Full Comment - August 24, 2026


Inside the mainstream media meltdown


Episode Stats


Length

46 minutes

Words per minute

165.64

Word count

7,634

Sentence count

464


Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
00:00:00.480 Recently, our company's softball team lost the big game by one run.
00:00:04.800 Then Dale tried to console us with the quote,
00:00:07.200 winning isn't everything.
00:00:09.060 Well, Dale and I are very different.
00:00:12.740 I get early payout from Bet365.
00:00:14.680 If my team goes up big, I get paid out instantly,
00:00:17.480 even if they blow the lead later.
00:00:19.540 Sound familiar, Dale?
00:00:21.280 Thanks, Bet365.
00:00:22.920 Must be 19 or older, Ontario only.
00:00:24.420 Please play responsibly.
00:00:25.240 If you have questions or concerns about your gambling
00:00:26.660 or the gambling of someone close to you,
00:00:27.700 please go to connexontario.ca and see supply.
00:00:30.000 trust in the media hmm those of us who are in the media like to think that we're trustworthy
00:00:37.140 that everyone loves us that we are the arbiters of truth that's not necessarily how the public
00:00:43.020 sees us hello and welcome to the full comment podcast my name is brian lily your host
00:00:46.760 in canada there's a bit more trust in the media than in the united states but it's still on a
00:00:52.340 downward trend and yet in the united states 70 of people say they have no trust in the media
00:00:59.380 It is an ideological divide.
00:01:01.960 In both countries, conservatives are more likely to say that they don't trust the media.
00:01:06.000 More liberal-leaning people say they do.
00:01:08.680 I wonder why that is.
00:01:10.280 Joining us now to talk about trust in the media is Tara Henley.
00:01:13.460 You may know her story from her departure from CBC after a long career there.
00:01:17.820 Her new book is called The Trust Spiral, Why the Media Needs Objectivity.
00:01:22.520 Tara, thanks for the time.
00:01:24.400 Thank you so much for having me.
00:01:25.500 For people that don't know your rather noisy departure from CBC, they don't know that story.
00:01:31.080 Give us your elevator pitch version of it.
00:01:34.160 Yeah. So I had been at the CBC for quite a while.
00:01:37.360 I started there in 2013 at the George Strombolopoulos Tonight Show as an interview producer.
00:01:42.440 And then I went to Current Affairs Radio and I worked on and off in Current Affairs Radio until the end of 2021.
00:01:49.980 I worked on roughly a dozen shows in Vancouver and in Toronto.
00:01:55.500 In a number of different roles, you know, chase producer, morning producer, night producer, occasionally director, just a lot of rank and file roles at the organization.
00:02:09.880 And over the time that I was there, I found it harder and harder to get more different views on the air.
00:02:17.880 And particularly during the pandemic, I found it a very frustrating time to be a journalist in those newsrooms.
00:02:24.620 and decided eventually that I would leave.
00:02:28.500 I was on contract.
00:02:29.620 I ended my contract a year early and went to Substack.
00:02:34.040 I wrote a post.
00:02:35.120 I've written controversial things in this country before.
00:02:37.140 I really expected that it would get ignored.
00:02:40.020 That's typically what happens.
00:02:41.560 And that is not what happened in this instance.
00:02:44.500 You have since spent a lot of time doing media criticism.
00:02:48.700 You and I have been on podcasts together before talking about that
00:02:52.400 with people like Senator Pat Miller-Wallin,
00:02:54.700 who had her own long and storied career in journalism.
00:02:58.100 I would say it's definitely changed
00:02:59.980 in my 25-plus years of being in the business.
00:03:04.980 But talk to me about what it was like
00:03:07.560 trying to get different views on CBC,
00:03:11.200 and I'll put it in this context.
00:03:13.220 I'm probably Canada's most widely read,
00:03:15.900 conservative-leaning political columnist.
00:03:18.300 My audience is huge.
00:03:19.540 I was on CBC once in the last couple of years because I criticized Donald Trump's ambassador to the United States.
00:03:28.920 And then they were like, aha, we can have someone say Pete Hoekstra is a no good you so-and-so.
00:03:35.940 Other than that, they're not interested in a diversity of views, are they?
00:03:40.620 I wish I could say otherwise.
00:03:43.140 I'm an institution person.
00:03:44.660 I believe in preserving institutions.
00:03:46.440 I would like to see the CBC thrive and survive.
00:03:50.240 My experience there was that there was a lot of groupthink in newsrooms, that the editorial discussions and some of this stuff is more subtle than the public might imagine.
00:04:01.480 It's just that you understand that certain stories are kind of a no-go and other stories are fine.
00:04:08.620 that, you know, at one point I actually wrote a post for Substack about the exact contours of
00:04:14.300 that consensus that I encountered in the newsroom. I think there's a lot of different things going on
00:04:22.440 at the CBC. I think the CBC shares a lot of its problems with the press corps across North America
00:04:28.620 and that is that many of us live in these big expensive cities. Many of us are highly educated.
00:04:35.720 we are secular we are progressive um politically and we have a very narrow life experience really
00:04:44.640 and this did not used to be the case in newsrooms we um there's a great study in the united states
00:04:51.000 that has tracked the demographics of journalists over time and it used to be that something i think
00:04:56.460 it's the numbers aren't i don't have them handy but it's something like 58 percent had a college
00:05:00.680 degree, you know, in the 70s. And now it's 95 percent. And not only that, a lot of us have
00:05:06.400 advanced degrees in the United States. A lot of people have Ivy League degrees. And in the past
00:05:13.380 with the media, before the media was kind of consolidated and centralized in these big urban
00:05:18.260 coastal cities, you would have journalists going to basically a farm team. You would start
00:05:25.340 in small places. You would live in a lot of different places. You would live in rural places.
00:05:29.880 You would encounter conservatives as well as liberals and everything in between.
00:05:35.480 You would understand that the views that we in the journalist class hold are actually outliers.
00:05:42.160 This is not the default position for most people in the public.
00:05:46.380 And so I think that that has just really led to an atmosphere in newsrooms where people just don't have contact with people outside of our bubble.
00:05:53.720 And in fact, the CBC's Brody Fenlon has acknowledged that dynamic in a public event called Trust Talks that I covered a while back.
00:06:02.820 I'm laughing because I don't fit the mold that you're talking about.
00:06:06.820 I only went to a two-year college degree, which my detractors love to remind me of.
00:06:11.360 I did not go to a fancy school.
00:06:14.140 I worked in smaller centers before moving on to big ones.
00:06:17.420 I did what you described how it used to be.
00:06:19.820 And it's not because I'm from that age. It's just how my career went. And the groupthink that I started to encounter going back to, there is or was a press gallery at Montreal City Hall. That's where I started to first notice the groupthink and then covering provincial politics in both Quebec and Ontario and then getting to Parliament Hill and it hitting me like a wall going, how is it that we've got 308 people up here and one point of view?
00:06:49.820 Yeah, it is a very fascinating thing to track and to try to measure. And I think the biggest thing, now that I'm talking about the book, more people are saying, what is one thing that we could do? Well, one thing that we could do that would be very simple would be to remove the degree requirement in hiring for journalists.
00:07:09.920 I don't think we need degrees. A lot of my mentors didn't even have high school diplomas, let alone college degrees. I mean, this is a trade. It's a craft. It's something you learn on the ground and that you learn through mentorship and through trial and error, through making your mistakes, ideally in lower stakes settings in these smaller kind of locations. This is not rocket science.
00:07:36.740 Okay, let's get into the solutions in a little bit, but let's start at the problem.
00:07:42.240 And so in your book, The Trust Spiral, you open, I want to read the first couple of sentences of the opening.
00:07:49.860 Leading up to the 2016 election, the U.S. media collectively lost its cool.
00:07:55.120 Trump had long been a source of entertainment, a smug punchline, a ratings boon.
00:07:59.080 But as election day neared, his habit of disparaging the press began to grate,
00:08:03.420 and his knack for dominating the news cycle with outlandish claims started to raise legitimate
00:08:07.820 alarms. The feeling that Trump was an extraordinary candidate and that ordinary journalism was
00:08:12.440 insufficient to the task of covering him began to solidify. Is 2016 and Donald Trump, and of
00:08:20.380 course that was also the year of Brexit, which most of the media just sneered at the idea of
00:08:27.100 Brexit? How could these people want this? Was that kind of like the jump the shark moment
00:08:33.700 for you in your view of how things progressed in the media in this trust spiral that we're in,
00:08:42.740 which is a downward spiral, I would say? Yes. I think that it is, but I think what we need
00:08:47.880 to understand is that the underlying conditions that made that possible were our economic
00:08:53.100 precarity, that you had had decades of a collapsing business model, as we've already
00:08:59.360 kind of talked about it, the consolidation in these big cities. We had a lot of underlying
00:09:04.540 conditions. And my contention is that the economic precarity really led to a lot of
00:09:11.060 panicked thinking in the journalism class. Okay. Economic precarity among journalists
00:09:16.080 or in the public writ large or both? Among journalists and within journalism
00:09:22.020 organizations. And so you have a class of people who have gone to university, who have done
00:09:30.420 everything right in their mind, and still are in a position where many of us in this country are in.
00:09:36.160 It's hard to get a journalism job. When you get them, it might be a contract. It might not be a
00:09:39.920 full-time position. And, you know, in some cases at the CBC, you have a huge temporary workforce that
00:09:45.600 doesn't even have contracts. I've been in that position as well, where you get your shifts two
00:09:49.260 weeks at a time. That does not breed courageous journalism. If you are not sure how you're going
00:09:58.380 to pay your rent, you are going to be timid. That's just a reality. And the same goes for
00:10:02.580 journalism organizations. If you don't know if you're going to meet your bottom line, if you
00:10:07.700 are juggling different revenue streams and terrified that the organization is about to
00:10:13.000 collapse, that also doesn't breed courage. And so my contention is that this is the underlying
00:10:18.460 situation that we found ourselves in. And then along comes President Trump. And the overreaction
00:10:27.180 to him, I think, is a part of that kind of panicked precarity that we were already in.
00:10:34.460 And so you can actually track the reaction in the press. There are a trail of op-eds that say
00:10:40.980 that Donald Trump is not an ordinary candidate. He is an extraordinary one. And that, in fact,
00:10:46.520 What we need to do in order to cover him is to throw out the playbook that we have been using in journalism newsrooms. Jim Brettenberg at the New York Times says explicitly this in an op-ed. And you can see that thinking proliferate throughout the media.
00:11:02.900 And you can see the resulting erosion of standards and practices. And my argument in the book is that really what is at the heart of lost trust in the media is a lack of accuracy. And where did that lack of accuracy came from? It's because we threw out our standards.
00:11:18.640 well there have been many calls for journalism not to be objective anymore and that look I'm
00:11:27.520 I'm an opinion writer I did not start out as an opinion writer I started out as a by the book
00:11:34.100 down the straight and narrow that's how I was trained you have to consider multiple angles
00:11:40.120 views, and tell a story. Since the appearance of Donald Trump on the American political scene,
00:11:49.260 there have been calls to say, get rid of objectivity. This is an outdated notion. Now,
00:11:57.520 I would say this. Newspapers have always had a political bent in their editorial stance.
00:12:05.680 Broadcasters, no.
00:12:07.120 But most reporters would try and stay away from that.
00:12:10.980 Everybody's an analyst now.
00:12:12.960 Everybody is an opinion person.
00:12:16.060 Do you see much objective journalism?
00:12:18.260 There's still good reporters out there.
00:12:19.960 I don't want to say there's none.
00:12:21.360 We can see them.
00:12:23.320 But everyone seems to want to be an analyst and give you their personal point of view.
00:12:28.500 And I'm sorry if you've just started in the business.
00:12:31.080 I really don't want to hear it.
00:12:32.580 Yeah, I think that everybody, I mean, just in the general public right now, everybody is a broadcaster, everybody has an opinion. And also, just to acknowledge that we're living in incredibly turbulent times and very volatile times in this country as well. There are a lot of contentious issues and people have a lot of opinions.
00:12:50.300 That's not necessarily a bad thing for democracy, but for for journalists, I think that and some of the big fights in journalism over objectivity have come down to things like what are news gathering journalists and current affairs journalists, which is which is what I am and the umbrella that I was under at the CBC.
00:13:08.000 What are you allowed to say on social media? And the problem with everybody expressing their opinions all the time on social media and often because of the incentives on social media in very inflammatory and sometimes malicious ways is that it does erode trust.
00:13:25.340 If you are spouting off on X and you are getting in fights on that platform and the public is watching, they see your views.
00:13:34.940 And how are they going to take a look at your news reporting?
00:13:38.840 You know, a classic case of this was during the trucker convoy.
00:13:41.700 How are they going to look at your news reporting and not see the opinions that you've already stated in public?
00:13:47.880 And so I think that's a really clear line between the standards and practices eroding and the lost public trust.
00:13:57.040 Forget about journalists. How about judges making public comments about the convoy and then still trying to weigh in on it?
00:14:05.240 So how does the lack of trust relate to the broken business model that you detail in the book?
00:14:14.900 We've all seen the massive layoffs, and the reason for the massive layoffs is simple.
00:14:21.280 We still have audiences.
00:14:24.520 People are still reading newspapers, but they're reading them online.
00:14:28.340 People are still reading the news stories that are generated by the TV networks, because the TV networks are now essentially newspapers, and the newspapers are now essentially broadcasters.
00:14:38.120 We're all trying to throw everything at the wall.
00:14:41.820 But despite still having a decent audience, the advertising all goes to into Google and Meta.
00:14:52.300 And I'm not asking, you know, do we go and get the money off of them and force?
00:14:55.720 It's not what I'm asking.
00:14:57.040 But how does the broken business model lead to an erosion of trust?
00:15:02.920 Are we in too much of a hurry?
00:15:04.560 I mean, I remember when I started, you get a report and you'd have time to read it before you reported on it. Now you get it and you've got to be immediately online or on air talking about it.
00:15:16.700 Yeah. So in the book, I quote Jen Gerson from The Line on this very question. And she's very good at explaining exactly how this all collapsed. And, you know, one of her points is that prior to Donald Trump, all of this was in play already because you had, you know, the newsrooms gutted. And who leaves in a newsroom when it's gutted? It's often the senior people who are making the most money right now, you know.
00:15:43.300 So you lose the newsroom hierarchy. You lose the mentorship. And she talks about a situation in Calgary where she was writing straight to the page at the end of her time in the newsroom there. There was no editorial process. And so, of course, errors go up and typos go up.
00:16:01.760 So that already begins to degrade the product that we're putting out into the public, and it begins to degrade trust as well, because if the public is reading the newspaper and they're seeing typos and they're seeing mistakes that they know are mistakes, so all of that is already in motion ahead of time, and that is all strictly business model stuff.
00:16:20.500 And to your point about having to digest huge amounts of information so quickly, I mean, I've been a journalist for 25 years. I have never seen an information environment like the one that we are in right now. There is just so much going on. It is a tidal wave all the time. And we are doing much more, too.
00:16:39.680 I mean, when I was at the CBC in current affairs, I was doing two stories a day every day. And on the radio shows I was working on, I was told that, you know, prior to that era, you would do one. So, I mean, that's a huge difference. Learning one story a day, calling around, finding guests, writing a script, fact-checking all of it. One versus two.
00:17:00.920 So the volume is there. But I also think that we in the profession are having the same problem that the public is having and that it is very difficult sometimes now to figure out what's actually going on. There is so much information and it is so fast.
00:17:16.940 But in terms of hollowing out the business, you touch on something that most people overlook, Craigslist.
00:17:27.020 It's pretty much gone now, but so are the little tiny ads that paid for so much.
00:17:34.720 The classified ads in a newspaper used to be a cash cow.
00:17:39.720 And when I worked for Quebec Corps, back when they owned the Toronto Sun and the whole Sun media chain, they also owned Le Journal de Mariel, which went on a multi-year, I believe it was, lockout.
00:17:55.780 And the way it was explained to me is they were going to go on strike.
00:18:01.480 And in Quebec, you don't let anyone go on strike.
00:18:03.100 You lock them out because of weird labor practices in Quebec.
00:18:07.240 But they were going to go on strike to try and keep the jobs of the women who took the ads in the classified section.
00:18:14.440 But those were no longer going on.
00:18:16.420 And so they said, no, we're striking to keep these jobs.
00:18:20.460 The lockout lasts forever.
00:18:21.780 By the time they come back, I forget the exact numbers, but it was maybe 20% to 30% of the journalists that had been putting the paper out before the lockout were able to come back, and the rest of the jobs were eliminated because the money just wasn't there.
00:18:38.320 The major advertising has gone away, but those classified ads paid for so much.
00:18:43.660 Yes.
00:18:44.260 Yeah, I mean, one of the big mistakes that journalism made was not just creating our own online classifieds at that time.
00:18:52.880 We didn't see the writing on the wall.
00:18:54.240 There's one company that did, at least their Australian division, News Corp, which owns Fox News, Wall Street Journal.
00:19:02.360 They did that with, I think, classifieds in real estate very early on, but they only did it in Australia and not in the U.S. or anywhere else.
00:19:12.480 And so that helps them. But everywhere else, that's a lot of money gone.
00:19:20.220 Yeah. The other thing that we're dealing with in this country as well is that people are habituated to not pay for news.
00:19:26.680 And that's a problem that's going to have to be solved as well here.
00:19:31.040 Just before we take a break then, let me ask you about that.
00:19:36.060 CBC, and I don't want to make this all about CBC, but for those of us in the private sector
00:19:44.200 trying to make money and people say put up a paywall, how do you do that when the public
00:19:52.260 broadcaster gives away everything for free? Yeah, I mean, I think there's a few things
00:19:58.040 to say about the CBC. I do support continuing with the CBC and continuing funding the CBC.
00:20:02.900 I think in a country that is the size that we are and as diverse as we are, as regionally spread out as we are, I do think that the public broadcaster could play a really important role in both establishing a shared set of facts and forging national cohesion. I think those are two really important roles. I think the CBC has done that at different points in the past. I don't think that they are living up to that mandate right now, but I would love to see them do that in the future.
00:20:30.320 Where I think we have gone wrong is in subsidizing the private newsrooms. So now everybody is subsidized except for a few kind of small startups. And that I think is very difficult to innovate.
00:20:46.380 I think that we do need change in this country, in the media. And the problem with everybody being subsidized is that, again, you have the public not paying and it doesn't incentivize the public to communicate to us journalists what it is that they need from us and what they are prepared to support. And so all the signals get mixed. And I think that's the point that we are in right now.
00:21:09.080 Well, and it also erodes the trust that you write about here in the book, because people think we're all on the take. And I don't know if you've heard, but I'm in Mark Carney's back pocket. That's the claim.
00:21:23.220 I encounter that all the time, that opinion all the time. And I've seen it expressed from a ton of journalists that I've interviewed. I've seen it expressed in committee by Unifor. I mean, this is a this is definitely a thing that is happening in this country is that the public do feel that the journalism is compromised when it is paid for by the government. And I think that that is something we're going to have to face.
00:21:47.460 okay we're going to take a quick break when we come back i want to talk to you about
00:21:51.980 objective versus neutral how do you get back to a place that maybe the public does start to trust
00:21:58.020 us but first i have to tell the audience all about our merch because yes we've got a store
00:22:03.380 we're going to sell you merch you know keep the lights on all of that do you want to bring your
00:22:07.880 national post or toronto sun support beyond the headline shop the official official merch store
00:22:14.520 We've got hoodies, hats, mugs, tote bags, and more
00:22:17.260 designed for readers who like their journalism bold.
00:22:20.620 Visit postmedia.store today.
00:22:23.260 That's postmedia.store.
00:22:26.000 Recently, our company's softball team
00:22:28.000 lost the big game by one run.
00:22:30.320 Then Dale tried to console us with the quote,
00:22:32.780 winning isn't everything.
00:22:34.660 Well, Dale and I are very different.
00:22:38.260 I get early payout from Bet365.
00:22:40.080 If my team goes up big, I get paid out instantly,
00:22:42.720 even if they blow the lead later.
00:22:45.060 Sound familiar, Dale?
00:22:46.880 Thanks, Bet365.
00:22:48.480 Must be 19 or older, Ontario only.
00:22:50.020 Please play responsibly.
00:22:50.840 If you have questions or concerns about your gambling
00:22:52.260 or the gambling of someone close to you,
00:22:53.340 please go to connexontario.ca and see supply.
00:22:57.400 Hungry now.
00:23:00.640 Now.
00:23:02.800 What about now?
00:23:04.880 Whenever it hits you, wherever you are,
00:23:07.620 grab an O'Henry bar to satisfy your hunger
00:23:11.040 with its delicious combination of big, crunchy, salty peanuts
00:23:15.100 covered in creamy caramel and chewy fudge with a chocolatey coating.
00:23:19.960 Swing by a gas station and get an O'Henry today.
00:23:22.860 O'Hungry O'Henry.
00:23:25.820 You're a political junkie, right?
00:23:27.720 I mean, that's why you're listening to this podcast.
00:23:30.460 But if you're not in the loop with PostMedia's VIP political hack,
00:23:35.240 then you're not getting even close to the whole politics story.
00:23:39.360 I'm Stuart Thompson, Parliamentary Bureau Chief.
00:23:42.440 And I'm political analyst Tasha Carradine.
00:23:45.220 We head up the team that brings political hack members the exclusive political intel that goes so much deeper than the news.
00:23:51.540 With inside stories, sharp analysis, and behind-the-scenes scoops from Parliament Hill and beyond.
00:23:57.500 With our twice-weekly newsletters, exclusive reports from Washington, D.C., early access to John Iveson columns,
00:24:04.880 and subscriber-only videos and events,
00:24:08.560 HAC members get insider insight
00:24:10.600 into the minds of the strategists, policy gurus,
00:24:13.840 and power brokers shaping Canada's political future.
00:24:17.180 You don't want to miss all that, do you?
00:24:18.680 I sure don't.
00:24:19.620 And you can get all now for less than a dollar a week.
00:24:25.080 Just go to nationalpost.com slash newsletters to sign up.
00:24:30.560 That's nationalpost.com slash newsletters.
00:24:33.780 So much is happening in politics right now.
00:24:37.120 Rising tensions with the U.S. on trade and defense.
00:24:40.420 Not one, but two provincial separatist movements gaining real ground.
00:24:44.480 The liberals trying to hang on to a razor-thin majority
00:24:48.000 as the economy stumbles and with the cost of living still rising.
00:24:52.220 It's exciting.
00:24:53.220 Extremely exciting.
00:24:54.480 But the only way to get behind the scenes
00:24:56.320 and right into the source code of what politicians
00:24:58.600 and the people around them are really thinking
00:25:00.460 is to get political hack.
00:25:02.260 Go to nationalpost.com slash newsletters and join us.
00:25:07.160 The title of the book is The Trust Spiral, Why the Media Needs Objectivity.
00:25:12.880 Tell me what you mean by objectivity.
00:25:15.860 Does it mean being neutral?
00:25:17.740 Does it mean saying, well, we have to tell both sides of the story every single time?
00:25:23.600 What does it mean to you?
00:25:24.920 So I'm going back to the original meaning of when it evolved.
00:25:28.980 And so I think a lot of people are not aware of this.
00:25:31.460 I think a lot of people do think it means that you believe that you're neutral.
00:25:34.640 And of course, none of us can be truly neutral.
00:25:37.080 That is, we're human beings.
00:25:38.440 We all have our own opinions and biases and all the rest.
00:25:41.480 How it evolved was in the United States, you had in the 19th century, you had these papers
00:25:48.020 that were funded by partisans.
00:25:50.100 They were funded by political parties and political actors.
00:25:53.640 And then you had the evolution.
00:25:54.540 In the United States, the Toronto Star became what it is because a bunch of Sir Wilfrid
00:26:00.600 laureate donors decided to buy it so then you had the evolution of the penny press and that was
00:26:08.900 starting to move towards subscribers and advertising as a business model and was taking a more
00:26:14.600 democratic approach to the news it was covering more topics it was more interested in the
00:26:19.680 experience of regular people and around that same time what you saw the the rise of the new york
00:26:27.720 Times, which kind of set the standard saying that we're going to cover the news without fear or
00:26:31.980 favor. And it was also in the aftermath of World War I and pretty egregious reporting failures and
00:26:39.000 also the rise of public relations and the attempts to manipulate public passions. All of that was
00:26:45.660 happening. And then you also had, you know, thinkers and that were being taught widely that
00:26:51.640 were, you know, philosophers talking a lot more about cynicism and about critical thinking. And so
00:26:58.260 in the wake of all of that, journalism understood that we needed to come up with a set of standards
00:27:05.380 and practices that would mitigate against our own biases. And of course, at that time in history,
00:27:11.460 the scientific method was really revered. And so the idea was that you have this set of standards
00:27:17.140 and practices that will help us to overcome our biases and produce news that is both reliable
00:27:23.840 and replicable. And so the way that I think about objectivity is just this collection of standards
00:27:30.140 and practices. It is not about me trying to say that I'm neutral or even trying to behave in
00:27:36.640 neutral ways. It's just trying to follow these practices. And so some of those practices are,
00:27:41.120 You know, the minutiae of it is like not using inflammatory language in headlines. It is definitely not being beholden to one perspective, to interviewing a range of perspectives. It is having people of different perspectives in a newsroom so that you have, you know, editors going over your work from a different perspective, trying to find the holes in that.
00:28:05.480 I mean, there's a lot there. And unfortunately, when we talk about media standards and practices, most people's eyes glaze over. But the consequences of not following those things are quite extreme, as we have seen in the last especially five years with a lot of big stories going sideways.
00:28:23.220 Yeah, I remember as a young journalist talking about this issue with one of my news directors. And he said, you can't be unbiased. Everyone has a bias. We all have a personal point of view, a worldview, a religious view, a cultural view. But I need you to be objective.
00:28:43.140 that's such a great way of putting it and be objective um now so some people say we can't
00:28:51.140 be objective because of and you write about this and in the book um let me say it correctly both
00:28:57.340 sideism um but you know i know you cite uh christiana and i'm poor uh from cnn saying
00:29:07.260 well you you can't be neutral and i get it you can't be neutral but you can still tell both
00:29:11.980 sides of the story, even in she was talking about her experience in Bosnia. Horrible, horrible
00:29:20.520 experiences in that war. You can still tell both sides of the story. It doesn't mean you're taking
00:29:25.960 the side of the Bosnians or the Serbs. But why are they each acting in that way, I think,
00:29:33.980 is part of the story that you should be telling. Yes. And the whole both sidesism argument is
00:29:41.660 really baffling to me and it has been interpreted very broadly in this country as a no platforming
00:29:47.820 argument as in you know it started out with this idea of false balance the idea being that you
00:29:54.820 don't cover both sides equally because one side is more legitimate than the other now i don't know
00:29:59.980 who's supposed to make that moral assessment and especially at digital speed but but there you go
00:30:05.080 that's that argument. Then that argument was interpreted as some people's arguments are so
00:30:11.520 egregious that we will not be putting them on air. And then the list of who those people were
00:30:16.820 and what those topics were expanded and expanded and expanded. You mentioned the word list. I know
00:30:23.280 how excited everyone got when Travis Danraj went before the committee, the Commons Heritage
00:30:29.660 committee and mentioned a list yes i'm talking about a like a metaphoric list right now i'm
00:30:35.700 talking about not not a literal list but but the point here is just that we have come to in the
00:30:43.100 in the mainstream in this country on a lot of issues believe that there are some people's
00:30:48.140 opinions that are just beyond the pale and certainly in like in some major issues maybe
00:30:53.820 that's the case, but we have applied it so broadly that you have mainstream opinions that many
00:31:01.200 Canadians hold, for example, in the gender debate that are not represented in news articles. And
00:31:07.580 this stuff you can measure. And in fact, Dave Snow has for the Hub. And I think it just really,
00:31:14.840 first of all, I think it really irritates the public, but also it really erodes public trust,
00:31:18.380 because if you are not reflecting the range of views that are out there, you're not reflecting
00:31:23.820 reality. I remember being at a news conference a few years ago and the gender issue came up
00:31:30.840 and it was about whether parents should be notified if their child is going to transition
00:31:38.280 at school. And there was a fresh poll out from the Angus Reid Institute saying that 70% of people
00:31:49.020 said, hell yeah, mom and dad should know if the kid is going to transition at school. Teachers
00:31:54.440 should not keep that secret. That would tell you if 70% back something, that's not a controversial
00:32:00.380 opinion. And I'm standing talking to some of the other reporters ahead of time, and they all wanted
00:32:06.300 to ask, not about the poll, but they wanted to ask Ontario's education minister at that point,
00:32:11.460 Stephen Lecce, about what they're going to do. And they actually framed it in the question
00:32:17.400 that informing parents was controversial.
00:32:21.000 And I, you know, you've been around news events
00:32:24.820 with ministers and announcements.
00:32:26.880 You've got to wait a lot.
00:32:28.280 And so you're standing around in a gaggle talking
00:32:30.340 and, oh, what are you asking about?
00:32:32.080 What are you doing?
00:32:33.080 And so one of the reporters said,
00:32:34.780 I'm going to ask about this controversial idea.
00:32:36.560 And I said, have you not seen the poll?
00:32:38.580 And I pull out the poll and I show them on my phone.
00:32:41.220 They said, oh, okay.
00:32:42.320 And then they turned around and still framed it as
00:32:45.680 you have a controversial idea that parents should be informed.
00:32:51.140 I think it was like the did not know was like 16%.
00:32:54.800 And the people that supported it was 14%.
00:32:57.840 So that is a time that they held the controversial position.
00:33:03.060 But that's the way that newsrooms operate, unfortunately.
00:33:07.260 Well, I mean, hopefully not every time.
00:33:09.620 I try to stay optimistic about some of this stuff.
00:33:12.080 But I think in this case that this is exactly the direct result of us not having access to other opinions. And this is what happens in echo chambers. People become more extreme in their views. And it used to be in newsrooms that we would be able to pit bias against bias and do exactly what you did on the ground and produce other evidence, produce other points, argue it out and come to a more reasonable assessment of the situation.
00:33:37.760 But we don't have that right now. And further, we all are living in the same neighborhoods. We're talking to the same people. We have the same social milieu as all of our colleagues. And there's no outside influence. And it's not healthy.
00:33:56.940 So what's the future of news then?
00:34:00.140 this is the difficult part to answer i i don't know i am i can suggest some things but overall
00:34:09.860 i think the diagnosis is helpful for us and hopefully a relief for the public because so
00:34:16.220 much of what we talk about in the media about lost trust is external there's a lot of blaming
00:34:22.260 the consumer there is a lot of you know pushing off our problems onto ideas like misinformation
00:34:28.280 or bad actors online or social media or people's attention fragmentation.
00:34:34.760 I've watched as politicians have declared stories that are true misinformation
00:34:38.940 and then say that they want to regulate misinformation.
00:34:43.220 Yes, I have had that experience myself.
00:34:45.240 So I'm very wary of the term misinformation.
00:34:47.920 But I guess the point is, is just trying to, we as a profession need to look inside
00:34:54.120 and decide what it is that we may have done to contribute to this problem of lost trust
00:34:58.800 and then reorient ourselves towards serving the public.
00:35:02.520 And that's a philosophical argument, but what is going to happen with the business model
00:35:09.340 is another argument entirely.
00:35:11.480 And that is the thing that I find most difficult to grapple with is how do we get back to a
00:35:16.380 position where the public is prepared to pay for news. And we have stable jobs for our journalists
00:35:24.840 and decent incomes for the range of journalists, not just those at the top, and that people can
00:35:32.060 calm down a little bit in their personal lives and not have such precarious lives that they are
00:35:37.420 overreacting to everything all the time. So I think that that's important. And I don't know
00:35:43.400 how we're going to get there in the environment that we're in, in this country right now,
00:35:48.420 getting back to a place where we are focused on serving the public and focused on reflecting
00:35:54.480 reality. And I also think that there's still a lot of great journalism being done in this country.
00:36:01.340 And one example that I point to, the New York Times is not a perfect paper by any stretch. I
00:36:06.020 think they get lots of stuff wrong, but they do dedicate themselves to the objective method and
00:36:11.800 at least signal to their workforce that that is what they are trying to do.
00:36:16.560 And they have a large paid subscriber base in this country.
00:36:20.420 People seem to be prepared to pay for that.
00:36:23.460 And Wall Street Journal did some great reporting just recently on Mark Carney and does a two-day,
00:36:29.980 both pieces, very long.
00:36:33.120 I'd like to get back to that.
00:36:35.020 You have turned to Substack.
00:36:37.020 You work with some independent media outlets.
00:36:40.180 The Canadian public, as I said, the erosion of trust isn't as big and deep as it is in the United States.
00:36:47.980 But here's a couple of stats from the, this is the Reuters Institute digital news report that they did recently on Canada.
00:36:57.340 And it said a majority of Canadians view influencers and online personalities, 54%,
00:37:03.180 is a major source of misinformation compared with 30% who say news media and journalists are a major
00:37:09.000 source of misinformation. So moving to the online world, but the public isn't ready to fully put
00:37:15.480 trust in. And Substack is different than being an influencer on X or Instagram. There is going to
00:37:21.900 have to, the online world is everything for the future of media, I think, whether it's video,
00:37:28.000 audio or the written word, but we're going to have to find a way that it's able to support
00:37:37.540 individuals like yourself or larger organizations. Yeah, absolutely. And also on the influencer
00:37:43.880 front, I mean, I think there's a couple of different ways to look at it. I'm concerned
00:37:48.500 because those influencers do not feel beholden to the standards and practices that we've been
00:37:54.280 talking about on the left or the right. And so I think that that is a concern. I also think
00:37:59.420 in the positive side of things that there is tremendous pressure from the margins right now
00:38:04.640 and that that is healthy. And so you have seen a lot of these big stories that have fallen apart
00:38:09.480 over time, that the pressure from the margins and the pressure from independent media is part of why
00:38:15.820 that narrative didn't hold. And so I think that that is a healthy thing. I just would like to see
00:38:21.740 a way in which the influencers are performing at the same kind of standards as journalists.
00:38:30.140 I would like to see that happen.
00:38:31.400 And one of my pipe dreams is that we have sort of a, I don't believe in journalism schools,
00:38:37.820 but I think it'd be great to have some kind of online platform for training these young
00:38:42.400 people that are really interested in the news and want to perform a public service and training
00:38:47.000 them in some of the rigors of best practices for how to do that.
00:38:50.700 Yeah. So to use a recent example, we just recently marked the fifth year anniversary of the Kamloops residential school story and the 215 unmarked graves.
00:39:03.880 I'd like somewhere between nobody died at these schools, which isn't true, and there are 215 children in a mass grave.
00:39:14.940 that last one was something that was put forward by mainstream media with no evidence to back it
00:39:22.820 up. And the influencers who are opposed to it say, oh, no, nobody ever died. We're being lied to.
00:39:28.680 The truth is somewhere in the middle that, yes, children died. No, there's, you know,
00:39:34.580 we haven't found 215 graves. Let's talk about what's actually there. It's taken five years for
00:39:39.920 us to get to that point. Not that all of the mainstream media outlets are willing to admit
00:39:44.340 that, but that is a major issue that had big implications in this country. And we got it wrong
00:39:51.780 and got it wrong on all sides. Yeah. I just covered this for Persuasion,
00:39:57.260 an American outlet, and I went through and built a timeline of exactly how that story spread of
00:40:02.600 each article by article. And it is an astonishing story. It really is an astonishing story. The
00:40:08.360 Global Mail editorial board is absolutely correct and appropriate in saying that it was a failure
00:40:13.460 of journalism in this country. I think we need to take a look at how that happened. And as you
00:40:20.780 point out, we are still no consensus on that story yet. As late as last year, Rosemary Barton was on
00:40:26.400 the CBC saying, yes, there have been remains found across the country. CBC issued a correction that
00:40:31.780 I believe it was the next day. So there's not consensus on this yet. And back to my overall
00:40:37.560 point is that we need, we desperately need in this country a shared set of facts. And the grave
00:40:42.660 story is a really good example of why. As you say, it's so polarized. And I think that the
00:40:50.680 consequences of us not getting that story right are huge. I mean, first of all, you saw what
00:40:55.420 happened in the aftermath of that story. There were churches burned, there were riots, there were
00:41:00.640 statues toppled. There was incredible, incredible amount of unhappiness about the state of the
00:41:06.940 country. And also, we are now in a position where we're moving backwards on reconciliation. You have
00:41:15.680 people online who are saying very prejudiced things about Indigenous people. And I think
00:41:21.620 the environment has really eroded in this last five years. There's consequences for getting
00:41:27.360 these big stories wrong. And as you say, I think we can hold to ideas in our mind at once. We can
00:41:34.060 say, yes, there is documented abuses at these schools, sexual, physical. We know that there
00:41:40.820 was malnourishment. We know there was neglect. We know that there were deaths, as you say,
00:41:46.460 mainly from tuberculosis. We know all of those facts are on the public record. And we should
00:41:51.520 question stories like, which have been circulating, like saying that children were asked to, you know,
00:41:59.400 dig their friends' graves, that there were babies born incinerators, I'm sorry, babies thrown into
00:42:05.580 incinerators. This other stuff needs to be questioned because the consequences are big,
00:42:11.220 because we need to move forward with reconciliation. We need to heal as a country and we need facts to
00:42:17.080 do that. The book is The Trust Spiral, Why Media Needs Objectivity. Tara Henley, the author.
00:42:24.540 Thanks so much for your time, Tara. Thank you for having me.
00:42:27.600 Full Comment is a post-media podcast.
00:42:29.760 My name's Brian Lilly, your host.
00:42:31.220 This episode was produced by Andre Pru.
00:42:33.100 Theme music by Bryce Hall.
00:42:34.700 Kevin Libin is the executive producer.
00:42:36.720 Please hit share.
00:42:38.240 Make sure you hit subscribe as well.
00:42:39.820 Tell your friends about us.
00:42:41.100 Thanks for listening.
00:42:41.920 Until next time, I'm Brian Lilly.
00:42:48.280 There were so many missed opportunities to catch this
00:42:51.660 before the devastating thing happened.
00:42:54.560 A third of them we found literally in the phone book.
00:42:58.460 These people were not afraid.
00:43:00.680 They knew that nobody was effectively hunting them.
00:43:03.320 They knew they had escaped justice, that they were going to die in their beds.
00:43:07.740 When I give talks at law schools, it's that the charter ultimately is empowering a minority.
00:43:11.560 And it's empowering a minority that's a guild across the country.
00:43:14.580 And it's a fairly elite guild, and the guild is lawyers.
00:43:16.580 Families who were split by referendum and brothers and sisters
00:43:21.700 who never talked to each other for years after the referendum
00:43:24.580 because they were so angry at each other
00:43:26.580 because of the emotions on both sides.
00:43:29.340 The reason he was assassinated
00:43:30.760 was not because he was trying to put a satellite into space,
00:43:34.040 but because the gun that he was creating
00:43:38.460 had other applications that made him and the gun very dangerous.
00:43:44.580 It's finally here.
00:43:45.980 A new season of Canada Did What?
00:43:47.840 a post-media podcast that revisits the big Canadian political events you might think you remember
00:43:53.620 and tells you the real story you never knew.
00:43:56.800 I'm Tristan Hopper. The voices you just heard are from our brand new Season 2.
00:44:02.000 We will unpack some of the pivotal moments that helped define our country,
00:44:05.720 often without a vote, usually without a plan, and sometimes without anyone admitting what they'd done.
00:44:12.140 We'll find out how Canada became a welcoming paradise
00:44:15.280 for untold numbers of Nazi war criminals after the Second World War.
00:44:19.800 We let them build monuments to their wartime exploits
00:44:22.560 and even ended up honoring a Nazi fighter in the House of Commons.
00:44:26.620 And I'm sorry to say that none of that happened by accident.
00:44:30.180 We'll bring you the little-known story of a troubled Canadian rocket scientist
00:44:34.040 who turned to a sinister life of selling giant guns to terrible people.
00:44:39.480 And if that sounds like a spy novel, it ends like one too.
00:44:42.840 You'll hear the behind-the-scenes story of Quebec's attempted secession from Canada,
00:44:46.900 and how very close we came to a political crisis that would have made Brexit look like a picnic.
00:44:53.060 You'll hear about how the much-celebrated Charter of Rights and Freedoms
00:44:56.940 turned into something its creators never wanted,
00:44:59.720 and how many of the most extravagant warnings about the document were all quickly proven true.
00:45:05.900 And you'll even hear about how authorities bungled multiple chances
00:45:09.520 to stop the deadliest terrorist attack in our country's history
00:45:12.480 and then proceeded to pretend it never happened.
00:45:16.000 These aren't dusty history lessons.
00:45:18.300 They're stories about power, ambition, madness,
00:45:20.780 and the things about Canada that a lot of people would rather ignore.
00:45:24.880 But not you!
00:45:26.260 You won't want to miss an episode.
00:45:28.200 Subscribe to make sure you get all of Season 2 starting March 2026
00:45:32.200 anywhere you get your podcasts.
00:45:35.320 Thank you.