Unknown Speaker 0:00 My name is Joyce Smith and I'm the director of the Ryerson journalism Research Center as well as being an associate professor here at the school. And before we begin, I'd like to acknowledge that Toronto is in the dish with one spoon territory. The dish with one spoon is a treaty between the anishnaabe Missisaugas and Hoda. nashoni that bound them to share the territory and protect the land. Subsequent indigenous nations and peoples, Europeans and all newcomers have been invited into this treaty in the spirit of peace, friendship, and respect. And on that note of respect, I'm delighted to open this really special dialog today on the way in which editorial boards and op ed pages and submissions work in today's print and online sources. I've got to admit a bit of selfishness here. I really wanted to do this panel. And that's one I guess, the benefits of being a research director. Given a relatively recent news, especially about what happened with the New York Review of Books and the decision to publish the Jian Ghomeshi essay. That's just one example of many, many. I wonder how many of us when I say us, I mean, people who work in news even understand who makes such decisions and how those decisions come about. Because even during my time at the Toronto Star, and at the Globe and Mail in the newsrooms there, I have to admit, I didn't know a lot about who was on the editorial force, and how decisions were made, both in terms of by unblind, editorials, as well as op eds that were solicited. So I'm sometimes it kind of felt like a secret society. So I'm looking forward today to finding out more about how those decisions are made. And I'm really delighted that we can be joined by three people who can bring a bit of transparency to the process. So we have Robin herb back, we have Andrew Phillips, and we have our own professor Ann Rauhla , who will moderate the discussion, I'm going to introduce them but first I really want to recognize two people who've done a lot of work in making this event happened today. One of them is Jaclyn Mika, thank you very much, Jacqueline. And the other is the wonderful Laura Howells. Our research associate at the RJ RC, who's really central to the success of this event today. Thank you to to Adrea Vasil. And to Vicki Mochama who brought their classes here today. They're op-ed classes. So I'm really looking forward to the q&a, no pressure, but I'm looking forward to seeing what you guys come up with. So Andrew Phillips has been editor of the stars editorial and op ed pages since 2011. Previously, he was editor in chief of the Victoria Times columnist, columnist, columnist. Yeah, sorry, I've got columns on the brain. So I'm suddenly changed the name of it, sorry, and the Gazette in Montreal. He's also been a writer, editor and foreign correspondent at the Gazette, CBC Television News, and Maclean's, as well as business editor of the star. He holds a degree in history and economics from McGill University, and has taught journalism at Concordia. Robin Urbanek is a columnist with CBC News and editor of CBC's opinion page. She was previously a columnist with the National Post and a member of their editorial board. She's contributed blogs for Maclean's among others. And not so long ago, she was a student here at Ryerson, graduating with many awards in 2010. And Ann Rauhla should be able to introduce without looking at my notes, she spent 15 sorry, 16 years at the Globe and Mail Good thing I have my notes, where she worked as a copy editor, assignment editor, beat reporter, foreign editor and featured columnist. She's been a television reporter for CBC Television, and has also written editorials, business stories, book reviews, magazine articles, and radio commentaries. Until 1999, she was senior editor of counter spin on CBC News Unknown Speaker 4:05 World. Unknown Speaker 4:05 And in 2000, she worked as an editor at the Toronto Star which has more recently, in addition to her teaching and research, and has trained academic writers how to write op eds. So she's the perfect person to moderate this panel. So and take it away. Unknown Speaker 4:24 Thank you very much. I welcome this opportunity to draw back the veil on the Secret Society of opinion writers. But first, let's start with the classic journalists some of the classic journalistic questions. You know, who, what, where, when and why. So, let's get started. If you would not mind to please I'd like to ask each of you this and then we'll talk a little bit about what your what your days look like and how decisions are reached. Andrew, if you'd be so kind, would you tell us a little bit about how you found yourself in this position? Unknown Speaker 5:11 Yeah, thanks, everybody for coming out appreciate the invitation. I found myself in this position in 2011. Because the publisher of the Toronto Star at the time, asked me to do it. And it's something that I had not done as a full time job in, in journalism, even though I've been doing for a long time. And I fou nd it appealing. The Toronto Star actually values its editorial board, the editorial board, Trump's are actually reports directly to the publisher, as opposed to being simply another department in the editorial department. It's kind of a, an arrangement that some other papers in particularly in the united states do. And it's an indication that the star kind of values its opinion, and also an attempt to keep the editorial board independent from the newsroom, or more more precisely to keep the newsroom independent of the editorial board. The idea being that just because we have an opinion on the editorial page, the newsroom shouldn't go out on slant, it's reporting. And so it's an it's an effort to keep that apart. So that's how I found myself in this position after doing, as you indicated quite a lot of other jobs in in journalism. Unknown Speaker 6:19 Okay, Robin, you want to share how you found yourself in your position? Sure. Unknown Speaker 6:24 I didn't have a lot of other jobs in journalism. I went to journalism school here at Ryerson, I was a very average students, I think in terms of reporting, and I kind of figured out by the time I got to my fourth year, I did the undergrad program, that I wanted to be an opinion journalism. And I say opinion journalism as something distinct from personal journalism, I didn't want to write about myself, but I wanted to write argumentative pieces, I wanted to have a thesis to everything that I was writing, I wanted to make an argument, I wanted to win an argument. That's what I wanted to do. So when I, when I graduated, I did do a little bit of conventional reporting, just freelancing in order to eat and things like that. But my first real job, I guess, in journalism was at the National Post, and they hired me when I was 24 years old. And the, you know, the the lore in journalism is sort of that, or it used to be that you became a columnist after you paid your dues. And then that was kind of your reward for decades of reporting. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that idea. When I was hired, my editor sat down with me, and I remember sitting in the cafeteria at the National Post in Don Mills, and he said, You know, I don't care how old you are, and I don't care who you are, and I don't care, you know, what your personal sort of feelings are things like that. But if you can make a great argument, and if you can make a persuasive point on our pages, then that's what I want you to do. That's all I really care about. So I sort of kept that in mind, throughout my career, and now that I'm in a position where I'm looking for other writers. In my mind, what I'm looking for is a great piece of writing a great opinion piece, a great column, doesn't matter if you've never written a piece before in your life. That's kind of how I got my shot. And I'm sort of looking to pay it forward in that sense. Unknown Speaker 8:37 Okay, I will definitely return to the subject of writing argument. But let's talk a little bit now, in the interest of learning more about what what this work entails and major news organization. Could you first Andrew, talk a little bit about what a typical day looks like for you? And we have, we had a little taste of that this afternoon didn't leave as you you failed your your spare time by reading about the Supreme Court today? Unknown Speaker 9:10 You know, in many ways, there are there are big differences between what opinion writers do as Robin describes what State Street reporters if you like to, but in many ways externalism Let's face it, right. And so, you know, I work for a daily newspaper. And so every morning, every every weekday morning, if you ask me what my days like, you know, I wake up and I start reading, basically, I start absorbing stuff. And we meet at 10 o'clock in the morning as a group and decide what the topics of the day will be. Which means that people have to come to that meeting, read into things so they may have to read into a climate change thing, and they have to read into the Supreme Court decision which came out today about journalists and their sources. You know, you name it, they may and and so and come to a meeting, not just like a reporter might well there's something going on and you Got it up, but they have to come to it with, you know, there's something going on. And this is what we should say about. Right. And, and that is something that not have a cast of mind, I guess you know, and Robin, maybe touched on that, in that. I'll just say this that, to pick up on a bit of what she said that, you know, we get quite a few reporters, especially in like summertime when we have absences who come in to spend time on the editorial board. And often after spending years of going out and doing, you know, checking all the sources and writing a kind of a balanced story. They've kind of either lost or forgotten or never had the ability to cut through all that and say that this is what we need to say. And I think that that's kind of the essential quality. So lots of stuff happens in the world every day. But the question is, of all that stuff, what do we have to say today, and so or tomorrow. And so that's kind of what my day looks like, it's deciding that and then probably three days a week, all write, and that takes up some time, you actually have to once you've decided that, then you have to go out and sort of substantiate the opinion that you kind of have came up with, and, and write it and shape it. And I'll be editing things I'll be because I will be talking to the op ed page editor, the opinion editor about what we put on in the other columns of things. So I'll be reading a lot of submissions, and deciding what what that so we want to come up with a good mix of things, we can talk about that what is a good mix of things, from the point of view of subjects and point of view of writers from the point of view of all those things, and then there are fires to put out, you know, there are, there are, you know, the mistake that gets in that you have to correct or the column that like to fire under people, and all of a sudden you're dealing with, you know, Christ alarm from here or there and so forth. There's always that kind of thing. So it's I think it's interesting, I think you're dealing with a lot of issues, you've got to kind of think through and come up, come to a conclusion. And that is not what you know, not what a lot of journalists are trained to do. It's a it's kind of a special way of thinking. And hopefully, I would imagine that this what your classes are about, I obviously I taught opinion writing at Concordia. And I used to, you know, I would say my first sort of thing I would say to people, if whatever is an opinion, that's not the point, right? The point is, you know, to develop skills and and, and habits and to so that you can take that opinion, and make it worthwhile for somebody else to listen to. Because just because you have an opinion, so what everyone has done, and but not everyone can have an opinion and make it work. For others to to read to and who want to share. Unknown Speaker 12:42 I think I want to ask you a little bit more about the Toronto Star because I think Unknown Speaker 12:46 the Unknown Speaker 12:48 the challenges posed by your work and the challenges posed by Robins are quite different. So I want to talk a little bit more about the Toronto Star and then talk about Robin, and opinion at the CBC. So so you have a team of 20 people working on produce those, those two pate, those two all important pages at the back, Unknown Speaker 13:12 took this job, which is actually a job, you know, I've done for probably the longest I've done any job. There were 11 people reporting to me. And that included two staff comp cartoonists and included a couple of commas. It included two or three editors who just worked on somebody who almost just who only really did letters to the editor. Okay, so we've gone from 11, now to four, and we still produce probably more content. How do we do that? You know, well, we do various creative things to get the work done without having them on staff. And we cut some corners. But we and we all work hard. And but, you know, to give you an idea of the number of people working on that. At the Toronto Star, I guess one of the features of the star, maybe that's what you're alluding to, and is that the star does have kind of a philosophy and an approach if you like, and we have these things called the Atkinson principles. And the stars likes to style itself as a, quote unquote, progressive newspaper. And I won't go into all that. But it does have a an approach to the news and approach to society, which is kind of baked in not only to fit into the organization that the it's the board that the that runs the star to sort of signs up to fulfillments. And so you know, we do tend to have a consistent point. We hope we have a consistent point of view. And we work from these principles that are I would call progressive, but sort of debate what exactly they are, as opposed to, you know, the CBC doesn't have such a doesn't have a content charter like that, and neither does the bulk mail. So it's a little more they have somewhat different mandates. So within that mandate, I For us, there's an awful lot of variation. But we do have that as kind of a core underlying philosophy. Unknown Speaker 15:06 So on the editorial board itself, however, my understanding is that there are three people on the editorial board writing, I guess, minimally seven editorials a week, but probably more like 11 to 15 editorial, so we will typically Unknown Speaker 15:35 wait, Is that better? Yeah, there we go. We typically do two a day on weekdays. And Saturday and Sunday, we do Saturday, we didn't do long one Saturday, we kind of cut back to one a day on Sunday and Monday. So we'll add that up, whatever that 10 1112 or 13 or so. And there's three people. And if everybody's there, and everybody's sort of not sick or away or anything, it's doable. And and we do do it. So that's the staffing issue. I don't know what it is. Right now at the globe or anywhere else. I know those, the National Post, for example, is pretty much dropped editorials. They do occasional editorials, and I suspect that it's maybe a continuity, they may say that it's for I don't know what they say about it, I suspect to some staffing reasons, whatever they say in terms of philosophy, if you like, Unknown Speaker 16:27 if there were two or three words you would describe, you would use to describe people who who are asked to write editorials asked to write opinion at the star, what would those two or three words speak? Unknown Speaker 16:44 Well, I think I would say that if you would describe people who are who do it? Well, I would, I think opinionated but more like clear minded, I would say you get an awful lot of people who are kind of having an opinion, but they they're kind of fuzzy about exactly why they get there. They kind of feel like they should think this but they don't quite have a path to there. It's I mean, I think it's just not everybody thinks like that. And so to do it, well, I think you need to have a pretty rigorous mind, and, and be able to go to the heart of the matter, take a complicated issue and say, you know, this is the heart of it. Because you can drown yourself, in fact, and we go off and research climate change or something. And I mean, you'll just, you'll burn the printer out, just you know, just going nuts, accumulating facts, you have to be able to kind of have a thread from the beginning to the end is a consistent and coherent argument, and be able to quickly research the facts that really make that come alive and are important, because it isn't a matter of just packing up. Every fact you can you can get in, in fact, often less is more. So it's a it's a certain cast of mind and not everybody has it. Unknown Speaker 18:01 Okay, so with With that in mind, let's talk about opinion as it as it presents itself at CBC. Robin, would you tell us a little bit about your typical day. But I think also talk about talk about what you're looking for and how you make decisions about CBC opinion. Unknown Speaker 18:26 Right? So probably what I'm going to tell you about my day is in a good indicator of most places, or how opinion sections work just because the opinion section of the CBC, it's a bit of a misnomer. It's more of like an opinion person. If the section is about two years old, it started when I was like I was hired to run the section and I wear two hats as both the editor of the section and I write a column CBC has an iron wall that separates reporters from anyone, you know, delving into that, that opinion space, and that's done very purposely because they don't want you know, opinions to muddle perceptions of objectivity and so forth. Which just means that it with the exception of myself, who was hired as a columnist and Neil McDonald, who is also the other person who writes opinion for the CBC. Everyone else who writes under the opinion banner is a freelancer. So my section is basically made up of the weekly column I write the column that Neil MacDonald occasionally writes and then freelancers. So it means that I don't have a typical day, because I'm running all over the place doing different things half the day this morning, you know, I was acting as a columnist and I was on a panel which is what I'm put together because normally I don't look quite this neat. And then right after that, I went back to the office and I'm working with freelancers to get their columns ready for publication, in terms of what I look for, as opposed to the Toronto Star that does have more of a mandate or a specific direction, the mandate I'm operating under basically is just one of balance. And if it doesn't mean that every column, it's actually going to be, you know, I'm going to run a series of bad columns if they're all sort of equally balanced and tempered, and so forth. But I'm looking to achieve balance over time. So Unknown Speaker 20:48 occasionally, I'll do sort of audits of the section and think, Okay, how many, you know, more progressive columns that I run, how many more conservative columns I run, you know, which ones were sort of on this end of the spectrum or that and, and that's sort of what I'm looking for in terms of content. I'm also looking for writers who It sounds very cliche, but who represent Canada, and part of my job. And when I was hired on, I was told that part of my job was to work with people who maybe hadn't written a column before in his or her life. The person I was working with this morning is a grandma out in St. Thomas, Ontario, who I had to plead with over Twitter to write a column because she she was tweeting about when the Ford factory left St. Thomas and comparing that to the news that we heard earlier this week about GM leaving Oshawa, and she was tweeting some things about how she comes from a manufacturing badly and her husband retired from the plant in St. Thomas. And she's seen the way that the area of St. Thomas has evolved since that plant left and I thought it would make such an interesting column. And I reached out to her and I said, Hey, this is really creepy. I've been following your tweets, you want to write a column, I will work with you. And that's, that's the luxury of working in a digitally only environment, I don't have to fill two pages every day. So I am spending time working with the grandmas in St. Thomas to get their columns up to snapper, and publishable, which might mean that my page is a little bit stale once in a while, which also drives me crazy. But for the greater good of getting those different voices out there getting people who have never been published before in their lives, but they are the people that we don't often hear from firsthand, they'll be quoted in in news reports or in future stories. But we don't often read them in their own voices. So a lot of what I'm trying to do is define those voices those everyday Canadians who have great opinions maybe can make great points about foreshadowing and St. Thomas compared to Oshawa, Ontario, and what it's like to live in a family that for generations has been reliant on the auto sector in Canada, I find it such an interesting story. And I want to hear from her. So a lot of what I'm doing is working with people who don't consider themselves writers who don't consider themselves columnist, but allowing them to have a platform to speak to other people who are maybe like that, Unknown Speaker 23:38 when not long after the CBC opinion, person, page entity started a couple of years ago there was it attracts a fair amount of criticism, both from the left and the right, but mostly the right. Yeah. Saying that, suggesting more or less that it was somehow unfair of the CBC to be getting into the opinion business. How did how did you react to that? How did you handle that? Unknown Speaker 24:10 Right? Um, I think a lot of the concern was that the CBC is this behemoth entity in Canada, and by getting into the opinion business, it would sort of eclipse the papers and the smaller news organizations that are struggling to survive. I think, just by virtue of the fact that we've kept the opinion section so small, it's not doing that. We're publishing one column A day or something like that. But But moreover, I think, I mean, I came from, I came straight from the National Post and went to the CBC. And the national posts opinion section from the time I started there, until the time I left, by the time I left, actually almost everybody had exited. It used to be Get an editorial board of maybe eight full time people. And by the time I left, it was maybe three. And those people have since left, it wasn't the CBC that was responsible for closing down the opinion section at the National Post, these places were shutting down already. So if anything, it was not an opportunity to keep some of the voices that were more regularly published in these other places. And to, to create an opportunity to continue to hear from those voices. And shortly after, I think postmedia laid off a whole bunch of its its freelancers. And suddenly, I got all these messages from people saying, Hey, I used to write a weekly column for the Ottawa Citizen or whatever. And they've just slashed their budgets, I have nowhere to go. Are you looking for for more writers? And actually, the problem is that I just because I'm one person, I don't have the capacity to process all these people. But I think a lot of the the initial concern was that idea that the CBC is going to come out and destroy these sections. I think in practice, the sections were already kind of devolving on their own. And it really hasn't become this behemoth that I think a lot of people feared it would be. Unknown Speaker 26:15 I'm mindful, but I want to save time for questions from the floor. I have one more question and and then we'll head in that direction. How do you make decisions? A question for both of you? How do you make decisions about what's going to take precedence that day? Which, which subject? To what degree? Are your decisions driven by the news? And what else are they driven by? Unknown Speaker 26:52 Well, I mean, I don't jump in if you like, I mean, they're, they're, they're quite driven by the news. I mean, we we aren't, you know, we're part of a newspaper, we're part of a daily newspaper. Right. So when GM closes down, on or announces it will on on Monday morning, you know, we're on the lookout for, for, for for pieces that are that are related to that. We want to be, we want to reflect what's going on that it's not that day, that week, as much as possible. But you know, it's, so that's one factor. We have, I mean, we have common regular columnist who kind of have spots. So, you know, we allow them to kind of get off the news as often, really, as they like. And then we, we choose contributors, not just because they're on the news, but because hopefully they have something worth saying and they say it well. So it's pretty news driven, I would say. But it's more like a current events section than a straight, you know, not every every piece doesn't have to be about about yesterday's news. So you'd kind of go crazy. I mean, we're more than one person, but we're not, we're not a ton of people. So you can and we do have, as Robin mentioned, sort of alluded to, we do have this feel like burden of the print that we carry along with me, you have to actually fill it every day, you can't kind of take a day off and think longer, longer things. But we do try to do longer term planning in terms of it you no sh pieces that may take longer to do. I'm not that way. And we've tried to do a mix too, right? You can't do with when the St. Michael's College School scandal broke a couple of weeks ago, you know, after the first day or so there were there was a flood of people wanting to sound off about about this place. And once you publish, you know, 234 are you going to publish 5678? necessarily, just because, you know, because the bar gets a little higher, you know, people have to have something to add. So you get a bit, you know, it does get a bit like that, I'm sure Robin finds the saying that, you know, something big happens, all of a sudden you're looking for things and there's kind of a vacuum because people are kind of trying to make up their minds and all of a sudden, you know, 10 come along in a row. Because all these same people have decided, you know, in unison to, to sound off, and then you have to make the balance of just, you don't want to bore people to death with the same subject. So it's a separate, definitely a daily balancing. Robin, Unknown Speaker 29:24 a lot of it is news driven. But I'm also mindful of the fact that opinion pieces really can make news in a way. They change the conversation often, which is an extraordinary burden, I think for editors to just knowing that you're putting something out there that can really derail or change the conversation. I'm thinking actually have one column that we ran, it was paid to the announcement that goop deliver. Like goop the Gwyneth Paltrow thing was coming to Canada and You know, I had a million pitches about why goop is pseudoscience. And that's fine. I've read that piece 1000 times. But I got a pitch from a doctor who wrote a piece about how goop appeals to to women in particular, because when it's Paltrow or whoever it is, who's responsible for it has identified the fact that that women who seek treatment in mainstream medicine often feel as though they're not being heard, and not being taken seriously. And women's pain is not being taken seriously. And she was writing from the perspective of the GP. And she was saying that while we're all you know, spending time saying how fake goop is, or you know, how they're peddling bullshit, whatever. The important thing to keep in mind is that this, this has been really successful for a reason. It's because women feel as though they're not being heard when they go to their doctors, or when they go to hospitals or what have you. And I it was an excellent column. And we published it. And then her I mean, I talked to her a little bit afterwards, and her phone just blew up with interview requests and phone request radio and this and that, and it really became like this huge thing. So the initial peg was a new story goop is coming to Canada, let's talk about it. But the angle that she found was so unique, and I think it was so bang on that it changed the conversation to to not just be about like wire, people sticking things in their vaginas, or whatever it was. It was about like, Why do women feel disempowered by the mainstream medical establishment? And why? Why are these sort of alternative therapies finding fertile ground in Canada and abroad? So that's a way that that a really strong opinion piece can not only react to the news, but also change the conversation. Unknown Speaker 31:58 Thanks very much. And speaking of changing the conversation, wondering if we have some questions from the floor from the Unknown Speaker 32:06 floor? Unknown Speaker 32:09 Could I ask you to use the mics, please? The mic, staff? Unknown Speaker 32:19 come up to the mic. Hi, there. Unknown Speaker 32:28 My name is Aurora. I'm Unknown Speaker 32:29 the Ryerson review journalism. I'm in class right now. But when we started the conversation, I know, she had mentioned that editorial boards and just like the knowledge of how columns work, kind of came to light recently with the Jian Ghomesi editorial in the New York Unknown Speaker 32:49 Review of Books. Unknown Speaker 32:51 And as we have a, someone who's a part of it was a member of a board. And as well, you've written a lot about like YouTube reform of that I just love to get your opinions on on what that has meant. And even like, what happened in a Canadian context? Unknown Speaker 33:11 And I think a lot of the problem with that column maybe was the fact I'm totally speculating here. So but I think part of the problem was that it it did land in an American publication, I think, had it landed somewhere in Canada, the editor might have been able to pick up on some of the, the glossing over, I think within the column, there was a lot of talk, you know, at the CBC, of course, and I'm sure in most newsrooms about whether that was a worthy column and whether it should have been run. We don't I I don't know if we even know exactly why the editor was made to resign, whether it was that column or not. My first week, it was circle, was it that column? Definitely. My personal view is that it was a it was a problematic column just by virtue of the fact that it wasn't sort of fact checked properly. I think Had it been now I think, you know, there was a lot of talk about how he doesn't deserve a platform. And this is normalizing. You know, that type of behavior he was accused of doing, I think the column was valuable to the reader because I think sometimes the stories come out and people wonder what happened to that guy. And depending on who you are, that can provoke a certain reaction. People tend to feel sorry for the person and think, Oh, well, he's an exile or other people think that maybe he hasn't learned from what happened to him. I read that column. And I thought he saw sort of hung himself with his words, in a sense, I think, you know, reading through it, this was my own personal interpretation was that I don't think he had reading the way he sort of described What happened to him and then the aftermath? To me, it seemed like he hadn't totally gotten it. And as a reader, I found that extremely valuable because people wonder, you know, what happens to these guys in the metoo era, too? You know, these people disappear, and we never hear from them? Do they learn their lesson? Did they not learn their lesson? Do they continue on with certain behaviors? Do they not do that? So I think there is journalistic value in answering that question, Who better to answer that question, then the person himself or herself? So, you know, I don't think it, you know, I don't think it really elevated the young democracy name in any way other than sort of confirming that he he doesn't seem all that different. So had that landed on my desk, it wouldn't have run the way that it did. But I can certainly see the value in a follow up like that. Unknown Speaker 36:00 Do you want to address that? Well, I Unknown Speaker 36:02 think that the point about it running in a US publication, I think if it had come to a Canadian publication, it would have gotten a lot more scrutiny. Partly, you know, part because we because there would have been a lot more sensitivity to the to the subtleties. And I think that the clearly what Ghomeshi wanted to do is you want to test the waters and see if, you know, there was any room for him to come back? And the answer came back No way. Right? It's like four years since he went down. And, you know, it'll be a frosty Friday before another editor publishes a piece by him or does or gives him any kind of chance. And I think that the editor of the magazine kind of did him a disservice by allowing him if you'd like to stick his head up like that. I think a Canadian editor would have said, let's talk about this. Are you sure you want to say that, you know, partly out of self protection from the the editor, but also because, okay, it is interesting to hear from Ghomeshi as an editor, you think Ghomeshi wants to speak out after four years. I mean, that is talk about Robin made allusion to, you know, you can kind of break news with opinion, you know, that's kind of breaking news, right, except in this case, it kind of broke the wrong that broke the editor, as well as everything else. So I think that I think an editor that had come to the Toronto Star, I mean, it would have been kind of like, Oh, my God, what are we going to do? But I think it would have been to say, Oh, no, john Ghomeshi turned him away. We'll never want to hear from him. I think, you know, I don't think necessarily, that would be the right thing to do, because he's a extremely controversial and interesting figure. And, yeah, I'm curious as to what, what happened to him and what he's learned, except, in this case, now, should Ian buruma have been fired about? You know, because of that, you know, I mean, a lot of it, a lot of publications are kind of running, you know, you know, from from all of this, and people are, he's not the only one to have kind of been mousetrap on that. Unknown Speaker 38:03 I would like to emphasize the point that Robin alluded to, and you have both talked about, that there were actual misrepresentations. And there is there. I just want to emphasize the point that in opinion writing in editorial writing, in column writing, there is an expectation that you are following the practices of journalism, verifying what you're saying and checking it. It's hard to imagine a Canadian editorial decision maker, not recalling that the facts were not quite as he Unknown Speaker 38:51 presented them, Unknown Speaker 38:52 I would just say that, you know, even went through went through all of that. Right. And you sort of went through all of that just a piece by Ghomeshi allowing him to quote, speak, you know, no matter how carefully it would have done would have landed like a bomb. And in any newsroom, any Canadian newsroom, just the mere fact of him being quote, unquote, allowed to speak would have probably, you know, shut off of a big explosion. Unknown Speaker 39:17 Absolutely. But I did want to emphasize the idea that that opinion writing were by whomever is dependent on some genuine research news gathering and reading before one expresses one's opinion. Yes, we had another question. Unknown Speaker 39:41 This is for Robin, I think from the CDC. I read an article about why hunting Headley still about yet but like after the accusations of the head, lead singer, and I know like I know that opinion is subversive, but I don't know. Like how much that really adds to the conversation. So I mean, I was thinking about what, just because it's a different opinion than than the normal one. Is it worth, like being given a platform just like the junk Ghomeshi thing? Like how do you weigh that? How do you measure that like, the subversiveness of like how harmful they could potentially be to me. Unknown Speaker 40:16 So for those who don't know, this was a column that was written by someone who, just like a random mom out in New Brunswick, maybe I can't remember and she was a hardcore Headley fan. And she wrote a column that was written sort of in the middle of the Jacob Hogarth allegations, I don't think he had been convicted yet, but there was sort of like a groundswell of accusations against him. So this column that we ran that was very controversial was written by this woman saying, okay, here's why I still support Headley, and here's why I'm still going to the concerts and there was a lot of backlash to that column. And the way that I would justify it was, you know, there were a lot of us sitting around in the newsroom, actively reporting on the allegations against Headley. And because we're journalists were so we know all the details, we know the facts or the allegations intricately. So to us, while we were reporting on all of that, we were also noticing that at the time, Hadley was still on tour, and Headley was filling up these stadiums with 1000s of people. And kind of sitting in our little Toronto bubble as this, this band is going around there with this active with this lead singer, accused of these horrific things. Were sitting there thinking like, why are people still supporting the sky? Why are people you know, going to these concerts. And there was an opportunity here for someone who is one of the people occupying one of the seats in that 1000 person stadium coming out and saying, Here's why, you know, I can still support this guy, despite the fact that he is being accused of these horrific things. For me, as an editor, it doesn't matter whether I agree with her or not, whether I think her opinion is offensive or not, whether I think she is justified or not. My role as an editor is to, as I mentioned earlier, to make sure that the section is reflecting the views of Canadians, even if they're hard for some people to understand. And they were really hard, you know, for me to understand, for example, because I knew of all of the horrible things that this guy was accused of, but I think if we just keep our heads down, and we think, Okay, well, he's been accused of horrible things. And we ignore the fact that there are still 1000s of people paying money to go see him. I think we do ourselves a disservice by not understanding how people around us think I'm doing my role a disservice by only allowing voices with whom I agreed to have that platform. So So part of the job, I think, of running an opinion section is to recognize that there are people out there who have these views that you might think, are totally misguided or are totally, you know, uninformed, or are short sighted, but you have to acknowledge that they're there, I think in order to understand them. I think in a way, you know, it draws me back to this, you know, how we cover Trump and how we understand Trump. And I find it very useful actually, to go on the Donald Trump subreddits. And their bananas are totally crazy. But I think, you know, a lot of journalists were caught off guard by the fact that Donald Trump won the election and the fact that he still has all of this support, like we can't kind of wrap our heads around it. By not listening to why that is, I think we'll continue to be bewildered by the fact that the support is, is there. So this is my sort of roundabout way of saying that, you know, a lot of people found it offensive. And I understand why a lot of people thought it shouldn't have been given the column space that it was. And I also understand that why, why that was. But I think by virtue of the fact that there are lots of Canadians who have that view, I think we need to acknowledge that it exists and maybe create an opportunity to write a counterpoint to that, which is what happened afterwards to one one person who was particularly put off by the fact that we ran that column. She wrote a counterpoint that was very good and she said, You know why? You know, that was a very misguided position to take or what have you. But I think it's part and parcel right of running a good multi faceted opinion page is to allow for that space that we don't necessarily agree with. Unknown Speaker 45:17 I think we have a couple more questions from Unknown Speaker 45:19 Flora Huey. Okay. Unknown Speaker 45:25 See you, Robin. And I have a question that is complicated for both of you. It's, it's about definition, which until extremely reasonably recently, are thought of as being my research field that nobody in the world was interested in, which is about the definition of journalism. And now it seems to be like, it seems to be a thing. That, that, that I and I think, for my own satisfaction, I feel fairly comfortable with having solved the question of the definition of journalism when it comes to News. I'm not sure I have when it comes to commentary, that you guys have been alluding to it. And you also have been alluding to a problem. In the discussion, I just wanted to try to pose the question. So you know, yeah, so it seems like general opinion journalism is different from just opinion. Because as you both really emphasize, three of yours emphasize there is supposed to be a factual basis for it or at least. And it comes from that sort of sense of discovery. Okay. And then we get to the end. So the accuracy piece, which is whether for everybody interested, one of the five defining things in my opinion, journalism theory. Another is the independence. Most people think journalism is supposed to be in some sense, independent, way harder to define the word I'm not going to get back. One way in which one way in which the importer with respect to news is that a reporter, or an editor of news is agnostic about the consequences of putting this piece of information out there. If it's true, if it is a matter of public interest, you know, we've done our best to verify that it's true, and it's a matter of public interest. We're gonna put it out there, whether it has the benefit, whether it has a net benefit to Donald Trump, or a net benefit to Justin Trudeau or neither of the above, right? We're just going to put it out there because it's the American public interest, and we've investigated them. Okay, but now we come to commentary. And now we see this argument, really different. Right? Like, like, you know, are they some people, we wouldn't give a voice to just period that's the bomb? Yeah. Yeah, that's my question. That's the bomb, you know, the consequences young dementias put up there in the public here that has consequences. And I guess I wonder to what extent the two of you, you know, think about consequences of publication in a way that is different to your colleagues and needs? Unknown Speaker 48:25 Well, okay, so Unknown Speaker 48:29 are there voices that should not be heard? If you like, is that library more or less? Right? I think there's always been that there's always been, I mean, you know, there always is question is, it really is where you draw a line, right? And at the moment, there's a very active debate about this goes under the guise of being under the rubric of free speech, right, which, unfortunately, is a label that seems to have been appropriated by the right. And unfortunately, the left has allowed the right to appropriate it, in my view. And so the line is increasingly being drawn in ways that are more perhaps now than I would like. I think that, you know, probably, I mean, if you're, if you're into opinion, journalism, if you're the kind of person like Robin, myself, you know, you're the kind of person who enjoys different opinions, and you're probably the person who really likes a good clash of opinion, right? That's almost like, that's what we do. Right? So we can I think, I won't speak for Robin, but I think as a group of people, we, the people who are engaged in this really would draw the lines quite broadly. And say, you know, let the facts and let the opinions contend and people will decide to the broadest possible extent. Now, I realized there's a big debate about, you know, certain forms of speech that are regarded as harmful. And people want to draw the lines narrower, for philosophical reasons, for all kinds of reasons, reasons of interpreting and its reasons of power and As opposed to certain, simply recents of abstract rights. And that's an act of debate, which I hope you guys I'm sure you guys in your classes have thought about. I would tend to course there are people who don't get, we don't platform if you like, and or different organizations might draw the line differently. But I mean, I guess I would say that I would tend to draw the line, in principle quite widely. Now, that doesn't mean that the Trump furred for our purposes, and opinion might be perfectly reasonable, and even well done. But I might think, you know, that's a great piece in the Toronto Sun, but it isn't really a trauma star piece, that's branding all, it doesn't mean that the person has no right to speak, it just means that as a promo star, we choose not to particularly select that in our menu. And that's not a it's not a banning them or anything like that they have many other ways to get their, their views out. That's like more like branding and planning what kind of organization you think you are, but I would tend to draw it widely. And, you know, we could I mean, it's kind of a very long and discussion, I guess, as to where you draw the line, who's included, you know, and so forth, and so on, you know, forms of speech that I would never have considered to be hate speech are now regarded by some people as hate speech. And that's a that's where I think you're perhaps you're getting to, I don't know, I'm just I'm just talking a lot about this, I don't have a lie, I can't tell you exactly where the line is, Unknown Speaker 51:24 in essence, in your case, the line is easier to determine possibly, then the line is a Robin, Unknown Speaker 51:30 do you want to talk about that? Yeah. Unknown Speaker 51:31 I think part of Iris question was, how much do do I think about, you know, the consequences of publishing something. And the more I think about whether or not something is worth publishing, the more I sort of think it is, the more fraught I am about it, if I start to worry about what will this mean for my job, which, honestly, I do, because I'm two years into it. And I'm in an environment that is brand new to opinion writing. So if I wasn't worried about it, and if I wasn't worried about the repercussions for me, and for my writers, there have been a few times where someone wrote, I mean, one column in particular, a woman wrote a column and she was getting death threats, because she wrote it. And I felt that I had sort of abdicated my responsibility to her because I hadn't seen that ahead of time. So I've sort of made a habit now, when it comes to more controversial columns to talk to writers beforehand, especially if they're new writers to say, look, the CBC News platform is humongous, you're gonna piss people off, are you ready to do this? But if I wasn't constantly second guessing myself, if I wasn't wondering about the repercussions, if I wasn't wondering about the value or the harm, perhaps of publishing something, I think I'd be running a really boring section. If it was just safe and just sort of boilerplate, then it would be not worthy, I think. So. I mean, famous last words, maybe when I get myself in trouble for finally publishing that piece. That just pisses too many people off. But I sort of see that as the marker of, of whether I'm doing my job correctly, as I see it, which is to get people thinking to maybe change some minds. That's the ultimate goal. I think when it comes to writing a really persuasive opinion piece, if you can get someone who was skeptical at the beginning and change their mind, by the time they hate your kicker. That's, that's the holy grail of opinion writing. So if I'm constantly striving for that, I think I'm doing my job. Right. Unknown Speaker 53:43 Thank you very much. I have about 117 questions, and I know, we need to wrap up. So could I invite Dr. Smith's to take over the mic? Unknown Speaker 53:54 Thank you. And we could we could obviously run several courses on this, but some of you have to get back to your classroom to finish off your course. So could you please join me in thanking both of our panelists and our moderator. Unknown Speaker 54:09 And thank you very much and enjoy the rest of the semester. Transcribed by https://otter.ai