regulatory protections from the telco (and dairy and air travel) cartels. My kingdom for a Canadian version of Javier Milei.
One of the great hypocrisies that neither Matt or Jen really grasp is journalists complaining about another journalist interviewing an immensely powerful person.
It is a reflection of the low state of journalism. If any journalist has the chance to interview Putin - why wouldn't you take it? He may be loathsome and an enemy but why in the hell wouldn't you do your job and be a journalist?
The number of hateful, evil people that have been interviewed is a mile long. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc. all interviewed Osama bin Laden. How many times was Ted Bundy interviewed? Edgar Snow interviewed Mao. Pick 100s of examples out a hat.
I don't care a whit about Tucker Carlson, but the cravenness of the chattering classes about interviewing Putin is comical.
Yes, but I think you gloss over the weakness of "the media" in throwing fits that he did the interview. I'm seeing journalists freak out that he would dare interview Putin vs the content of the interview.
(And yes, it definitely did not go the way he thought)
I don’t know if this is part of Smith’s calculus (I suspect not, although her performance at the press conference surprised & impressed me), but there is one thing I think you are overlooking if this becomes a long battle.
Gender-based medicalization of kids did not come in the front door. It was gradually introduced via back channels, until there was critical mass of people with the right ideological outlook and flexible standards of evidence in sufficient positions in the health system. At that point, it became “no debate” and any questioning of it was branded transphobic and nothing less than proof one was a Nazi. It has never had to stand up to public, scientific, or even logical scrutiny.
Now, however, they are having to front people to present their argument on the public stage and… I’d say they aren’t sending their best, but I actually think they are. Those of us in the gender trenches call it Operation Let Them Speak and it is, hands down, the most effective tactic in our toolbox.
It’s not just Janis Irwin and Brooks Arcand-Paul’s cringe TikToks. It’s, as Jen has learned, the lies — about minors’ surgeries, about suicide rates, about long-term side effects. It’s the hyperbolic public weeping. It’s the transparently (pardon the term) cynical attempts at emotional manipulation.
And it’s Kai Shappley’s mother talking about beating her too-feminine son and googling gay conversion therapies “to make Kai not be like this” until, oh joy, their prayers were answered when they found out they could just trans away the gay.
Jen, I appreciated your comment about "Orwellian language". "Top surgery" or "gender affirming surgery" instead of what "double mastectomy".
But... weren't you doing the same thing?
"Natal female". How is a "natal" female different from a "female"? None of these surgeries change one's sex.
And that kind of gets to why I (as a resident of BC) thinks Danielle Smith is going all Leeroy Jenkins on this issue... Matt is right.. it's going to be protested at every stage, BUT it will make her opponents look crazy because the public agrees that with her that 15 year olds SHOULD NOT get double mastectomies and teachers SHOULD NOT conspire amongst themselves to keep secrets from parents.
(Incidentally, knowing from the inside that that IS happening in BC schools with documents to keep track of which pronouns and names are secret and then hearing the CBC lie to me and say it isn't happening is infuriating.)
The protests at every stage will help her just as surely as a bozo eruption from the "Putin did nothing wrong" kind of conservative would help Trudeau.
now that the public has finally wrapped their heads around the meaning of transmen and transwomen (admit it: when you first heard transwoman, you asked is that a man who thinks he's a women or a women who thinks she is a man) they've gone and re-confused the whole language issue by talking about trans females (which SHOULD be a female who identifies as trans, ie: a transman. But - incredulously! - is a transwomen; ie: Male)
I think that Jen Gerson's analysis of the Conservatives and Ukraine is exactly right. Her logic is so limpid that I have trouble understanding how people misinterpreted her.
On trans issues, nobody seems to be interested in scientific analyses. Instead, we are setting up a double wedge issue federally, where the Liberals will try to wedge the Conservatives and vice versa. I think that this is one issue within identity politics where a fair number of ordinary Canadians will pay attention. So far, polls suggest that the Conservatives will have the edge.
On the BCE layoffs, BCE should never have entered the media business. They made a mistake, and they're getting out. What's wrong with that? As far as I know, BCE is a for-profit corporation. If the Prime Minister wants something else, he should make other arrangements.
I know many Putin enjoyers, and they weren't really paying attention to Tucker because they were too dazzled by Putin. Compared to our mediocre and laughably unserious politicians (Geriatric Biden, Theatrical Enunciator Trudeau), a savage like Putin seems formidable and worthy of respect to these guys. I think some people are so hungry for competent leadership that they see a dominant strongman like him and...they just like it. Same reason people like Trump, "he's a Boss, a GANGSTER!!" I try to remind them that while Putin certainly is a force to be reckoned with, he is...not our friend? Like, he wishes us ill? I think they understand that...
I agree. I think as well - Putin makes credible historical arguments. Some are wrong, or deceptive, like his discussion of Poland and the Nazis, but others are correct. Like on Kosovo. The West bombed bridges with civilians and used cluster bomb because a people group did not want to be part of Serbia. You now have a group in eastern Ukraine that does not want to be part of Ukraine and the West takes the opposite stance. The situation in eastern Ukraine is far more complicated than any western media are willing to discuss.
And the hypocrisy of NATO is also obvious.
This does not make the war right or Putin a good leader (he's a thug who very likely bombed his own civilians). But the argument in Ukraine is much more complex than many, it seems including the Line, want to admit.
You didn't realize you were setting up a pretty easy comparison between once-dominated subject states (Ukraine, Kosovo) trying to break free from failing imperial occupiers (Serbia, Russia), did you? NATO supported both!
First, that isn't the case of eastern Ukraine (many consider themselves Russian) who have had (very legitimate) anger towards western Ukraine. There's been a war there since 2014 (of which the invasion was an escalation).
And Kosovo was never a state and was never "occupied". It's been a part of Serbia (and then Yugoslavia) going back centuries.. Further, it was a rebellion by a terrorist army (KLA was labelled a terrorist group until the war) that didn't involve any genocidal activities until after the US bombing. It was a civil war the west picked a side on.
Nevermind that the list of independence movements the West hasn't supported has been just as long (and just as selective).
Ehh. As always, as I keep telling people, no comparison is perfect. But if you really wanna fight this battle over the Kosovo one, I don’t think it’s gonna go as well as you expect.
Actually, come to think of it, it would go fine for you, because I’m not gonna bother getting into an an extended back-and-forth. I just don’t think the comparison is that useful for you. I’m gonna go make dinner.
I think our difference is you came of age in a period of enlightened pan-Americanism, and I grew up during the Iraq War.
Enjoy dinner.
P.S. I don't know how much you know about Kosovo. Most Canadians know next to nothing. It involved cluster bombs and bombing civilians, in a vicious conflict with no good guys. And we made it worse.
From WaPo: "Ironically, the U.S.-led NATO bombing precipitated the very humanitarian crisis the administration claimed it was intervening to stop. Belgrade did not turn from conducting a counterinsurgency against the KLA to uprooting the province's ethnic Albanian population until several days after NATO began its bombing campaign. Indeed, in its May 1999 report on ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, the State Department conceded that "in late March 1999 [after the NATO bombing began], Serbian forces dramatically increased the scope and pace of their efforts, moving away from selective targeting of towns and regions suspected of KLA sympathies toward a sustained and systematic effort to ethnically cleanse the entire province of Kosovo.""
Re. THE INTERVIEW - If you somehow can manage to form any reason why this was a bad idea in your own mind YOU are not a journalist. Any opportunity to present the leader of the county that you are spending billions of $ to fight to the people who are paying for it is worth it. Every single tax paying Canadian, American, and European should be required to watch this. Know your "enemy". Agree or disagree, we theoretically still live in a somewhat free country (except for your health, i.e. "vaccines" that aren't, and truck drivers' bank accounts) and this should be required watching to see the nuance of the man, to observe his manner and mannerisms. Let him talk. (Does anyone seriously think Biden could mentally handle this level of interview? Or that Zelinsky has the spine to?) The format of the interview was well done (granted Tucker's laugh aside) and THAT is what scares people - sadly The Line included it seems. In a long form uncut interview you can actually SEE the person being interviewed and get a feel for it that isn't just the excerpts and slices that some network editor decides on. Why is Joe Rogan popular? Because the public has overwhelmingly decided that the media lies. Or even worse that the media INTERPRETS for you. That ain't news OR journalism, that is opinion and editorial. Those are VERY different things. It's the subtle but massive difference between "Paid for by the Government of Canada" and "Paid for by the TAXPAYERS of Canada". It may come as a shock to the Liberal and NDP readers that those two things are actually different. Matt and Jenn I expect better from you both for my money.
I hear Jen Gerson’s sentiment that the big media companies should be required to fund news in exchange for their lucrative regulatorily protected markets, but I think it’s important to remember that the government is already extracting some benefits from them in the form of cellular and high speed internet access outside of the major centers. During the brief periods when new competitors entered the market, they’d usually provide their service in the big centers of greater Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, and Edmonton/Calgary. That’s where the population density and the profitable market is. I think we need to think about how many bites at the apple we take from supposed cash cows.
I watched the whole of the Putin interview. There are obviously and were always going to be critiques of Tucker or any other interviewer sitting in that chair. Did Tucker preform well? Depends on what you were looking for. Did it go how he thought? Definitely probably not. For me though I thought there was a ton of benefit to just hearing the man speak for 2+ hours. Listening to him spin his ideas and how and where he directed the conversation. Putin has always appeared to me as a formidable leader. But after listening to him winge on for 2 hours he appeared less so. His arguments and angles were weak/irrelevant and his de-nazification justification was laughable. He managed to spin half truths on so many different fronts that he discredited himself to virtually every demographic he might have hoped to sway. He also came off as afraid of the CIA, which I’m certain he did not intend. There is no question he is a smart man in many ways, but he is not an intellectual giant. In the same way the West has been (justifiably) accused of not understanding the way other cultures may think, Putin showed himself to understand very little of the way we think. His long winded and irrelevant historical explanations (which were full of inaccuracies) attested to this.
As someone who will profess a certain degree of respect for Putin, I don’t think this was a win for him, and I don’t think his performance helped him with Tucker’s or any other Western audience. It certainly didn’t with me. I personally came away less impressed than before. So was there benefit to that? I’d say yes there was.
You only watched the Putin interview for ten minutes before turning it off? How can you comment on the discussions? You are sounding more like those on MSM
Matt and Jen, I enjoyed this episode. FYI, there’s lots happening west of Calgary if you’re looking for stories outside of Ontario and Alberta for your next podcast. PS. it’s pronounced Ee-bee. 😃
Conservatives are legislating to appease their base. It doesn't appeal to the people they need to get to vote for them, but the GOP minded....yes, that's what they are, love it. Pierre having no idea what he's talking about is another perfect example. The base will love it even if it's utterly stupid.
Trudeau is equally guilty of being unable to admit a mistake....but in a different way. Trudeau pivots, dawdles, and quietly walks back. . Pierre is locked. Which is better?
It is time for the government to suggest that if companies like Bell aren't going to support local media, it might be time to allow US telephone companies into the market? The Beaverton's take was hysterical.
No one will understand the trans issue until their son comes home and says "I think I'm a girl". But having a government decides what happens next is the worst possible scenario. That politicians are lying their faces off with statistics to appease their bases is proof of the danger politician intervention represents. (No, I haven't dealt with it myself, but have 2 close friends who have.....very successfully)
The state of our justice system, and its inability to provide justice in a timely manner. Justice delayed is justice denied. I get that they're all lawyers. But there is no excuse for cases ending due to procedural delays.
There is nothing more useless than the surveys about where the best place to live it.
Trudeau also doesn't answer media questions. Reporters don't seem as annoyed, though, for some reason. Sure, Poilievre is somewhat antagonistic, largely because media is antagonistic towards him. Remember how P Mansbridge and A Raj gushed when interviewing Trudeau? Those were Pravda-worthy performances. One of the best things about a future Poilievre government will be the return to a media that cares to hold the government to account.
Frankly, I largely blame the media for that the same way I blame them for not demanding better of PP. But the treatment is very different. PP is not "somewhat" antagonistic. He's a complete and total arrogant asshole.
Sorry. You think the media will be able to hold PP to account? He won't answer questions while asking for the job. If he gets it, he'll be on his soapbox. There will not be exchanges of anything.
I don't listen to Tucker as i find his voice and a lot of his views annoying so I hear ya on that one. Conservatieve voting against the ukraine Free Trade deal was, I believe, based on the idea that the feds enshrined a carbon tax in the fine print. Call it an error if you want but a lot of folks will disagree as we are tired of our federal government 'virtue signaling' on every topic imaginable - stop already.
Smith's views on transgender meds are right on with public opinion. The medical profession say that blockers are reversible BUT they fail to tell you that they were developed to slow down puberty that begins too early in boys and girls - they were not developed for long term use (apparently that is irreversible contrary to medical expressed opinions). Like you, I would like to believe the medical profession but the last few years have shown a lot of reason to take a jaundiced look at some of what we are being told. Besides, kids are confused during puberty (think back and be nonest folks) so is it any wonder that there is a group think that 'hey I'm xyz gender just like you and (insert movie star here) is - cool'. I also suspect that the Alberta Medical Association knows EXACTLY how many gender change operations are being done on youths and, frankly, one is too many.
Large media companies want to make money and if they can do it by rebroadcasting stuff from somewhere else so much the better for them. The general public have a dim view of a lot of media reporting and turn to private ones, like yours, as you have an up front bias that I can understand. Yes, I listen and pay to hear a disenting view.
Gee, organized crime in Montreal - who knew??!!! Car theft is one of those catch and release crimes that just keeps on giving - just ask the Justice meinister who lost three vehicles in the last three years but waited till PP started expressing concern and putting out a policy on how he would deal with the issue and SUDDENLY the minister recognizes that there is a problem. Don't think on it too much folks as your head will just hurt.
Oh, how the media deals with PP - just listen to some of the questions he gets. It is no wonder to me that he pushes back against the expression of an opinion (the best this week was 'well you are saying you disagree with the concept of presumption of innocence' when asking about car theft minimum sentences. Unfortunately a lot of the media uses a question to promote a personal or employers opinion and then asks a stupid question - if they treated YOU that way Mat, how would YOU react??? Oh, and tell me how many 'reporters' are really taking JT to task about the ArriveCan ap fiasco (for one) and then tell me that PP doesn't get a different kind of treatment from the media , but, hey, I keep listening to you guys!
Canadian politics can be incredibly insular and parochial. Car thefts were a huge problem in BC’s Lower Mainland about 20 years ago. Finally the police, prosecution service, and insurers put their heads together to tackle the issue. They realized the bulk of the thefts were related to a small number of prolific offenders. They set out to trap them with specially modified bait cars (equipped with engine kill switches, cameras, tracking devices, and remotely operated locks), and when they got them, put them away for a long time. It was extremely effective: theft rates went way down, and it had a huge deterrent on would-be thieves. So, there’s a ready-made solution proven to work, but I’ll bet Ontarians have no clue.
Right on George - we need to keep re-inventing the wheel (no pun intended). I recall watching those bait and catch videos and it is an effective program. Just keep in mind that it was developed in the west and not in the centre of the universe soooo
> as we are tired of our federal government 'virtue signaling' on every topic imaginable - stop already.
You're dead right on that.... and ironically, that's why I've been berating my local CPC MP for voting against the trade deal... he and the rest of the CPC virtue signalling how much they don't like carbon taxes.
The Ukrainian embassy says the treaty doesn't impose a carbon tax, so they're either lying (why would they?) or they're too dumb to know what they signed, (seems unlikely).... OR.... they're right and the CPC are just virtue signalling like they're a 2015 Trudeau declaring "Canada is back".
Yeah, I get it, the LPC can't help but virtue signal in the middle of a geopolitically important trade deal... and apparently the CPC can't help themselves either... Sheesh... what depressing qualities in our leaders.
In addition, as Matt himself pointed out, when PP WAS asked a proper question by the Star reporter, he ANSWERED it. Yeah, he then went off on a tangent afterwards but he answered the question - how often does that happen in the HofC? I have plenty of issues with PP (the biggest being my fear he may somehow blow it and lose to the absolute menace that is Junior) but when he blasts reporters asking loaded "gotcha'" questions that import opinions/falsehoods I absolutely love it.
Ah, but how often has a question the Commons ever been answered by anyone in power? QP is a national embarrassment, and a failure of our parliamentary system.....that plays into earlier discussions about a lack of transparency in our governments.
Who would have thought Tucker Carlson and Putin would turn out to be......boring?
I disagree that any company (or government dept) is obliged to retain employees that it doesn't need. That being said, why does Canada protect media or telecom at all? The time to unleash the forces of natural selection are long passed.
I'd agree about the companies not retaining people if we were in a free market but we're very much not, and there is little incentive for new players to join the game.
The free market could easily be unleashed by ending the media and telecom oligopolies (and dairy, poultry, air travel, financial services). Canadian productivity growth has sucked for a couple of decades. Maintaining unnecessary staff by government and protected oligopolies is a piece of that. Not only does it drag down the productivity of those sectors, it reduces allocation of money to more productive sectors.
I do worry about the effect ending those oligopolies would have on national unity. The fact is that Canada is pretty empty, with most of the population and wealth concentrated in Greater Toronto, Montreal, BC’s Lower Mainland, and Edmonton/Calgary. Those areas have been subsidizing services like air travel and telecom for the rest of the country. What’s the effect on the Maritimes when their already expensive air travel simply disappears because the market isn’t commercially attractive? How does rural Canada react when they start losing cell service (or paying a multiple of what they do now?)
I disagree. Most of those oligopolies flow excess profits back to Ontario and Quebec (ex. all media cos, 2/3 big telecoms, all big banks, disproportionate number of dairy and poultry producers, all big insurers, Air Canada) on the backs of other Canadians. Unleashing competition would save money for all Canadians and likely pull some of the profits out of the Ontario and Quebec. This would only help national unity.
As someone who resided in Australia for many years, I don't buy the arguments that Canada's sparse population spread across a vast geography requires the government to limit competition. All of dairy, poultry, telecom and air travel are deregulated in Australia and prices are much, much lower.
100%! I was disappointed when the hosts/proprietors of this fine establishment suggested as a remedy for the telco BS that the feds ought to "flex their regulatory muscle". No, dammit!! The solution is to REMOVE the regulatory protections from the telco (and dairy and air travel) cartels. My kingdom for a Canadian version of Javier Milei.
I’d probably prefer that too. I was talking about what Trudeau could do other than be pissed off.
Fair enough. Cheers.
One of the great hypocrisies that neither Matt or Jen really grasp is journalists complaining about another journalist interviewing an immensely powerful person.
It is a reflection of the low state of journalism. If any journalist has the chance to interview Putin - why wouldn't you take it? He may be loathsome and an enemy but why in the hell wouldn't you do your job and be a journalist?
The number of hateful, evil people that have been interviewed is a mile long. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc. all interviewed Osama bin Laden. How many times was Ted Bundy interviewed? Edgar Snow interviewed Mao. Pick 100s of examples out a hat.
I don't care a whit about Tucker Carlson, but the cravenness of the chattering classes about interviewing Putin is comical.
We are both clear that we have no problem with him doing the interview. We simply suspect it didn’t go the way he thought.
Yes, but I think you gloss over the weakness of "the media" in throwing fits that he did the interview. I'm seeing journalists freak out that he would dare interview Putin vs the content of the interview.
(And yes, it definitely did not go the way he thought)
I don’t know if this is part of Smith’s calculus (I suspect not, although her performance at the press conference surprised & impressed me), but there is one thing I think you are overlooking if this becomes a long battle.
Gender-based medicalization of kids did not come in the front door. It was gradually introduced via back channels, until there was critical mass of people with the right ideological outlook and flexible standards of evidence in sufficient positions in the health system. At that point, it became “no debate” and any questioning of it was branded transphobic and nothing less than proof one was a Nazi. It has never had to stand up to public, scientific, or even logical scrutiny.
Now, however, they are having to front people to present their argument on the public stage and… I’d say they aren’t sending their best, but I actually think they are. Those of us in the gender trenches call it Operation Let Them Speak and it is, hands down, the most effective tactic in our toolbox.
It’s not just Janis Irwin and Brooks Arcand-Paul’s cringe TikToks. It’s, as Jen has learned, the lies — about minors’ surgeries, about suicide rates, about long-term side effects. It’s the hyperbolic public weeping. It’s the transparently (pardon the term) cynical attempts at emotional manipulation.
And it’s Kai Shappley’s mother talking about beating her too-feminine son and googling gay conversion therapies “to make Kai not be like this” until, oh joy, their prayers were answered when they found out they could just trans away the gay.
Sunlight remains the best disinfectant.
Jen, I appreciated your comment about "Orwellian language". "Top surgery" or "gender affirming surgery" instead of what "double mastectomy".
But... weren't you doing the same thing?
"Natal female". How is a "natal" female different from a "female"? None of these surgeries change one's sex.
And that kind of gets to why I (as a resident of BC) thinks Danielle Smith is going all Leeroy Jenkins on this issue... Matt is right.. it's going to be protested at every stage, BUT it will make her opponents look crazy because the public agrees that with her that 15 year olds SHOULD NOT get double mastectomies and teachers SHOULD NOT conspire amongst themselves to keep secrets from parents.
(Incidentally, knowing from the inside that that IS happening in BC schools with documents to keep track of which pronouns and names are secret and then hearing the CBC lie to me and say it isn't happening is infuriating.)
The protests at every stage will help her just as surely as a bozo eruption from the "Putin did nothing wrong" kind of conservative would help Trudeau.
Just my thoughts.
now that the public has finally wrapped their heads around the meaning of transmen and transwomen (admit it: when you first heard transwoman, you asked is that a man who thinks he's a women or a women who thinks she is a man) they've gone and re-confused the whole language issue by talking about trans females (which SHOULD be a female who identifies as trans, ie: a transman. But - incredulously! - is a transwomen; ie: Male)
I think that Jen Gerson's analysis of the Conservatives and Ukraine is exactly right. Her logic is so limpid that I have trouble understanding how people misinterpreted her.
On trans issues, nobody seems to be interested in scientific analyses. Instead, we are setting up a double wedge issue federally, where the Liberals will try to wedge the Conservatives and vice versa. I think that this is one issue within identity politics where a fair number of ordinary Canadians will pay attention. So far, polls suggest that the Conservatives will have the edge.
On the BCE layoffs, BCE should never have entered the media business. They made a mistake, and they're getting out. What's wrong with that? As far as I know, BCE is a for-profit corporation. If the Prime Minister wants something else, he should make other arrangements.
I know many Putin enjoyers, and they weren't really paying attention to Tucker because they were too dazzled by Putin. Compared to our mediocre and laughably unserious politicians (Geriatric Biden, Theatrical Enunciator Trudeau), a savage like Putin seems formidable and worthy of respect to these guys. I think some people are so hungry for competent leadership that they see a dominant strongman like him and...they just like it. Same reason people like Trump, "he's a Boss, a GANGSTER!!" I try to remind them that while Putin certainly is a force to be reckoned with, he is...not our friend? Like, he wishes us ill? I think they understand that...
:(
I agree. I think as well - Putin makes credible historical arguments. Some are wrong, or deceptive, like his discussion of Poland and the Nazis, but others are correct. Like on Kosovo. The West bombed bridges with civilians and used cluster bomb because a people group did not want to be part of Serbia. You now have a group in eastern Ukraine that does not want to be part of Ukraine and the West takes the opposite stance. The situation in eastern Ukraine is far more complicated than any western media are willing to discuss.
And the hypocrisy of NATO is also obvious.
This does not make the war right or Putin a good leader (he's a thug who very likely bombed his own civilians). But the argument in Ukraine is much more complex than many, it seems including the Line, want to admit.
You didn't realize you were setting up a pretty easy comparison between once-dominated subject states (Ukraine, Kosovo) trying to break free from failing imperial occupiers (Serbia, Russia), did you? NATO supported both!
That's historically facetious.
First, that isn't the case of eastern Ukraine (many consider themselves Russian) who have had (very legitimate) anger towards western Ukraine. There's been a war there since 2014 (of which the invasion was an escalation).
And Kosovo was never a state and was never "occupied". It's been a part of Serbia (and then Yugoslavia) going back centuries.. Further, it was a rebellion by a terrorist army (KLA was labelled a terrorist group until the war) that didn't involve any genocidal activities until after the US bombing. It was a civil war the west picked a side on.
Nevermind that the list of independence movements the West hasn't supported has been just as long (and just as selective).
Ehh. As always, as I keep telling people, no comparison is perfect. But if you really wanna fight this battle over the Kosovo one, I don’t think it’s gonna go as well as you expect.
Actually, come to think of it, it would go fine for you, because I’m not gonna bother getting into an an extended back-and-forth. I just don’t think the comparison is that useful for you. I’m gonna go make dinner.
I think our difference is you came of age in a period of enlightened pan-Americanism, and I grew up during the Iraq War.
Enjoy dinner.
P.S. I don't know how much you know about Kosovo. Most Canadians know next to nothing. It involved cluster bombs and bombing civilians, in a vicious conflict with no good guys. And we made it worse.
From WaPo: "Ironically, the U.S.-led NATO bombing precipitated the very humanitarian crisis the administration claimed it was intervening to stop. Belgrade did not turn from conducting a counterinsurgency against the KLA to uprooting the province's ethnic Albanian population until several days after NATO began its bombing campaign. Indeed, in its May 1999 report on ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, the State Department conceded that "in late March 1999 [after the NATO bombing began], Serbian forces dramatically increased the scope and pace of their efforts, moving away from selective targeting of towns and regions suspected of KLA sympathies toward a sustained and systematic effort to ethnically cleanse the entire province of Kosovo.""
Re. THE INTERVIEW - If you somehow can manage to form any reason why this was a bad idea in your own mind YOU are not a journalist. Any opportunity to present the leader of the county that you are spending billions of $ to fight to the people who are paying for it is worth it. Every single tax paying Canadian, American, and European should be required to watch this. Know your "enemy". Agree or disagree, we theoretically still live in a somewhat free country (except for your health, i.e. "vaccines" that aren't, and truck drivers' bank accounts) and this should be required watching to see the nuance of the man, to observe his manner and mannerisms. Let him talk. (Does anyone seriously think Biden could mentally handle this level of interview? Or that Zelinsky has the spine to?) The format of the interview was well done (granted Tucker's laugh aside) and THAT is what scares people - sadly The Line included it seems. In a long form uncut interview you can actually SEE the person being interviewed and get a feel for it that isn't just the excerpts and slices that some network editor decides on. Why is Joe Rogan popular? Because the public has overwhelmingly decided that the media lies. Or even worse that the media INTERPRETS for you. That ain't news OR journalism, that is opinion and editorial. Those are VERY different things. It's the subtle but massive difference between "Paid for by the Government of Canada" and "Paid for by the TAXPAYERS of Canada". It may come as a shock to the Liberal and NDP readers that those two things are actually different. Matt and Jenn I expect better from you both for my money.
I hear Jen Gerson’s sentiment that the big media companies should be required to fund news in exchange for their lucrative regulatorily protected markets, but I think it’s important to remember that the government is already extracting some benefits from them in the form of cellular and high speed internet access outside of the major centers. During the brief periods when new competitors entered the market, they’d usually provide their service in the big centers of greater Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, and Edmonton/Calgary. That’s where the population density and the profitable market is. I think we need to think about how many bites at the apple we take from supposed cash cows.
I watched the whole of the Putin interview. There are obviously and were always going to be critiques of Tucker or any other interviewer sitting in that chair. Did Tucker preform well? Depends on what you were looking for. Did it go how he thought? Definitely probably not. For me though I thought there was a ton of benefit to just hearing the man speak for 2+ hours. Listening to him spin his ideas and how and where he directed the conversation. Putin has always appeared to me as a formidable leader. But after listening to him winge on for 2 hours he appeared less so. His arguments and angles were weak/irrelevant and his de-nazification justification was laughable. He managed to spin half truths on so many different fronts that he discredited himself to virtually every demographic he might have hoped to sway. He also came off as afraid of the CIA, which I’m certain he did not intend. There is no question he is a smart man in many ways, but he is not an intellectual giant. In the same way the West has been (justifiably) accused of not understanding the way other cultures may think, Putin showed himself to understand very little of the way we think. His long winded and irrelevant historical explanations (which were full of inaccuracies) attested to this.
https://www.gov.pl/web/diplomacy/mfa-statement-on-president-vladimir-putins-10-lies-on-poland-and-ukraine-which-were-not-rectified-by-tucker-carlson-interview-of-8-february-2024
As someone who will profess a certain degree of respect for Putin, I don’t think this was a win for him, and I don’t think his performance helped him with Tucker’s or any other Western audience. It certainly didn’t with me. I personally came away less impressed than before. So was there benefit to that? I’d say yes there was.
You only watched the Putin interview for ten minutes before turning it off? How can you comment on the discussions? You are sounding more like those on MSM
I am in the MSM.
He is literally all of it. JG
Cue Randy Boissonneault leaping to Tucker’s defence! ;-))
Matt and Jen, I enjoyed this episode. FYI, there’s lots happening west of Calgary if you’re looking for stories outside of Ontario and Alberta for your next podcast. PS. it’s pronounced Ee-bee. 😃
The continued discussion on trans policies in AB is interesting
The core (moral?) question is why is this any business of the govt. It’s not. Prov should step away.
Conservatives are legislating to appease their base. It doesn't appeal to the people they need to get to vote for them, but the GOP minded....yes, that's what they are, love it. Pierre having no idea what he's talking about is another perfect example. The base will love it even if it's utterly stupid.
Trudeau is equally guilty of being unable to admit a mistake....but in a different way. Trudeau pivots, dawdles, and quietly walks back. . Pierre is locked. Which is better?
It is time for the government to suggest that if companies like Bell aren't going to support local media, it might be time to allow US telephone companies into the market? The Beaverton's take was hysterical.
No one will understand the trans issue until their son comes home and says "I think I'm a girl". But having a government decides what happens next is the worst possible scenario. That politicians are lying their faces off with statistics to appease their bases is proof of the danger politician intervention represents. (No, I haven't dealt with it myself, but have 2 close friends who have.....very successfully)
The state of our justice system, and its inability to provide justice in a timely manner. Justice delayed is justice denied. I get that they're all lawyers. But there is no excuse for cases ending due to procedural delays.
There is nothing more useless than the surveys about where the best place to live it.
On that note, have a marvellous week.
Trudeau also doesn't answer media questions. Reporters don't seem as annoyed, though, for some reason. Sure, Poilievre is somewhat antagonistic, largely because media is antagonistic towards him. Remember how P Mansbridge and A Raj gushed when interviewing Trudeau? Those were Pravda-worthy performances. One of the best things about a future Poilievre government will be the return to a media that cares to hold the government to account.
Frankly, I largely blame the media for that the same way I blame them for not demanding better of PP. But the treatment is very different. PP is not "somewhat" antagonistic. He's a complete and total arrogant asshole.
Sorry. You think the media will be able to hold PP to account? He won't answer questions while asking for the job. If he gets it, he'll be on his soapbox. There will not be exchanges of anything.