March 5, 2025 • 53 mins
CTV News senior political correspondent Mike LeCouteur speaks with Aaron Pete about political accountability, media bias, the decline of traditional news, and the rise of alternative media.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Aaron Pete (00:00):
Welcome back to another episode of the Bigger
Than Me podcast.
Here is your host, aaron Peet.
What is the state of Canadianmedia?
On the one hand, we havegrowing YouTube channels and
podcasts.
On the other, we have legacymedia with well-trained
journalists fighting to holdpoliticians accountable.
I'm speaking with a seniorpolitical correspondent from CTV
(00:21):
on political accountability,the future of journalism and the
importance of healthy debate.
My guest today is MikeLeCouture.
Mike, it is an honour to haveyou on the show.
Thank you so much for beingwilling to share your time.
Would you mind firstintroducing yourself to viewers?
Mike LeCouteur (00:38):
Sure, I'm Mike LeCouture, ctv News' senior
political correspondent, andthanks for having me on the
podcast.
I really appreciate it.
Aaron Pete (00:50):
The pleasure is all mine.
Let's start with a toughquestion what does?
Mike LeCouteur (00:52):
political accountability look like from
your perspective?
You're not kidding.
That's a tough question.
I think it's basically tryingto get the answers from a
politician that everydayCanadians want, and that's what
I think we try and do as much aspossible.
I know that's what I try and doas much as possible and really
asking that question about whyis it that you're doing this now
.
And it's so interesting becausewhen I came to Ottawa, I grew
(01:14):
up in Montreal, I was a reporterthere and when I was applying
for the job in Ottawa, it wasmoving to political journalism
and something that I had notreally done a lot of.
And you soon realize thatpolitical journalism is not so
much about what the policy isthat they're announcing today or
what the politician is sayingtoday, but it's really what
they're saying today compared towhat they said yesterday, the
(01:37):
day before, and their record.
And I think that's where sort ofpolitical accountability comes
in and it's really that sort ofsense of OK, what does this mean
for Canadians and how do wemake sure that we get to the
root of it?
And I think that that's.
You know it may be your nextquestion, but that really is
sort of that ever elusive how dowe continue to get political
(02:01):
accountability in this type ofmedia environment where
everybody is looking at a quickclick and a quick clip that they
want to digest their news in?
And it's so interesting that Ithink we all strive for it and
we try as much as possible inthis highly trained media
environment that thesepoliticians are very trained in
trying to make sure to get tothe root of it.
Tell me why you made thisdecision and tell me why this
(02:23):
helps Canadians or any type ofperson, the people that they are
trying to help.
Aaron Pete (02:28):
That was going to be my next question what barriers
exist in actually achievingpolitical accountability?
I do think of getting theinterview to begin with can be a
challenge.
I think that we're seeing moreand more of and then actually
getting the answers in theinterview is the other challenge
.
What am I missing anything?
Mike LeCouteur (02:47):
I don't think so .
I think it's also um, trying tomake sure that, um, they're
being genuine about it right,and I think that's what a
connection that canadians havein seeing a politician being
genuine about their answer.
I mean, one of the things I cansort of think of uh is mark
miller, who is now theimmigration and he was
indigenous services and crownedindigenous relations minister
(03:08):
and he was one of those peoplethat you would ask a question
and if he didn't have the answer, or if the answer was they're
not doing good enough on thefile, he would say it.
And that was one of thosethings where you'd go OK, well,
that's refreshing, because it'sactually this government
minister admitting they didn'tget it right and they're
striving to get it right andthat these types of problems to
(03:29):
solve are very hard.
And getting back to the root ofyour question, I think the
difficulty in A trying to getthe interview is that a lot of
these politicians are findingdifferent ways to reach the
people that they want to reach.
When you consider the fact thatthey have their own channels,
they have their own, you know, xpages where they are reaching
their viewers and a lot of timesthey don't think they need to
(03:51):
speak to us anymore and I say us, I mean like media in general,
and the media landscape is sosegmented too, and that they can
pick and choose where they wantto go.
I mean, aaron, it's so funny,there used to be a time, and now
I, they want to go.
I mean, aaron, it's so funny,there used to be a time, and now
I'm going to show my age alittle bit here is that you know
, Walter Cronkite used to be themost trusted man in the world,
right, trusted news anchor on TV, and what came out of his mouth
(04:15):
was gospel.
And now we don't have thatsense anymore of you know what
people say, journalism being therecord of the day, and there's
a lot of information out therethat people can get, and I
encourage people to read allsorts of different viewpoints.
But also the difficulty, Ithink, is that you know there
are standards that you know ifyou would want to call the
(04:37):
mainstream journalists, you know, or legacy media have to adhere
to, and you know you have tomake sure that you do adhere to
those when you are part of our,you know our ecosystem, and so I
think that is one of thosethings.
And then the accountability inthe actual interview as well.
That I think is so interestingis that they know politicians
(04:59):
know that you only have acertain amount of time, but I
think what we've been trying todo is really, with shows like
Power Play that I get to host onFriday, that Vashti Capella's
host Monday to Thursday, you canhave a long-form interview
where you can really drill downand they can skate, but they
can't get away, and as much aspossible we try to really sort
(05:22):
of hone in on it and get thatanswer from them that they think
they can get away from in aquick soundbite and and sort of
talking back to what I wassaying before about you know,
it's this weird sort of way thatpeople watch, uh and consume
news.
I think it's almost like twoextremes.
People either really like thoseshort soundbites that they can
digest quickly, like tiktok oror instagram real or something
(05:43):
longer, and that in betweenperiod, uh, in that in those
short sound bites that they candigest quickly, like TikTok or
Instagram Reel or somethinglonger, and that in-between
period, in that in-between timeframe, is kind of one that I
don't know if people arewatching as much, but really to
sort of get the information.
I hope that people are willingto sort of sit through it and
listen to it to really be ableto get the sense of what we as
(06:06):
journalists are trying to get atfrom that political
accountability.
Aaron Pete (06:10):
From my perspective, you're up against it.
I do see the changes thatyou're describing.
How do you personally advocatefor the ecosystem that you
operate within to try and makesure that you do get those
interviews, that you do getthose opportunities to speak
with them and then hold themaccountable?
How do you approach that?
Mike LeCouteur (06:27):
Yeah, I think there's a couple of things to it
.
One, you try and make sure thatwhen you are operating in the
ecosystem, that whoever you'regoing to be interviewing knows
that you're fair about it, thatyou will hold their feet to the
fire in a fair way, not in abelligerent way, and not in a
way that you're doing it forclicks or for views, right.
And I think that sometimes thatcan be a bit of a trap of
(06:49):
trying to make sure that you'regetting those views and that you
know.
Obviously we want people to seeour stuff, but, by the same
token, don't do it just for theclicks, right.
And I think that what we alsohave to do is I got to do my
homework.
Every time I'm interviewingsomebody, I got to make sure
that I am bringing it and I'mtalking to that politician and
really also asking the questionsthat I think that Canadians
(07:12):
want answers to.
I often say to people that it'snot about the policy that was
just passed on Parliament Hill,it's about how it affects the
people.
And just a complete side notehere.
But I remember one story thatreally just struck me.
It just was so touching to me.
It was about conversion therapyand the government was passing
a law to outlaw conversiontherapy and it was when I was
(07:35):
working for a different newsorganization and we were going
to do this story.
The announcement was going tobe around 4 o'clock, which was
just at our deadline, and so Iwas tasked with trying to do a
minute 30 story and a minute 30story is not a lot of time in TV
and try to explain to Canadianswhat conversion therapy was and
why it was important that thegovernment was actually going to
(07:55):
go ahead and ban it.
I found somebody from theLGBTQ2 community who had
actually undergone conversiontherapy and told me this
heart-wrenching story about howthey were essentially
excommunicated from their family, and it was just so personal
and I remember coming back tothe office and saying this is
how we're going to do the story.
(08:15):
We're going to tell the storyof conversion therapy through
this person's eyes and we'regoing to tell people this is
basically somebody who's gonethrough it and this is somebody
and this is their reaction tohow the government is going to
actually move on this.
And this is why it's important,and right at the end of the
story, at the very end, we hadthe government line and the
government sort of saying thisis why we're going to do it and
(08:35):
this is how we're going to do it.
And I can tell you, aaron, Iinterviewed that person.
It was touching.
It definitely.
I think broke through as well.
He emailed me and my producerlater that evening and said that
his family in BC, who he hadbeen out of touch with for years
, saw the piece, said to themthat they never knew what had
(08:58):
happened to him and they felt sosorry for what happened and
they reconnected and they wantedto meet up again.
And I told that anecdote to theminister afterwards, a couple
of months later and I said Iwant you to understand that what
you do matters and it affectedone person, at least one person,
and to me I feel like I did myjob that day because I told the
(09:19):
story through the eyes of aperson about a person, and it
had an impact.
And I think that that's what weneed to do a lot more of,
because a lot of people getcaught up in the politics on the
Hill, but this is all aboutlegislation that affects people
and the people that it affects.
Aaron Pete (09:36):
That's a really, really deep story and I
appreciate you being willing toshare that on a personal level.
Just to have your job play thatrole I think is really profound
and to see that impact.
How do you see Canadiansdigesting something like the
carbon tax and I just use thatas an example because for so
(09:57):
long we heard this is the way ofthe future.
We should get used to it.
Then Justin Trudeau steps down.
Everybody's on the oppositeside.
Now nobody wants anything to dowith this, this tax, and I feel
like that's jarring for forcanadians watching that they
feel like they've in some waysbeen lied to.
And then, if you take intoaccount that the party system
(10:17):
has this process where you'resupposed to do that internally
and you have a public facingapproach but like I feel like
that's really jarring forCanadians to hear and that
builds like government goes, whydon't people want to vote?
Well, it's because in these bigmoments there's such a lack of
trust that anybody actuallymeans what they say.
Because if you're willing toswitch, once the person who's
(10:37):
the leader leaves, what do youstand for?
What is the ground in which youstand?
Mike LeCouteur (10:49):
Yeah, especially when you consider that the
Liberals really put so much oftheir political capital into it,
right?
I mean, when you consider howwe thought that was going to be
the hill the Liberals were goingto die on, and in a sense, it's
almost that they were going todie on that hill, so they've
decided to move hills.
Even when you have StephenGuilbeault, who came out and
said that he's going to supportMark Carney in this leadership
race and he was the biggestproponent of it and he still
believes in the carbon tax andsaying that you know what.
(11:11):
But unfortunately the narrativegot changed on us by Pierre
Polyev, blaming Pierre Polyevthat he convinced people that it
wasn't a good idea.
Well, I mean, the flip side tothat is why didn't you convince
people that it was a good idea?
And I think it's that it comesback down to that communication,
right.
When you look at the carbon tax,did the government do a good
(11:32):
enough job of telling Canadianshow it's actually going to
impact them and what it'sactually going to do for the
environment?
I think there's a lot of peopleout there that still look at
the math and say I still don'tget it.
I still don't understand howyou know I'm paying money and
then you're going to give memore money back.
Like, how does that work?
And there are two aspects to it.
And we're starting to learnthat through the leadership race
(11:54):
liberal leadership race howthere's a consumer portion and
industrial portion, and the factthat Mark Carney says he's
going to remove the consumerportion.
But even Christopher Freelandsaying, you know, we listened to
Canadians and we realized, well, that wasn't you know what
people want.
And you think, well then, wherewas your internal polling on
that?
And I agree with you.
I think that Canadians look atthis and go okay, so if you
(12:15):
stood for that, but now youdon't, then what?
And I think that that's adifficulty that Canadians are
having now in trustingpoliticians and saying, okay, if
you can switch course onsomething as key in your mind as
the carbon tax, what else canyou switch on?
And it's unfortunate because ina sense, you have to applaud a
(12:39):
party for going the full waywith it, but then when they
decide they're going to changecourse on it, you go.
Well, you know, did you reallystand for it then?
And I can understand howCanadians can really look at
this and sort of and be negativeabout it and sort of think,
well, why should I vote?
And it's disappointing to mebecause I believe in democracy,
(13:01):
I believe in the process ofpeople, you know, with voter
participation, and it reallygets me down when I see low
voter participation rates,because I think this is our
democracy, this is what we needto be participating in.
Everybody has an opinion and acomplaint, but you also have a
vote and if you don't exercisethat third part of it, well then
(13:24):
, what are you doing out there?
Then you're just complainingabout your opinion.
You can do something about itand I hate it when people feel
disenfranchised about you know,the vote and and about politics
in general.
It's funny.
Another quick anecdote when Icover campaigns 2019 and 2021, I
was on federal campaigns and Iremember you go to these
different campaign spots of youknow with the leader and then
(13:47):
the candidate is there.
Sometimes you get to speak withthem, Sometimes you don't, and
no matter what political stripe,because obviously I'm neutral.
I always go up to them and Isay you know what, thanks for
doing this, I appreciate it.
And they sort of look at mequizzically and I said I don't
support anybody, I'm neutral onthis.
But if you don't put your nameforward as a candidate, then we
don't have a democracy, becausethen it's just somebody putting
(14:09):
you know, one person getting theseat because they put their
name forward.
But having this discussion andhaving you know, this exchange
of ideas and this participation,that helps what we were you're
asking about.
I just I wish that there were,you know, politicians that would
continue on with the courage oftheir convictions and and and I
(14:30):
think part of it, especiallythe carbon tax, is not properly
explaining it and not reallyconnecting all the dots so that
canadians could have gottenbehind it if they thought it was
a good idea you talked about.
Aaron Pete (14:42):
Uh, you said obviously I'm neutral and just I
want to hone in on that alittle bit more because I feel
like that idea of neutrality hasreally been tested over the
past maybe five to 10 years,where some schools of thought on
journalism kind of say there'sno such thing as neutrality.
That's not real.
We all have very deep downbiases that we're always
(15:03):
operating on and you can neverfully get rid of that and that's
that's been, I feel, like inthe zeitgeist for some time now
and some people have gone all inlike rebel news is all in on
the idea there's no such thingas neutrality.
Yeah, so how do you approachthat?
Because I'm sure that when youyou are more connected to these
things in in many ways than mostpeople, you're meeting the
(15:23):
people, you get to hear some ofthe behind the scenes, you get
to know where this government'sflawed, where that government's
flawed, what they're doing right, what they're doing wrong,
where you think they could dobetter if they were to argue
this point or that point, youreally get an in-depth
understanding.
How do you maintain thatneutrality under all of that
information?
Mike LeCouteur (15:42):
I think what you have to do is you have to
basically try and removeyourself from you know the
people and the actual I don'twant to say your personal
feelings, like you said.
We all have personal feelings.
I mean I'm not a robot, rightLike I'm at home, you know, with
my kids and you know talkingwith friends and everything like
that, and I have my ownviewpoints, obviously I do, but
(16:04):
this is my job.
My job is to hold everyone toaccount, no matter who it is.
If you have two seats inlegislature, if you have 200
seats in the legislature, itdoesn't matter.
You have a level ofaccountability getting to.
You know.
The first question you ask meis and you always have to go to
that place where do I need tohold you accountable?
What are the things that youhave said that need to be
questioned?
(16:24):
What are the things that needto be examined more and that we
need to dig a little deeper on,and what are some of the other
things that I can sort of pokearound with to try and think of.
You know, how does this helpthe Canadians?
Um, and, and the best thingthat I can that I ever think
about when, when I'm doing astory, aaron it's.
(16:45):
I always say to myself whatwould the farmer in Saskatchewan
want to know about this today?
What would the single mom inEdmonton want to know about this
?
You know, what is the person inNorthern and the Northern
territories in Nunavut?
What?
How does it affect them?
And that's the best way that Ican sort of remove myself from
(17:05):
it and my feelings about a story.
And you're right, I think it'sdifficult because even when you
consider that there are media toyour point, some media out
there, they really lean into it,but they also that's their
brand.
And a lot of more journalistsare sort of making their brand
being this is me and this is mylean, this is my slant and this
(17:28):
is what you're going to get fromme.
And there's a market out therefor that 100.
There is, because then thatfeeds into whoever you know
really wants to listen to that.
But I think that there is suchum, we have such I don't want to
call it a burden.
I would almost say that it'ssuch a duty that I carry, you
(17:49):
know, from journalists of your,and I hate to say that like that
.
But you consider, you knowpeople name drop, like you know,
peter Mansbridge, peterMansbridge, bob Fife you know at
this network Craig Oliver andand Evan Solomon Vashia as well
Vashia Capello, she's great atthat as well that no matter who
the politician is, no matterwhat the policy is, my job as a
(18:12):
journalist is to take it apart,examine it, tell Canadians what
it's about and let them maketheir decision on it.
And present all of the facts asbest as I can, and as much of
it it I can, and balanced aswell, and to say look, you can
make your decision after I tellyou all of this.
I'm going to tell you in acreative way and I say creative
(18:32):
because TV is, and I think alljournalism, to be interesting,
has to be a little creative Iwill tell you in the most
creative way that I can, in themost informative way possible,
and then it's up to you to makeyour decision.
And actually the best days forme, aaron, are when I get
comments either in my inbox orDMs or whatever, and I get them
(18:53):
from both, all sides of thepolitical spectrum saying I'm a
lackey for the other side, whenI get them from everybody, I
know, All right, I'm doing myjob.
Aaron Pete (19:04):
That is one interesting metric to have to
live by.
Mike LeCouteur (19:08):
Yeah, it's not scientific, it's maybe not the
best, darren, but honestly, ifyou get criticism from all sides
, then you know you're beingneutral enough.
Aaron Pete (19:15):
The next piece and we talked a little bit about it
is one of the criticisms, frommy understanding, that was being
leveled at opposition leaderPierre Polyev.
That was being leveled atopposition leader Pierre Polyev
was that he was doing all thesepodcasts and not as interested
in what's called old media,traditional media.
He was moving in that direction.
But I'm wondering how do youtake that Mark Carney is
(19:37):
choosing, like, in somecircumstances, American media
like Jon Stewart or other shows,to kind of introduce himself
rather than the like the thecommon one I've seen online that
you may have seen as well aslike the CBC is funded by by
this government, like supportedthrough subsidy.
How are you not going on theones that we're actually
invested in?
(19:57):
Why are you going to theseother ones?
How do you digest that being inthe media stratosphere,
understanding kind of how thingswork?
Mike LeCouteur (20:04):
I don't think it's fair either way.
And I say fair I mean look, if,comparing the two you know
Pierre Polyev and Mark Carneythey're equal offenders in this,
you know, I mean the fact thatPierre Polyev is picking and
choosing where he wants to goand Mark Carney is picking and
choosing where he wants to go.
I don't think that's right andit continues not to be right,
(20:25):
and even limiting of questionsand how long they want to talk
and even sometimes the tone theyuse when you are asking a
question and it's, you know, not, I don't want to say not
receptive, but certainlydismissive of the question or
thinking, oh, I can't believeyou're asking me that question.
I mean, everybody has to beaccountable, everybody has to
answer questions and you shouldbe open to all sorts of
(20:48):
questions and that kind ofaccountability they're really,
you know, by picking andchoosing what they're doing and
where they're going.
Unfortunately, they hold thatpower.
Nobody can force them to comeon CTV News, on Power Play, and
nobody can say you must sit here, but certainly, uh, you know
(21:09):
what we do and what I've done inthe past is when either one of
his surrogates or somebody youknow from the conservatives talk
about, uh, you know how purepolyam is out there and speaking
to media, I always say, well,he's not speaking to us, so he's
welcome.
There's always a seat for himon power play, uh, for him to
come and actually be accountableto us and have that
conversation with us.
And same goes for mark carney,uh, and you know, and to an
(21:31):
extent, justin trudeau, you knowhe has a time when, when you
know when, he would do the mediarounds, uh, and then they do
get to pick and choose wherethey want to go.
And I don't think it's right.
I think, uh, you know, therewas a time when I would say
prime minister trudeau would doChristmas interviews, year-end
interviews, and he would makesure he would make time for, you
know, most of the major mediaand then even sit down with
(21:52):
newspapers and that sort ofthing.
And he does local media as welland he goes around and talks to
them.
And more recently he's beendoing a lot of podcasts and
making sure that he's sort oftalking to the, you know, new
media I hope I'm not using thatterm wrong uh, but uh, but that
type of those types of venues,um, but I think that they do
need to speak to as many outletsas possible, because not
(22:16):
everybody is going to watch thatpodcast that maybe they were on
.
Not everybody was watching johnstewart, uh, when mark carney
was on, and and not everybodywas watching his appearance on
MSNBC.
But certainly the Canadiansthat he needs to speak to are
watching Canadian TV and they'rewatching Canadian podcasts or
(22:36):
listening to Canadian podcastsand Canadian radio and reading
Canadian newspapers.
So it's kind of quizzical to mehow somebody like Mark Carney
decides that he's going to speakto BBC or you know, people down
south, before he's going tospeak to people in Canada,
especially when he wants to leadthis country.
And you know same goes forPierre Polyev.
I understand, you knoweverybody's got a media strategy
(22:59):
, but I think it has to includewhere most people are watching
as well, where most people arewatching as well.
Aaron Pete (23:05):
This seems like one of the most challenging things
we're going to have to workthrough over the coming election
and in the next few years,because I have been a huge
advocate for new media and likepodcasts, obviously.
I think like I'm able to speakwith, like Minister Paddy Hajdu
for an hour rather than an eightminute segment, and when I
interviewed all of theprovincial leaders, I was able
(23:26):
to have them all for like anhour and 10 minutes and go
through things and a lot ofpeople reached out and said, hey
, that was way better thanwatching 18 clips that are four
minutes a piece on various radioshows, and I I've been proud of
that up to date.
But the piece that I feel likeI'm missing is one.
I'm not a trained journalist.
I don't believe you necessarilyalways need a journalism school
(23:47):
, but I'm not like I have notbeen mentored to the same extent
likely you have been, andothers have been, in the trade
and in the operations of how toconduct an interview, how to
structure the questions properly, how to do your research in
such a way.
I've gotten to learn fromindividuals like Tara Henley,
but it is not like somethingI've immersed myself in for
years where I am the person youshould go to for a real
(24:09):
journalistic understanding and aprofessional journalistic
interview, and so I dounderstand that.
But then you run into thischallenge that the traditional
media is not growing to the sameextent as new media, and so you
can see where people are like.
Well, if I want to get my wordout, I can maybe a hundred
thousand, five hundred thousandpeople doing this, then going on
something that maybe reachesthirty thousand, but then you're
(24:31):
missing out on the fact thatyour viewership I would guess
personally just having a theory,they're likely more politically
engaged.
If you're tuning in regularly,you're gonna have a deeper
understanding of what's going on, where the policies are at and
those pieces, and so I'm justtrying to find what that balance
might end up looking like,because I agree with you, they
(24:52):
should.
I interviewed Nigel Begar andone of his points on coronations
of kings and queens is thatthey have to kneel in order to
take on that role.
Take on that role and there'ssomething like I get that it's
somewhat performance, but likethere is a deep piece of that
that you are subject to thepeople, that you are at the
(25:12):
mercy of, that.
You are at the behest of usbeing selected for this position
and you, to your point, owe aduty to the people to put
yourself before them, to humbleyourself before cbc, ctv, um,
global news and and take onthose questions not know what
they're gonna be and own that.
I think the conservativesstarted this movement of like,
(25:33):
hey, we're gonna choose where wewant to go, and the liberals
have kind of gone.
Well, if you're gonna choose,we're gonna choose.
And we're in this dangerous timewhere, like um, I know christia
freeland uh, you posted thisthis on X.
She's going on Bill Mayer show.
That's like he he's awell-known liberal individual
and that's no fault time.
I think he conducts really good, interesting interviews.
(25:55):
I enjoy his work but, likeyou're not necessarily going
with up against somebody whounderstands the, the policies,
the history, that's gonna be avery conversational type
interview.
That's not gonna hit quite ashard.
And then you see Pierre Polievgoing on True North Media and
like, again, just a phrasing ofthose questions.
I watched that and it was veryinteresting.
The phrasing of those questionsare already starting from a
(26:18):
position Jordan Peterson, howare you going to save Canada?
Like these questions are notmiddle grounded, they are
picking a side before theconversation starts and I just I
don't know how we bridge thisgap between old media and new
media going forward.
Mike LeCouteur (26:31):
Yeah, and it's interesting because you know,
like, and you have built such agreat following and you have
built such a great channel hereand and and a great, a great
show.
And you know, and I think youknow, what you're doing is
amazing and and I think that itshows that anybody can do it.
But also the way that you askthe questions are very different
(26:52):
how I would ask the questions,and that's a good thing.
It's a good thing that peopleare seeing that plurality of
media and seeing those differentpoints of view.
Um, because, whereas you maythink that like, oh well, you
know, vashi or myself may ask aquestion, that's a little more
hard hitting and whatever, butthere's also the format of it is
is so is way more relaxed,right, like I'm coming in here
and, yeah, I'm in my suit andtie, but I'm very relaxed and
(27:14):
I'm, you know, a little moreopen to the discussion, maybe of
a.
Okay, I've got eight minutesand I've got to make sure that
I'm going to say this and andand you know, a politician
probably thinks well and apolitician probably thinks well,
I've got to get this pointacross, that point across, that
point across.
This is going to sound maybecrazy to you, aaron, but the
interviews that I watch and thatI try to learn from as an
interviewer and a journalist aswell, weirdly enough, is the now
(27:37):
stages of Howard Stern, becausehe has this way of talking to
Hollywood actors and music actsand whatever, and he makes them
feel so comfortable and they'reactually so revealing.
Now, okay, it's a differentscenario.
He's not going foraccountability, I get that, but
I think there's something tolearn from that and in the sense
of sit there, let your guestsfeel comfortable, but at the
(28:01):
same time, ask pointed questionsin the way that you are.
You're asking me questions thatare not underhand lobs here,
right, like these are, you know,serious questions about serious
things that I need to thinkabout and and I love it about
this and I love having thisconversation I think you know
when you consider where thesepoliticians are going and
picking friendly media.
(28:21):
John stewart with you know, um,mark carney it's not like, not
like John Stewart's, no slouch,but we knew he wasn't going to
go for the jugular on Carney andCarney also hadn't announced
yet.
Now Bill Maher and ChristopherFreeland we've heard many times
from Freeland's camp, they'refriends.
So is that going to be ahard-hitting interview?
Probably not.
And the same thing with PierrePauliev and Jordan Peterson.
(28:44):
You know the basis of thatquestion how are you going to
save Canada?
Well, I mean, I think we knowwhere this interview is going to
go then, don't we?
So the difficulty is trying toconvince these politicians and
telling these people that we notonly have a reach, but we have
a power and a voice.
And when you come on and youare sitting in the chair across
from myself, vashi or any otherinterviewer on a political show,
(29:07):
that you have to come with itand you have to be sharp.
And if you are sharp thenyou'll be fine.
But if you come and you're kindof half in it and you're not
really, you don't know yourpolicies.
Another quick anecdote there'ssomebody who worked in a
minister's office that said tome at one point in time, and
they said look, I tell myministers that if you know your
(29:30):
file, you'll do fine in theseinterviews.
If you go in there and you kindof half know it, then you're
going to look bad.
And I think that that's theproblem is that sometimes they
go in it hoping that they'lljust sort of have to half study
and that they'll pass the flyingcolors.
But you know, and so thechallenge I think of traditional
(29:51):
media is also to expand and Isay that in you know think of
how, yes, um, power play now isavailable as a podcast to listen
to if you want, on your wayhome, and that sort of thing.
But I think what we need to doas well is to think of different
ways to get to people and meetmedia consumers where they are.
You know podcasts, I can tellyou like this is going to sound
(30:15):
silly, but then it's verypersonal.
I'm cleaning my house and, yeah, I clean my own bathrooms and
everything, because it's just, Ijust do it that way.
I don't, you know, I'mvacuuming, I got these AirPods
in and I'm listening to podcasts, and I'm listening to political
podcasts, sports podcasts, allkinds of podcasts.
They are so convenient, takingwhere you know, wherever you go,
and whatnot.
But it's also that kind ofsense of that's where people are
(30:37):
now, and the segment of thepopulation that are sitting down
for appointment TV is less andless.
So what we need to do intraditional media is really meet
them where they are and givethem what we think they want,
and if it is longer form,interviews and it is sort of a
more extended type of thing thatis, beyond those eight minutes,
as you said, then do thatbecause you know your
(30:59):
conversation with Patty Hajduand your conversation with other
people.
It becomes more revealing thelonger you go, because even the
long I can feel it.
Now I'm, you know, at thebeginning of this interview I
was kind of sitting straight upand now I'm kind of like, okay,
well, I got to sit, I got torelax a little bit and my
posture will sort of inform howI'm going to be Right, and so I
think that's the beauty of ofthis kind of long form where, um
(31:20):
and that's the thing withtraditional media Again, we're
fighting this Do Canadians, doconsumers, want it in eight
seconds or do they want it in 80minutes?
Which one is it?
And there's still this sort ofreckoning that traditional media
is coming to and trying tofigure out where are we going to
play, which playground are wein and which sandbox are we in
(31:41):
and how do we service it all andmake sure that we are able to
give Canadians what they wantand, at the same time, be true
to ourselves about it?
I don't know the answer and Ihave this discussion about it in
my own mind all the time andyou know it's funny.
I had a quick story.
I had to drive back.
(32:02):
I was in Montreal, I had todrive back to Ottawa and then
back to Montreal, all in onenight.
Anyway, I forgot my passport.
I was going on a buddy trip.
I forgot my passport here inOttawa.
I was staying with my parentsand my dad said all right, let's
go for a ride.
It was the nicest thing he'sever done for me and to this day
it's so touching that it was 10o'clock at night, aaron and we
(32:22):
took the ride.
It's a two-hour drive and itwas the story behind it.
And what I'm trying to say is hesaid I got some questions for
you.
So we sat down and he saidwhere's the media going and what
are we going to do?
Because my dad believe it ornot, I think 76, 77, he's going
to kill me for not knowing hisage, but I'll go lower, since I
think that's always best.
(32:44):
He watches YouTube shorts andhe said to me I get sort of
caught in it and I'm justwatching and I'm just consuming.
He's like why aren't you guysthere?
And I thought to myself yeah,it's because traditional media
are not sure where they need toplay anymore and where the
viewers are.
And so if my 76 year old dad isasking that question and saying,
(33:06):
where are you guys come, youknow how is the media going to
survive all of this, because heknows he can see the segments
and you know how many people arecable cable cutting.
I mean, who's subscribing to, tocable channels anymore?
Right, and so how do wemonetize, how do we survive,
while at the same time and Ithink part of our survival is,
(33:26):
um then, being the place thatpoliticians do want to go,
because they'll say, oh, thathas X amount of eyeballs.
This is where the primeminister wants to go, because he
wants to speak to this type ofperson.
And so we have to sort ofcontinue to shift our minds and
innovate as traditional mediaand go where the people want us
(33:47):
to be, and then I think then wecan get those interviews,
because you know those types ofpoliticians will say, yeah, okay
, I can see they're in thatspace, and it's just about
changing things up for us andnot thinking that the
traditional way and the old wayof doing things is the best way.
Aaron Pete (34:03):
I really appreciate you saying that, because I
haven't shared this criticism.
But your guys' thumbnails onYouTube.
They just need so much work.
You guys are capable of so muchand that's the challenge.
I think of a big system.
Trying to innovate is becauseyou're used to this system and
(34:26):
then you're trying to move overto a big system.
Trying to innovate is becauseyou're used to this system and
then you're trying to move overto a new system.
Like every thumbnail, I puttogether the words, the colors,
the brightness, the contrast,the title.
Like that takes.
That takes a whole day for meto put that piece together,
because that's where people,when you're on YouTube, you
choose to click or not click,and that's a key element of this
the title.
(34:46):
You have to have something thatpulls people and makes them ask
a question like well, and thattakes for me, that takes study,
because there's nobody fundingthis.
Like I use my own money to payfor all of this.
So I have to figure that out orI'm getting four views on
YouTube and wasting all of mytime.
I have a need to figure that out, and to a different extent than
then you guys do, because youhave a system that's working,
(35:09):
that you understand, and thenwhoever is managing that is is
trying to figure that out as anaddition to the existing
Processes I'm sure you guysalready have.
And that's that's theadaptation piece.
That I think is a challenge,but I think that's an
overcomable challenge.
And then just to the pieceabout like an overcomable
challenge.
And then just to the pieceabout like encouraging
politicians.
Like I feel like, um, I watchedthe morning show and I really
(35:29):
enjoyed that show on Apple, andthe only piece that I think of
is like we don't really haveanybody in media really right
now that's willing to say likewhat are you scared?
Like what are you afraid of tosit down with us?
And like, are you afraid ofquestions?
Yeah, like pierre polliev,particularly because he swings
so hard at a person eating anapple, because you're willing to
(35:50):
knock that out of the park.
Like I feel like, come on, man,like let's see you go toe to
toe with the best interviewer.
Like you're the guy who's gotit all figured out right.
You're making people look sillywhen you're doing your um, your
press conferences.
Let's get the best person andlet's go 1v1 and see how you do
in a really professional,well-prepared interview and that
will be interesting to all ofus.
(36:11):
If you get that interview andyou, you have that opportunity
to place him against somebody.
There's marketing opportunitiesthere.
There's real curiosity.
Is he up to the challenge offacing a tough interview like
and?
And if he is, then he'sbecoming more qualified for the
job that he's seeking and if heisn't, then that helps voters
make a more informed decision.
But I feel like thatwillingness to kind of put him
(36:34):
on the line.
People have become more carefulabout how they phrased things.
They don't want to come acrossas too much Like.
I feel like we're missing thatperson who's kind of willing to
be like come on, I'm sittingright here, I'm ready to go,
like when you're ready to beinterviewed, like really just
kind of giving that open-endedthreat of like if you don't,
then I think people are right tosay that you're scared, and I
(36:55):
get that.
That's a tough position becausenetworks have an identity and
they don't want to look atadversarial.
But there's this piece herewhere this guy is just walking
around feeling very confident inhimself and he's not really
doing the tough interviews andI'm just dying to see one where
somebody is willing not to bedisrespectful, not to try and
corner him, not to do gotchajournalism but, to really just
ask tough questions about whatis your plan.
(37:16):
The part that freaks me out themost about him is my
understanding, and I get allpolitical parties do this to a
certain extent.
But like making decisions basedon what the polls tell you to
me scares me, because what ifthe polls tell you to do
something horrible or tomistreat people like you
shouldn't make decisions purelybased on that, and I want
somebody who's willing tocontend with how to make canada
(37:37):
strong, but not just on thewhims of what people are saying
yeah or or not.
Mike LeCouteur (37:42):
looking at it through the lens of a.
Well, you know, this is brokenand I'm going to fix it.
In this way, you know, tobasically say, well, if the
liberals were here, then I'regoing to be able to uh, you know
, own a guy eating an apple and,and, and you can do that.
(38:08):
Or you can take shots at apress conference, at different
journalists.
Well, you know, get in thereand have a one-on-one with
somebody that you respect.
You know, let's do this, let's,let's have it out, and and I
don't mean have it out in anegative way I mean if, if you
are to your point, if you arethe person that wants to lead
this country and you think thatyou are that sharp, well then
(38:29):
you will look sharp againstsomebody who is a qualified and
really great journalist and goodinterviewer, who will challenge
you on things.
And if you have your facts down, then you're going to come out.
Okay, aren't you?
And you know it's interestingyou say that you know?
What are you afraid of?
I think everybody asks that ofpoliticians.
Why don't you want to come onthe show and spend 10 minutes If
(38:53):
you have nothing to hide or youthink that you have all the
answers, come share them with us.
And if I get to a point whereI'll go back to the example of
Mark Miller and ask a pointedquestion at him and he'll say
you know what?
You're right, we could havedone better there and we should
have done better there and we'regoing to try and do better
there.
And I'm not trying to blowsmoke, you know, for Mark Miller
(39:15):
or, you know, carry water from,but he's an example of a
journalist, that of a politicianI should say, where if you ask
him a pointed question, hedoesn't have the answer.
He'll say he doesn't have theanswer or he'll say, you're
right, we didn't do as well andI mean, aaron, the thing that
I've always.
I respect politicians who firstof all take on that file.
(39:36):
It is not an easy file.
There is so much that Canadaneeds to do for Indigenous
communities that it has not done, and these are difficult things
to try and get done.
They're big projects, they arebig things that need to get done
.
So for him to say, you're right, we continue to fail, but we're
going to try to do better, it'san admission that other
(39:58):
politicians in the past haven'tallowed themselves to give, that
admission of saying we're notdoing good enough.
You're right, and canadiansconnect with that.
Regular people go oh, oh, he'ssorry, oh, he admits that he
didn't do a lot.
Well, okay, well, maybe, maybewe'll cut him some slack, but it
also makes him more real as aperson.
Right, he doesn't have all theanswers, so it's get into the
(40:22):
ring, get, get the questions,take the questions, and if
you're as sharp as you say youare, then you'll come out just
as sharp and be tested like that.
And you're right.
I just I don't know what theswitch is to flick for a
journalist, to go for apolitician.
And you know, let's not just goto Pierre Paglia, let's go to
(40:44):
Mark Carney.
You know, hey, get in the ring,get in the ring there.
And yeah, he did an interviewwith the, with CBC, and he did
one with Canada.
Aaron Pete (40:52):
He hasn't done everybody.
Mike LeCouteur (40:53):
And eventually it's going to have to, and you
know, get into, get in there andget the tough questions, and if
you know your stuff well, thenpeople will see that.
But test yourself in that way.
Aaron Pete (41:10):
And then Canadians will respect you more.
It really does come down tolike this is our line of defense
to make sure that we havequalified, reputable individuals
leading our country, and Ithink the points you're making
are really important.
I want to take it over a bit tothe panelist side.
I'm a regular consumer of thepanel hosts, panel shows you do
and I'm just wondering how doyou go about selecting the
individuals and how do you goabout making sure that it
(41:33):
doesn't just become politicaltalking points about the news of
the day and how do you kind ofkeep make sure that it's it's
adapting and reflecting the realuh concerns or perspectives of
canadians?
Mike LeCouteur (41:46):
yeah, and I think that that's so interesting
because I mean, first of all,how do you select the people?
I try as much as possible um,you know we have regulars, but
as much as possible I want thepanel to reflect what canada
looks like, uh, and it meansmale, female, people of color,
different, you know, differentgenders, different persuasions,
different everything.
I, you know, I always say thatif it's an all-white panel,
(42:09):
that's not a good thing.
If it's a, you know we alsojoke about if I'm hosting Power
Play and all of our panelistsare male.
They call it a mantle and it'sa bit of a funny term, but it's
like we can't do that becausethen it's all male perspectives,
like we can't be doing that.
So, first thing is making surethat it is a reflection of
(42:29):
Canada and the people who livein this country and making sure
it's from different backgroundsand different perspectives as
well.
And we always make sure that wehave at least, you know, one
conservative, one liberal, oneNDPer and then sometimes a
journalist as well.
And I think we try as much aspossible to and I know I do is
(42:49):
to basically bring it down.
The question is always I alwayssit there and I go.
If this was a kitchen table,how would the conversation go
and what would the person athome be wanting to ask?
And how would they want to askit?
And you know, I, as much aspossible try.
It's not easy because, uh, andit may not come through here,
obviously, but I'm got a bigpersonality, I like joking
around, I like having a lot offun and so, you know, on power
(43:13):
play, I'll throw a bunch ofsports references in.
I'm a huge sports fan, and muchto the chagrin of my producer
sometimes, but, uh, I try asmuch as possible to make it fun,
like the other day we weretalking about, uh, how that
canada us game, how does thatsort of and this is one of those
ideas that I thought thatcanadians might have resonated
(43:34):
with I thought, how do we takethat game?
Or can we take that game andalmost give Canada and
politicians a bit of a boost, abit of a?
You know, hey, our shouldersare a bit more up and we're
sitting a little more straighterup because we beat them in
hockey.
Is that now going to happen,you know, in negotiations with
the US?
Because I think everybodythought to themselves man, if we
(43:54):
lost that game, if we lost thatgame.
Oh man, we would have neverheard the end of it.
And it's coming at this time a51st state, oh my goodness.
I think Canadians some may havefelt like throwing the towel.
So, in terms of engagement, Ialways try to look at the panel
like, okay, you know, and it'spart of the media question as
(44:15):
well in expanding our tent.
Like you said, it's a politicalshow, but I look at it and I go
them, I go, okay, well, if thepolitical class are watching it,
great, that means that meansthey may watch it.
Anyway, I want more people towatch it.
I want people at home who aremaybe not very political to go.
Oh, that was entertaining.
Maybe I'll watch the rest ofthe show.
Because they saw me throw a jokein there about when we were
(44:36):
talking about the hockey andsaying you know, know, somebody
made a joke and I said yeah, butsometimes it feels like
Canada's getting cross-checkedin the face and spurring that
conversation and making sure thepanelists feel like, oh, it's
safe to make a hockey joke,reference, a hockey reference
joke and that type of thing andI think that that connects more
with viewers and that connectsmore with people at home in the
(44:57):
way that we talk and the way wepresent it, and making sure that
all their perspectives a aregoing to be, you know, used and
and and you know, in some somecases challenged, depending on
the panel.
Uh, but also making sure thatthe panelists feel comfortable
enough to be themselves and tonot just give talking points but
to have a little personal flairto it so that they can be, they
(45:20):
can connect with the viewersand viewers can understand them
better in that way, cause ifyou're just a robot sitting
there giving talking points,people are going to turn it off
in 10 seconds.
Aaron Pete (45:29):
Is there anybody at CTV?
Um, and I'm not saying you haveto go to this extent, but who
goes?
Pierce Morgan is killing itonline.
Like he has figured out thepanelist approach, and I'm not
saying you guys have to carboncopy and do that, but I do feel
like the amount of debate onissues is really really low,
(45:52):
where I'm consuming a lot of USYouTube channels Because they're
willing to have somebody who'spro this and someone who's
absolutely against it and theyhash it out for 15 minutes and
we see where we land.
And that's really, from myperspective, engaging for people
, because it's tough when it'sthis perspective, that
(46:12):
perspective, they're notdisagreeing, they're not
challenging each other to thesame extent that we see in other
media forums, and I think thatreally captivates people because
then they go.
This was always myunderstanding and I've gone into
watching debates where Ithought I was going to be on
this person's side.
I've watched their show or Ilike their YouTube channel, and
(46:32):
then they go in and they debateand they get obliterated and I
go oh well, maybe I need tolisten to this person Like this
person's made really good pointsand knew their statistics and
stuff and I just feel likeCanada needs more of that
willingness to take two issuesand have the smartest people
really kind of go at it.
I know we have the monk debates, but like on a regular news
show where we're kind of gettingthat information.
Mike LeCouteur (46:54):
Yeah, it's a really interesting point because
I think there's a couple ofthings at play here.
One, the format.
And I say the format in that ifyou have people in a room
together, in a studio together,you can really muck it up right,
because then there's not thatfeeling of, oh wait, am I
stepping on them?
Am I talking?
Is there a delay?
I didn't quite hear you, areyou finished?
(47:15):
And I feel like our panels arebest when there's everybody in
the room together, and I know Ilike them more because then it's
a you can see the body language, you can.
I can sort of as the personwho's basically moderating is
kind of, you know, I can dosomething and give a hand
gesture that makes themunderstand that hey, no, I'm
going to bring this person in,but then somebody else who's
(47:36):
sitting at the table with themfeels more comfortable to jump
in.
That's one thing, and I thinkthat the pandemic was wonderful
for being able to do thesethings, even like, hey, you and
I can talk like this over Zoom,it's wonderful.
But would I feel comfortabledebating somebody over Zoom like
this?
I think it would be very tough,because I would want to try and
, you know, get my voice in andtry and speak, but sometimes
(48:00):
it's difficult because, you know, then you have that kind of
like cross talk and that's tough, I'll be honest, and this is
going to be a terrible answerfor you and but or a great
answer.
We're Canadian, we're too darnpolite about it, and I just said
, darn, imagine that that's notwhat I was thinking of saying,
but we're too darn polite aboutit.
Darn, imagine that that's notwhat I was thinking of saying,
(48:21):
but we're too darn polite aboutit.
Like, the people on the panelsdon't somehow, don't really, you
know, bare knuckle brawl andand you know, and I'm being, you
know, figurative about that,obviously you know it's
fisticuffs, but, um, I thinkthat too often it's a.
Well, I respectfully disagreewith your opinion.
Oh, I really don't agree withwhat you just said, as opposed
to a no, like let's really getinto it.
(48:43):
No, your guy said that and hesaid that, and that's wrong.
And here's why I think it'swrong.
And no, you guys haven't donethat.
And it's interesting because,you know, when you mentioned
Piers Morgan, I think, canadianTV, obviously we don't have that
, or we don't have that or wedon't have that yet, but I think
that there's an investment orthere's.
You know we need to look atokay, do we want that type of
(49:06):
thing and where's the space forthat and how would we do that
and how would we really sort ofget to it?
Because, as you said, like ifyou're watching it and that's
entertaining for you, wellthat's entertaining for a lot of
people as well, and if we'renot giving people that and they
really want that, then maybe wedo need to look at that a bit
more.
But in the panels that we have,I guess yeah, I come down to it
(49:30):
we're just too polite to reallytry and get into it pretty hard
, just really quickly.
Aaron Pete (49:40):
I just want to use the example evan sol.
This is when I becameinterested in news personally.
Was evan solomon being hosted,hosting power play with ellis
ross and pam palmitter, and thenjust going at it and completely
different world views on howthe world operates, on what
first nation communities needmore of and less of, and how you
(50:00):
work towards reconciliationpipeline no pipeline.
How do we support people Likethose are the moments that
really stand out to me as key.
My last piece that I just wantto touch on with you is just to
really recognize you for oneother thing that you haven't
mentioned yet, but yourattention to detail is very,
very impressive.
Your dedication to getting thenames of your panelists and of
(50:24):
guests on correct is somethingI've observed over the show and
is very impressive and justshows your commitment to your
craft.
Trying to make it light andunderstandable is another piece
that I see that you work towardsvery often, having jokes making
it a little bit lighter.
Politics can be so serious, sodivisive, and bringing that in,
I think, is really important.
(50:45):
So, mike, I really appreciateyou for being willing to make
the time today.
Is there any comments?
You want to leave the viewerswith.
Mike LeCouteur (50:52):
I just wanted to say on that piece of, first of
all, that attention to detail, Iwas warned.
Somebody told me you do yourresearch.
But wow, do you ever?
But I appreciate you noticingthat because I do my darndest as
somebody who's got a last namethat I anglicized, because in
French it's actually Le Coutard,but as somebody who's had their
name mispronounced a number oftimes.
(51:14):
I said this to PJ Kayokuk and Iknow I'm not saying it
perfectly to PJ Kayokuk and Iknow I'm not saying it perfectly
he's the Premier of Nunavut.
I said to him.
I said it's a form of respect Ihave to get your name right and
I'm going to do my darndest tomake sure I get it right,
because that's your name, it'syou, and if I don't get it right
(51:34):
then I'm not doing my job as ahost.
And I appreciate you sayingthat, aaron, and I appreciate
everything you do, man, like Ithink, uh, the space that you're
in and and what you're doingwith with your podcast is
fantastic and I appreciate thisopportunity as well.
Aaron Pete (51:49):
I also think another piece of as a sign of respect
is always the suit.
Um, I think that's veryadmirable.
I know it's a part of tv, but Ido think it's a sign of respect
to the viewership.
And when I wear a suit to mycommunity, to my First Nation
community, they don't always getit, but it's a sign of like.
I am a leader with it, I'm acounselor on my council, with my
community, I have obligationsto you.
(52:11):
I am a figurehead, a person tobe held accountable, and I dress
as such so that you know that Iam accountable to you and that
I am in this position.
That owes you a debt to thepeople to be held accountable.
So, mike, it's such an honourto get to know you more.
I hope we can do this again inthe future.
Congratulations on all yoursuccess and the work that you're
(52:32):
doing to hold politiciansaccountable.
It's not an easy job and I knowthere's some dream interviews
I'm sure you have, and I hopeyou're able to get them in 2025.
Mike LeCouteur (52:41):
I appreciate it.
Thanks so much for having me onand everything you say and for
all the work you're doing.
It's really fantastic.
I really really appreciate youhaving me on and anytime you
call I'm here.
Aaron Pete (52:50):
The honor is all mine.
Welcome back to another episode of the Bigger
Than Me podcast.
Here is your host, aaron Peet.
What is the state of Canadianmedia?
On the one hand, we havegrowing YouTube channels and
podcasts.
On the other, we have legacymedia with well-trained
journalists fighting to holdpoliticians accountable.
I'm speaking with a seniorpolitical correspondent from CTV
(00:21):
on political accountability,the future of journalism and the
importance of healthy debate.
My guest today is MikeLeCouture.
Mike, it is an honour to haveyou on the show.
Thank you so much for beingwilling to share your time.
Would you mind firstintroducing yourself to viewers?
Mike LeCouteur (00:38):
Sure, I'm Mike LeCouture, ctv News' senior
political correspondent, andthanks for having me on the
podcast.
I really appreciate it.
Aaron Pete (00:50):
The pleasure is all mine.
Let's start with a toughquestion what does?
Mike LeCouteur (00:52):
political accountability look like from
your perspective?
You're not kidding.
That's a tough question.
I think it's basically tryingto get the answers from a
politician that everydayCanadians want, and that's what
I think we try and do as much aspossible.
I know that's what I try and doas much as possible and really
asking that question about whyis it that you're doing this now
.
And it's so interesting becausewhen I came to Ottawa, I grew
(01:14):
up in Montreal, I was a reporterthere and when I was applying
for the job in Ottawa, it wasmoving to political journalism
and something that I had notreally done a lot of.
And you soon realize thatpolitical journalism is not so
much about what the policy isthat they're announcing today or
what the politician is sayingtoday, but it's really what
they're saying today compared towhat they said yesterday, the
(01:37):
day before, and their record.
And I think that's where sort ofpolitical accountability comes
in and it's really that sort ofsense of OK, what does this mean
for Canadians and how do wemake sure that we get to the
root of it?
And I think that that's.
You know it may be your nextquestion, but that really is
sort of that ever elusive how dowe continue to get political
(02:01):
accountability in this type ofmedia environment where
everybody is looking at a quickclick and a quick clip that they
want to digest their news in?
And it's so interesting that Ithink we all strive for it and
we try as much as possible inthis highly trained media
environment that thesepoliticians are very trained in
trying to make sure to get tothe root of it.
Tell me why you made thisdecision and tell me why this
(02:23):
helps Canadians or any type ofperson, the people that they are
trying to help.
Aaron Pete (02:28):
That was going to be my next question what barriers
exist in actually achievingpolitical accountability?
I do think of getting theinterview to begin with can be a
challenge.
I think that we're seeing moreand more of and then actually
getting the answers in theinterview is the other challenge
.
What am I missing anything?
Mike LeCouteur (02:47):
I don't think so .
I think it's also um, trying tomake sure that, um, they're
being genuine about it right,and I think that's what a
connection that canadians havein seeing a politician being
genuine about their answer.
I mean, one of the things I cansort of think of uh is mark
miller, who is now theimmigration and he was
indigenous services and crownedindigenous relations minister
(03:08):
and he was one of those peoplethat you would ask a question
and if he didn't have the answer, or if the answer was they're
not doing good enough on thefile, he would say it.
And that was one of thosethings where you'd go OK, well,
that's refreshing, because it'sactually this government
minister admitting they didn'tget it right and they're
striving to get it right andthat these types of problems to
(03:29):
solve are very hard.
And getting back to the root ofyour question, I think the
difficulty in A trying to getthe interview is that a lot of
these politicians are findingdifferent ways to reach the
people that they want to reach.
When you consider the fact thatthey have their own channels,
they have their own, you know, xpages where they are reaching
their viewers and a lot of timesthey don't think they need to
(03:51):
speak to us anymore and I say us, I mean like media in general,
and the media landscape is sosegmented too, and that they can
pick and choose where they wantto go.
I mean, aaron, it's so funny,there used to be a time, and now
I, they want to go.
I mean, aaron, it's so funny,there used to be a time, and now
I'm going to show my age alittle bit here is that you know
, Walter Cronkite used to be themost trusted man in the world,
right, trusted news anchor on TV, and what came out of his mouth
(04:15):
was gospel.
And now we don't have thatsense anymore of you know what
people say, journalism being therecord of the day, and there's
a lot of information out therethat people can get, and I
encourage people to read allsorts of different viewpoints.
But also the difficulty, Ithink, is that you know there
are standards that you know ifyou would want to call the
(04:37):
mainstream journalists, you know, or legacy media have to adhere
to, and you know you have tomake sure that you do adhere to
those when you are part of our,you know our ecosystem, and so I
think that is one of thosethings.
And then the accountability inthe actual interview as well.
That I think is so interestingis that they know politicians
(04:59):
know that you only have acertain amount of time, but I
think what we've been trying todo is really, with shows like
Power Play that I get to host onFriday, that Vashti Capella's
host Monday to Thursday, you canhave a long-form interview
where you can really drill downand they can skate, but they
can't get away, and as much aspossible we try to really sort
(05:22):
of hone in on it and get thatanswer from them that they think
they can get away from in aquick soundbite and and sort of
talking back to what I wassaying before about you know,
it's this weird sort of way thatpeople watch, uh and consume
news.
I think it's almost like twoextremes.
People either really like thoseshort soundbites that they can
digest quickly, like tiktok oror instagram real or something
(05:43):
longer, and that in betweenperiod, uh, in that in those
short sound bites that they candigest quickly, like TikTok or
Instagram Reel or somethinglonger, and that in-between
period, in that in-between timeframe, is kind of one that I
don't know if people arewatching as much, but really to
sort of get the information.
I hope that people are willingto sort of sit through it and
listen to it to really be ableto get the sense of what we as
(06:06):
journalists are trying to get atfrom that political
accountability.
Aaron Pete (06:10):
From my perspective, you're up against it.
I do see the changes thatyou're describing.
How do you personally advocatefor the ecosystem that you
operate within to try and makesure that you do get those
interviews, that you do getthose opportunities to speak
with them and then hold themaccountable?
How do you approach that?
Mike LeCouteur (06:27):
Yeah, I think there's a couple of things to it
.
One, you try and make sure thatwhen you are operating in the
ecosystem, that whoever you'regoing to be interviewing knows
that you're fair about it, thatyou will hold their feet to the
fire in a fair way, not in abelligerent way, and not in a
way that you're doing it forclicks or for views, right.
And I think that sometimes thatcan be a bit of a trap of
(06:49):
trying to make sure that you'regetting those views and that you
know.
Obviously we want people to seeour stuff, but, by the same
token, don't do it just for theclicks, right.
And I think that what we alsohave to do is I got to do my
homework.
Every time I'm interviewingsomebody, I got to make sure
that I am bringing it and I'mtalking to that politician and
really also asking the questionsthat I think that Canadians
(07:12):
want answers to.
I often say to people that it'snot about the policy that was
just passed on Parliament Hill,it's about how it affects the
people.
And just a complete side notehere.
But I remember one story thatreally just struck me.
It just was so touching to me.
It was about conversion therapyand the government was passing
a law to outlaw conversiontherapy and it was when I was
(07:35):
working for a different newsorganization and we were going
to do this story.
The announcement was going tobe around 4 o'clock, which was
just at our deadline, and so Iwas tasked with trying to do a
minute 30 story and a minute 30story is not a lot of time in TV
and try to explain to Canadianswhat conversion therapy was and
why it was important that thegovernment was actually going to
(07:55):
go ahead and ban it.
I found somebody from theLGBTQ2 community who had
actually undergone conversiontherapy and told me this
heart-wrenching story about howthey were essentially
excommunicated from their family, and it was just so personal
and I remember coming back tothe office and saying this is
how we're going to do the story.
(08:15):
We're going to tell the storyof conversion therapy through
this person's eyes and we'regoing to tell people this is
basically somebody who's gonethrough it and this is somebody
and this is their reaction tohow the government is going to
actually move on this.
And this is why it's important,and right at the end of the
story, at the very end, we hadthe government line and the
government sort of saying thisis why we're going to do it and
(08:35):
this is how we're going to do it.
And I can tell you, aaron, Iinterviewed that person.
It was touching.
It definitely.
I think broke through as well.
He emailed me and my producerlater that evening and said that
his family in BC, who he hadbeen out of touch with for years
, saw the piece, said to themthat they never knew what had
(08:58):
happened to him and they felt sosorry for what happened and
they reconnected and they wantedto meet up again.
And I told that anecdote to theminister afterwards, a couple
of months later and I said Iwant you to understand that what
you do matters and it affectedone person, at least one person,
and to me I feel like I did myjob that day because I told the
(09:19):
story through the eyes of aperson about a person, and it
had an impact.
And I think that that's what weneed to do a lot more of,
because a lot of people getcaught up in the politics on the
Hill, but this is all aboutlegislation that affects people
and the people that it affects.
Aaron Pete (09:36):
That's a really, really deep story and I
appreciate you being willing toshare that on a personal level.
Just to have your job play thatrole I think is really profound
and to see that impact.
How do you see Canadiansdigesting something like the
carbon tax and I just use thatas an example because for so
(09:57):
long we heard this is the way ofthe future.
We should get used to it.
Then Justin Trudeau steps down.
Everybody's on the oppositeside.
Now nobody wants anything to dowith this, this tax, and I feel
like that's jarring for forcanadians watching that they
feel like they've in some waysbeen lied to.
And then, if you take intoaccount that the party system
(10:17):
has this process where you'resupposed to do that internally
and you have a public facingapproach but like I feel like
that's really jarring forCanadians to hear and that
builds like government goes, whydon't people want to vote?
Well, it's because in these bigmoments there's such a lack of
trust that anybody actuallymeans what they say.
Because if you're willing toswitch, once the person who's
(10:37):
the leader leaves, what do youstand for?
What is the ground in which youstand?
Mike LeCouteur (10:49):
Yeah, especially when you consider that the
Liberals really put so much oftheir political capital into it,
right?
I mean, when you consider howwe thought that was going to be
the hill the Liberals were goingto die on, and in a sense, it's
almost that they were going todie on that hill, so they've
decided to move hills.
Even when you have StephenGuilbeault, who came out and
said that he's going to supportMark Carney in this leadership
race and he was the biggestproponent of it and he still
believes in the carbon tax andsaying that you know what.
(11:11):
But unfortunately the narrativegot changed on us by Pierre
Polyev, blaming Pierre Polyevthat he convinced people that it
wasn't a good idea.
Well, I mean, the flip side tothat is why didn't you convince
people that it was a good idea?
And I think it's that it comesback down to that communication,
right.
When you look at the carbon tax,did the government do a good
(11:32):
enough job of telling Canadianshow it's actually going to
impact them and what it'sactually going to do for the
environment?
I think there's a lot of peopleout there that still look at
the math and say I still don'tget it.
I still don't understand howyou know I'm paying money and
then you're going to give memore money back.
Like, how does that work?
And there are two aspects to it.
And we're starting to learnthat through the leadership race
(11:54):
liberal leadership race howthere's a consumer portion and
industrial portion, and the factthat Mark Carney says he's
going to remove the consumerportion.
But even Christopher Freelandsaying, you know, we listened to
Canadians and we realized, well, that wasn't you know what
people want.
And you think, well then, wherewas your internal polling on
that?
And I agree with you.
I think that Canadians look atthis and go okay, so if you
(12:15):
stood for that, but now youdon't, then what?
And I think that that's adifficulty that Canadians are
having now in trustingpoliticians and saying, okay, if
you can switch course onsomething as key in your mind as
the carbon tax, what else canyou switch on?
And it's unfortunate because ina sense, you have to applaud a
(12:39):
party for going the full waywith it, but then when they
decide they're going to changecourse on it, you go.
Well, you know, did you reallystand for it then?
And I can understand howCanadians can really look at
this and sort of and be negativeabout it and sort of think,
well, why should I vote?
And it's disappointing to mebecause I believe in democracy,
(13:01):
I believe in the process ofpeople, you know, with voter
participation, and it reallygets me down when I see low
voter participation rates,because I think this is our
democracy, this is what we needto be participating in.
Everybody has an opinion and acomplaint, but you also have a
vote and if you don't exercisethat third part of it, well then
(13:24):
, what are you doing out there?
Then you're just complainingabout your opinion.
You can do something about itand I hate it when people feel
disenfranchised about you know,the vote and and about politics
in general.
It's funny.
Another quick anecdote when Icover campaigns 2019 and 2021, I
was on federal campaigns and Iremember you go to these
different campaign spots of youknow with the leader and then
(13:47):
the candidate is there.
Sometimes you get to speak withthem, Sometimes you don't, and
no matter what political stripe,because obviously I'm neutral.
I always go up to them and Isay you know what, thanks for
doing this, I appreciate it.
And they sort of look at mequizzically and I said I don't
support anybody, I'm neutral onthis.
But if you don't put your nameforward as a candidate, then we
don't have a democracy, becausethen it's just somebody putting
(14:09):
you know, one person getting theseat because they put their
name forward.
But having this discussion andhaving you know, this exchange
of ideas and this participation,that helps what we were you're
asking about.
I just I wish that there were,you know, politicians that would
continue on with the courage oftheir convictions and and and I
(14:30):
think part of it, especiallythe carbon tax, is not properly
explaining it and not reallyconnecting all the dots so that
canadians could have gottenbehind it if they thought it was
a good idea you talked about.
Aaron Pete (14:42):
Uh, you said obviously I'm neutral and just I
want to hone in on that alittle bit more because I feel
like that idea of neutrality hasreally been tested over the
past maybe five to 10 years,where some schools of thought on
journalism kind of say there'sno such thing as neutrality.
That's not real.
We all have very deep downbiases that we're always
(15:03):
operating on and you can neverfully get rid of that and that's
that's been, I feel, like inthe zeitgeist for some time now
and some people have gone all inlike rebel news is all in on
the idea there's no such thingas neutrality.
Yeah, so how do you approachthat?
Because I'm sure that when youyou are more connected to these
things in in many ways than mostpeople, you're meeting the
(15:23):
people, you get to hear some ofthe behind the scenes, you get
to know where this government'sflawed, where that government's
flawed, what they're doing right, what they're doing wrong,
where you think they could dobetter if they were to argue
this point or that point, youreally get an in-depth
understanding.
How do you maintain thatneutrality under all of that
information?
Mike LeCouteur (15:42):
I think what you have to do is you have to
basically try and removeyourself from you know the
people and the actual I don'twant to say your personal
feelings, like you said.
We all have personal feelings.
I mean I'm not a robot, rightLike I'm at home, you know, with
my kids and you know talkingwith friends and everything like
that, and I have my ownviewpoints, obviously I do, but
(16:04):
this is my job.
My job is to hold everyone toaccount, no matter who it is.
If you have two seats inlegislature, if you have 200
seats in the legislature, itdoesn't matter.
You have a level ofaccountability getting to.
You know.
The first question you ask meis and you always have to go to
that place where do I need tohold you accountable?
What are the things that youhave said that need to be
questioned?
(16:24):
What are the things that needto be examined more and that we
need to dig a little deeper on,and what are some of the other
things that I can sort of pokearound with to try and think of.
You know, how does this helpthe Canadians?
Um, and, and the best thingthat I can that I ever think
about when, when I'm doing astory, aaron it's.
(16:45):
I always say to myself whatwould the farmer in Saskatchewan
want to know about this today?
What would the single mom inEdmonton want to know about this
?
You know, what is the person inNorthern and the Northern
territories in Nunavut?
What?
How does it affect them?
And that's the best way that Ican sort of remove myself from
(17:05):
it and my feelings about a story.
And you're right, I think it'sdifficult because even when you
consider that there are media toyour point, some media out
there, they really lean into it,but they also that's their
brand.
And a lot of more journalistsare sort of making their brand
being this is me and this is mylean, this is my slant and this
(17:28):
is what you're going to get fromme.
And there's a market out therefor that 100.
There is, because then thatfeeds into whoever you know
really wants to listen to that.
But I think that there is suchum, we have such I don't want to
call it a burden.
I would almost say that it'ssuch a duty that I carry, you
(17:49):
know, from journalists of your,and I hate to say that like that
.
But you consider, you knowpeople name drop, like you know,
peter Mansbridge, peterMansbridge, bob Fife you know at
this network Craig Oliver andand Evan Solomon Vashia as well
Vashia Capello, she's great atthat as well that no matter who
the politician is, no matterwhat the policy is, my job as a
(18:12):
journalist is to take it apart,examine it, tell Canadians what
it's about and let them maketheir decision on it.
And present all of the facts asbest as I can, and as much of
it it I can, and balanced aswell, and to say look, you can
make your decision after I tellyou all of this.
I'm going to tell you in acreative way and I say creative
(18:32):
because TV is, and I think alljournalism, to be interesting,
has to be a little creative Iwill tell you in the most
creative way that I can, in themost informative way possible,
and then it's up to you to makeyour decision.
And actually the best days forme, aaron, are when I get
comments either in my inbox orDMs or whatever, and I get them
(18:53):
from both, all sides of thepolitical spectrum saying I'm a
lackey for the other side, whenI get them from everybody, I
know, All right, I'm doing myjob.
Aaron Pete (19:04):
That is one interesting metric to have to
live by.
Mike LeCouteur (19:08):
Yeah, it's not scientific, it's maybe not the
best, darren, but honestly, ifyou get criticism from all sides
, then you know you're beingneutral enough.
Aaron Pete (19:15):
The next piece and we talked a little bit about it
is one of the criticisms, frommy understanding, that was being
leveled at opposition leaderPierre Polyev.
That was being leveled atopposition leader Pierre Polyev
was that he was doing all thesepodcasts and not as interested
in what's called old media,traditional media.
He was moving in that direction.
But I'm wondering how do youtake that Mark Carney is
(19:37):
choosing, like, in somecircumstances, American media
like Jon Stewart or other shows,to kind of introduce himself
rather than the like the thecommon one I've seen online that
you may have seen as well aslike the CBC is funded by by
this government, like supportedthrough subsidy.
How are you not going on theones that we're actually
invested in?
(19:57):
Why are you going to theseother ones?
How do you digest that being inthe media stratosphere,
understanding kind of how thingswork?
Mike LeCouteur (20:04):
I don't think it's fair either way.
And I say fair I mean look, if,comparing the two you know
Pierre Polyev and Mark Carneythey're equal offenders in this,
you know, I mean the fact thatPierre Polyev is picking and
choosing where he wants to goand Mark Carney is picking and
choosing where he wants to go.
I don't think that's right andit continues not to be right,
(20:25):
and even limiting of questionsand how long they want to talk
and even sometimes the tone theyuse when you are asking a
question and it's, you know, not, I don't want to say not
receptive, but certainlydismissive of the question or
thinking, oh, I can't believeyou're asking me that question.
I mean, everybody has to beaccountable, everybody has to
answer questions and you shouldbe open to all sorts of
(20:48):
questions and that kind ofaccountability they're really,
you know, by picking andchoosing what they're doing and
where they're going.
Unfortunately, they hold thatpower.
Nobody can force them to comeon CTV News, on Power Play, and
nobody can say you must sit here, but certainly, uh, you know
(21:09):
what we do and what I've done inthe past is when either one of
his surrogates or somebody youknow from the conservatives talk
about, uh, you know how purepolyam is out there and speaking
to media, I always say, well,he's not speaking to us, so he's
welcome.
There's always a seat for himon power play, uh, for him to
come and actually be accountableto us and have that
conversation with us.
And same goes for mark carney,uh, and you know, and to an
(21:31):
extent, justin trudeau, you knowhe has a time when, when you
know when, he would do the mediarounds, uh, and then they do
get to pick and choose wherethey want to go.
And I don't think it's right.
I think, uh, you know, therewas a time when I would say
prime minister trudeau would doChristmas interviews, year-end
interviews, and he would makesure he would make time for, you
know, most of the major mediaand then even sit down with
(21:52):
newspapers and that sort ofthing.
And he does local media as welland he goes around and talks to
them.
And more recently he's beendoing a lot of podcasts and
making sure that he's sort oftalking to the, you know, new
media I hope I'm not using thatterm wrong uh, but uh, but that
type of those types of venues,um, but I think that they do
need to speak to as many outletsas possible, because not
(22:16):
everybody is going to watch thatpodcast that maybe they were on
.
Not everybody was watching johnstewart, uh, when mark carney
was on, and and not everybodywas watching his appearance on
MSNBC.
But certainly the Canadiansthat he needs to speak to are
watching Canadian TV and they'rewatching Canadian podcasts or
(22:36):
listening to Canadian podcastsand Canadian radio and reading
Canadian newspapers.
So it's kind of quizzical to mehow somebody like Mark Carney
decides that he's going to speakto BBC or you know, people down
south, before he's going tospeak to people in Canada,
especially when he wants to leadthis country.
And you know same goes forPierre Polyev.
I understand, you knoweverybody's got a media strategy
(22:59):
, but I think it has to includewhere most people are watching
as well, where most people arewatching as well.
Aaron Pete (23:05):
This seems like one of the most challenging things
we're going to have to workthrough over the coming election
and in the next few years,because I have been a huge
advocate for new media and likepodcasts, obviously.
I think like I'm able to speakwith, like Minister Paddy Hajdu
for an hour rather than an eightminute segment, and when I
interviewed all of theprovincial leaders, I was able
(23:26):
to have them all for like anhour and 10 minutes and go
through things and a lot ofpeople reached out and said, hey
, that was way better thanwatching 18 clips that are four
minutes a piece on various radioshows, and I I've been proud of
that up to date.
But the piece that I feel likeI'm missing is one.
I'm not a trained journalist.
I don't believe you necessarilyalways need a journalism school
(23:47):
, but I'm not like I have notbeen mentored to the same extent
likely you have been, andothers have been, in the trade
and in the operations of how toconduct an interview, how to
structure the questions properly, how to do your research in
such a way.
I've gotten to learn fromindividuals like Tara Henley,
but it is not like somethingI've immersed myself in for
years where I am the person youshould go to for a real
(24:09):
journalistic understanding and aprofessional journalistic
interview, and so I dounderstand that.
But then you run into thischallenge that the traditional
media is not growing to the sameextent as new media, and so you
can see where people are like.
Well, if I want to get my wordout, I can maybe a hundred
thousand, five hundred thousandpeople doing this, then going on
something that maybe reachesthirty thousand, but then you're
(24:31):
missing out on the fact thatyour viewership I would guess
personally just having a theory,they're likely more politically
engaged.
If you're tuning in regularly,you're gonna have a deeper
understanding of what's going on, where the policies are at and
those pieces, and so I'm justtrying to find what that balance
might end up looking like,because I agree with you, they
(24:52):
should.
I interviewed Nigel Begar andone of his points on coronations
of kings and queens is thatthey have to kneel in order to
take on that role.
Take on that role and there'ssomething like I get that it's
somewhat performance, but likethere is a deep piece of that
that you are subject to thepeople, that you are at the
(25:12):
mercy of, that.
You are at the behest of usbeing selected for this position
and you, to your point, owe aduty to the people to put
yourself before them, to humbleyourself before cbc, ctv, um,
global news and and take onthose questions not know what
they're gonna be and own that.
I think the conservativesstarted this movement of like,
(25:33):
hey, we're gonna choose where wewant to go, and the liberals
have kind of gone.
Well, if you're gonna choose,we're gonna choose.
And we're in this dangerous timewhere, like um, I know christia
freeland uh, you posted thisthis on X.
She's going on Bill Mayer show.
That's like he he's awell-known liberal individual
and that's no fault time.
I think he conducts really good, interesting interviews.
(25:55):
I enjoy his work but, likeyou're not necessarily going
with up against somebody whounderstands the, the policies,
the history, that's gonna be avery conversational type
interview.
That's not gonna hit quite ashard.
And then you see Pierre Polievgoing on True North Media and
like, again, just a phrasing ofthose questions.
I watched that and it was veryinteresting.
The phrasing of those questionsare already starting from a
(26:18):
position Jordan Peterson, howare you going to save Canada?
Like these questions are notmiddle grounded, they are
picking a side before theconversation starts and I just I
don't know how we bridge thisgap between old media and new
media going forward.
Mike LeCouteur (26:31):
Yeah, and it's interesting because you know,
like, and you have built such agreat following and you have
built such a great channel hereand and and a great, a great
show.
And you know, and I think youknow, what you're doing is
amazing and and I think that itshows that anybody can do it.
But also the way that you askthe questions are very different
(26:52):
how I would ask the questions,and that's a good thing.
It's a good thing that peopleare seeing that plurality of
media and seeing those differentpoints of view.
Um, because, whereas you maythink that like, oh well, you
know, vashi or myself may ask aquestion, that's a little more
hard hitting and whatever, butthere's also the format of it is
is so is way more relaxed,right, like I'm coming in here
and, yeah, I'm in my suit andtie, but I'm very relaxed and
(27:14):
I'm, you know, a little moreopen to the discussion, maybe of
a.
Okay, I've got eight minutesand I've got to make sure that
I'm going to say this and andand you know, a politician
probably thinks well and apolitician probably thinks well,
I've got to get this pointacross, that point across, that
point across.
This is going to sound maybecrazy to you, aaron, but the
interviews that I watch and thatI try to learn from as an
interviewer and a journalist aswell, weirdly enough, is the now
(27:37):
stages of Howard Stern, becausehe has this way of talking to
Hollywood actors and music actsand whatever, and he makes them
feel so comfortable and they'reactually so revealing.
Now, okay, it's a differentscenario.
He's not going foraccountability, I get that, but
I think there's something tolearn from that and in the sense
of sit there, let your guestsfeel comfortable, but at the
(28:01):
same time, ask pointed questionsin the way that you are.
You're asking me questions thatare not underhand lobs here,
right, like these are, you know,serious questions about serious
things that I need to thinkabout and and I love it about
this and I love having thisconversation I think you know
when you consider where thesepoliticians are going and
picking friendly media.
(28:21):
John stewart with you know, um,mark carney it's not like, not
like John Stewart's, no slouch,but we knew he wasn't going to
go for the jugular on Carney andCarney also hadn't announced
yet.
Now Bill Maher and ChristopherFreeland we've heard many times
from Freeland's camp, they'refriends.
So is that going to be ahard-hitting interview?
Probably not.
And the same thing with PierrePauliev and Jordan Peterson.
(28:44):
You know the basis of thatquestion how are you going to
save Canada?
Well, I mean, I think we knowwhere this interview is going to
go then, don't we?
So the difficulty is trying toconvince these politicians and
telling these people that we notonly have a reach, but we have
a power and a voice.
And when you come on and youare sitting in the chair across
from myself, vashi or any otherinterviewer on a political show,
(29:07):
that you have to come with itand you have to be sharp.
And if you are sharp thenyou'll be fine.
But if you come and you're kindof half in it and you're not
really, you don't know yourpolicies.
Another quick anecdote there'ssomebody who worked in a
minister's office that said tome at one point in time, and
they said look, I tell myministers that if you know your
(29:30):
file, you'll do fine in theseinterviews.
If you go in there and you kindof half know it, then you're
going to look bad.
And I think that that's theproblem is that sometimes they
go in it hoping that they'lljust sort of have to half study
and that they'll pass the flyingcolors.
But you know, and so thechallenge I think of traditional
(29:51):
media is also to expand and Isay that in you know think of
how, yes, um, power play now isavailable as a podcast to listen
to if you want, on your wayhome, and that sort of thing.
But I think what we need to doas well is to think of different
ways to get to people and meetmedia consumers where they are.
You know podcasts, I can tellyou like this is going to sound
(30:15):
silly, but then it's verypersonal.
I'm cleaning my house and, yeah, I clean my own bathrooms and
everything, because it's just, Ijust do it that way.
I don't, you know, I'mvacuuming, I got these AirPods
in and I'm listening to podcasts, and I'm listening to political
podcasts, sports podcasts, allkinds of podcasts.
They are so convenient, takingwhere you know, wherever you go,
and whatnot.
But it's also that kind ofsense of that's where people are
(30:37):
now, and the segment of thepopulation that are sitting down
for appointment TV is less andless.
So what we need to do intraditional media is really meet
them where they are and givethem what we think they want,
and if it is longer form,interviews and it is sort of a
more extended type of thing thatis, beyond those eight minutes,
as you said, then do thatbecause you know your
(30:59):
conversation with Patty Hajduand your conversation with other
people.
It becomes more revealing thelonger you go, because even the
long I can feel it.
Now I'm, you know, at thebeginning of this interview I
was kind of sitting straight upand now I'm kind of like, okay,
well, I got to sit, I got torelax a little bit and my
posture will sort of inform howI'm going to be Right, and so I
think that's the beauty of ofthis kind of long form where, um
(31:20):
and that's the thing withtraditional media Again, we're
fighting this Do Canadians, doconsumers, want it in eight
seconds or do they want it in 80minutes?
Which one is it?
And there's still this sort ofreckoning that traditional media
is coming to and trying tofigure out where are we going to
play, which playground are wein and which sandbox are we in
(31:41):
and how do we service it all andmake sure that we are able to
give Canadians what they wantand, at the same time, be true
to ourselves about it?
I don't know the answer and Ihave this discussion about it in
my own mind all the time andyou know it's funny.
I had a quick story.
I had to drive back.
(32:02):
I was in Montreal, I had todrive back to Ottawa and then
back to Montreal, all in onenight.
Anyway, I forgot my passport.
I was going on a buddy trip.
I forgot my passport here inOttawa.
I was staying with my parentsand my dad said all right, let's
go for a ride.
It was the nicest thing he'sever done for me and to this day
it's so touching that it was 10o'clock at night, aaron and we
(32:22):
took the ride.
It's a two-hour drive and itwas the story behind it.
And what I'm trying to say is hesaid I got some questions for
you.
So we sat down and he saidwhere's the media going and what
are we going to do?
Because my dad believe it ornot, I think 76, 77, he's going
to kill me for not knowing hisage, but I'll go lower, since I
think that's always best.
(32:44):
He watches YouTube shorts andhe said to me I get sort of
caught in it and I'm justwatching and I'm just consuming.
He's like why aren't you guysthere?
And I thought to myself yeah,it's because traditional media
are not sure where they need toplay anymore and where the
viewers are.
And so if my 76 year old dad isasking that question and saying,
(33:06):
where are you guys come, youknow how is the media going to
survive all of this, because heknows he can see the segments
and you know how many people arecable cable cutting.
I mean, who's subscribing to, tocable channels anymore?
Right, and so how do wemonetize, how do we survive,
while at the same time and Ithink part of our survival is,
(33:26):
um then, being the place thatpoliticians do want to go,
because they'll say, oh, thathas X amount of eyeballs.
This is where the primeminister wants to go, because he
wants to speak to this type ofperson.
And so we have to sort ofcontinue to shift our minds and
innovate as traditional mediaand go where the people want us
(33:47):
to be, and then I think then wecan get those interviews,
because you know those types ofpoliticians will say, yeah, okay
, I can see they're in thatspace, and it's just about
changing things up for us andnot thinking that the
traditional way and the old wayof doing things is the best way.
Aaron Pete (34:03):
I really appreciate you saying that, because I
haven't shared this criticism.
But your guys' thumbnails onYouTube.
They just need so much work.
You guys are capable of so muchand that's the challenge.
I think of a big system.
Trying to innovate is becauseyou're used to this system and
(34:26):
then you're trying to move overto a big system.
Trying to innovate is becauseyou're used to this system and
then you're trying to move overto a new system.
Like every thumbnail, I puttogether the words, the colors,
the brightness, the contrast,the title.
Like that takes.
That takes a whole day for meto put that piece together,
because that's where people,when you're on YouTube, you
choose to click or not click,and that's a key element of this
the title.
(34:46):
You have to have something thatpulls people and makes them ask
a question like well, and thattakes for me, that takes study,
because there's nobody fundingthis.
Like I use my own money to payfor all of this.
So I have to figure that out orI'm getting four views on
YouTube and wasting all of mytime.
I have a need to figure that out, and to a different extent than
then you guys do, because youhave a system that's working,
(35:09):
that you understand, and thenwhoever is managing that is is
trying to figure that out as anaddition to the existing
Processes I'm sure you guysalready have.
And that's that's theadaptation piece.
That I think is a challenge,but I think that's an
overcomable challenge.
And then just to the pieceabout like an overcomable
challenge.
And then just to the pieceabout like encouraging
politicians.
Like I feel like, um, I watchedthe morning show and I really
(35:29):
enjoyed that show on Apple, andthe only piece that I think of
is like we don't really haveanybody in media really right
now that's willing to say likewhat are you scared?
Like what are you afraid of tosit down with us?
And like, are you afraid ofquestions?
Yeah, like pierre polliev,particularly because he swings
so hard at a person eating anapple, because you're willing to
(35:50):
knock that out of the park.
Like I feel like, come on, man,like let's see you go toe to
toe with the best interviewer.
Like you're the guy who's gotit all figured out right.
You're making people look sillywhen you're doing your um, your
press conferences.
Let's get the best person andlet's go 1v1 and see how you do
in a really professional,well-prepared interview and that
will be interesting to all ofus.
(36:11):
If you get that interview andyou, you have that opportunity
to place him against somebody.
There's marketing opportunitiesthere.
There's real curiosity.
Is he up to the challenge offacing a tough interview like
and?
And if he is, then he'sbecoming more qualified for the
job that he's seeking and if heisn't, then that helps voters
make a more informed decision.
But I feel like thatwillingness to kind of put him
(36:34):
on the line.
People have become more carefulabout how they phrased things.
They don't want to come acrossas too much Like.
I feel like we're missing thatperson who's kind of willing to
be like come on, I'm sittingright here, I'm ready to go,
like when you're ready to beinterviewed, like really just
kind of giving that open-endedthreat of like if you don't,
then I think people are right tosay that you're scared, and I
(36:55):
get that.
That's a tough position becausenetworks have an identity and
they don't want to look atadversarial.
But there's this piece herewhere this guy is just walking
around feeling very confident inhimself and he's not really
doing the tough interviews andI'm just dying to see one where
somebody is willing not to bedisrespectful, not to try and
corner him, not to do gotchajournalism but, to really just
ask tough questions about whatis your plan.
(37:16):
The part that freaks me out themost about him is my
understanding, and I get allpolitical parties do this to a
certain extent.
But like making decisions basedon what the polls tell you to
me scares me, because what ifthe polls tell you to do
something horrible or tomistreat people like you
shouldn't make decisions purelybased on that, and I want
somebody who's willing tocontend with how to make canada
(37:37):
strong, but not just on thewhims of what people are saying
yeah or or not.
Mike LeCouteur (37:42):
looking at it through the lens of a.
Well, you know, this is brokenand I'm going to fix it.
In this way, you know, tobasically say, well, if the
liberals were here, then I'regoing to be able to uh, you know
, own a guy eating an apple and,and, and you can do that.
(38:08):
Or you can take shots at apress conference, at different
journalists.
Well, you know, get in thereand have a one-on-one with
somebody that you respect.
You know, let's do this, let's,let's have it out, and and I
don't mean have it out in anegative way I mean if, if you
are to your point, if you arethe person that wants to lead
this country and you think thatyou are that sharp, well then
(38:29):
you will look sharp againstsomebody who is a qualified and
really great journalist and goodinterviewer, who will challenge
you on things.
And if you have your facts down, then you're going to come out.
Okay, aren't you?
And you know it's interestingyou say that you know?
What are you afraid of?
I think everybody asks that ofpoliticians.
Why don't you want to come onthe show and spend 10 minutes If
(38:53):
you have nothing to hide or youthink that you have all the
answers, come share them with us.
And if I get to a point whereI'll go back to the example of
Mark Miller and ask a pointedquestion at him and he'll say
you know what?
You're right, we could havedone better there and we should
have done better there and we'regoing to try and do better
there.
And I'm not trying to blowsmoke, you know, for Mark Miller
(39:15):
or, you know, carry water from,but he's an example of a
journalist, that of a politicianI should say, where if you ask
him a pointed question, hedoesn't have the answer.
He'll say he doesn't have theanswer or he'll say, you're
right, we didn't do as well andI mean, aaron, the thing that
I've always.
I respect politicians who firstof all take on that file.
(39:36):
It is not an easy file.
There is so much that Canadaneeds to do for Indigenous
communities that it has not done, and these are difficult things
to try and get done.
They're big projects, they arebig things that need to get done
.
So for him to say, you're right, we continue to fail, but we're
going to try to do better, it'san admission that other
(39:58):
politicians in the past haven'tallowed themselves to give, that
admission of saying we're notdoing good enough.
You're right, and canadiansconnect with that.
Regular people go oh, oh, he'ssorry, oh, he admits that he
didn't do a lot.
Well, okay, well, maybe, maybewe'll cut him some slack, but it
also makes him more real as aperson.
Right, he doesn't have all theanswers, so it's get into the
(40:22):
ring, get, get the questions,take the questions, and if
you're as sharp as you say youare, then you'll come out just
as sharp and be tested like that.
And you're right.
I just I don't know what theswitch is to flick for a
journalist, to go for apolitician.
And you know, let's not just goto Pierre Paglia, let's go to
(40:44):
Mark Carney.
You know, hey, get in the ring,get in the ring there.
And yeah, he did an interviewwith the, with CBC, and he did
one with Canada.
Aaron Pete (40:52):
He hasn't done everybody.
Mike LeCouteur (40:53):
And eventually it's going to have to, and you
know, get into, get in there andget the tough questions, and if
you know your stuff well, thenpeople will see that.
But test yourself in that way.
Aaron Pete (41:10):
And then Canadians will respect you more.
It really does come down tolike this is our line of defense
to make sure that we havequalified, reputable individuals
leading our country, and Ithink the points you're making
are really important.
I want to take it over a bit tothe panelist side.
I'm a regular consumer of thepanel hosts, panel shows you do
and I'm just wondering how doyou go about selecting the
individuals and how do you goabout making sure that it
(41:33):
doesn't just become politicaltalking points about the news of
the day and how do you kind ofkeep make sure that it's it's
adapting and reflecting the realuh concerns or perspectives of
canadians?
Mike LeCouteur (41:46):
yeah, and I think that that's so interesting
because I mean, first of all,how do you select the people?
I try as much as possible um,you know we have regulars, but
as much as possible I want thepanel to reflect what canada
looks like, uh, and it meansmale, female, people of color,
different, you know, differentgenders, different persuasions,
different everything.
I, you know, I always say thatif it's an all-white panel,
(42:09):
that's not a good thing.
If it's a, you know we alsojoke about if I'm hosting Power
Play and all of our panelistsare male.
They call it a mantle and it'sa bit of a funny term, but it's
like we can't do that becausethen it's all male perspectives,
like we can't be doing that.
So, first thing is making surethat it is a reflection of
(42:29):
Canada and the people who livein this country and making sure
it's from different backgroundsand different perspectives as
well.
And we always make sure that wehave at least, you know, one
conservative, one liberal, oneNDPer and then sometimes a
journalist as well.
And I think we try as much aspossible to and I know I do is
(42:49):
to basically bring it down.
The question is always I alwayssit there and I go.
If this was a kitchen table,how would the conversation go
and what would the person athome be wanting to ask?
And how would they want to askit?
And you know, I, as much aspossible try.
It's not easy because, uh, andit may not come through here,
obviously, but I'm got a bigpersonality, I like joking
around, I like having a lot offun and so, you know, on power
(43:13):
play, I'll throw a bunch ofsports references in.
I'm a huge sports fan, and muchto the chagrin of my producer
sometimes, but, uh, I try asmuch as possible to make it fun,
like the other day we weretalking about, uh, how that
canada us game, how does thatsort of and this is one of those
ideas that I thought thatcanadians might have resonated
(43:34):
with I thought, how do we takethat game?
Or can we take that game andalmost give Canada and
politicians a bit of a boost, abit of a?
You know, hey, our shouldersare a bit more up and we're
sitting a little more straighterup because we beat them in
hockey.
Is that now going to happen,you know, in negotiations with
the US?
Because I think everybodythought to themselves man, if we
(43:54):
lost that game, if we lost thatgame.
Oh man, we would have neverheard the end of it.
And it's coming at this time a51st state, oh my goodness.
I think Canadians some may havefelt like throwing the towel.
So, in terms of engagement, Ialways try to look at the panel
like, okay, you know, and it'spart of the media question as
(44:15):
well in expanding our tent.
Like you said, it's a politicalshow, but I look at it and I go
them, I go, okay, well, if thepolitical class are watching it,
great, that means that meansthey may watch it.
Anyway, I want more people towatch it.
I want people at home who aremaybe not very political to go.
Oh, that was entertaining.
Maybe I'll watch the rest ofthe show.
Because they saw me throw a jokein there about when we were
(44:36):
talking about the hockey andsaying you know, know, somebody
made a joke and I said yeah, butsometimes it feels like
Canada's getting cross-checkedin the face and spurring that
conversation and making sure thepanelists feel like, oh, it's
safe to make a hockey joke,reference, a hockey reference
joke and that type of thing andI think that that connects more
with viewers and that connectsmore with people at home in the
(44:57):
way that we talk and the way wepresent it, and making sure that
all their perspectives a aregoing to be, you know, used and
and and you know, in some somecases challenged, depending on
the panel.
Uh, but also making sure thatthe panelists feel comfortable
enough to be themselves and tonot just give talking points but
to have a little personal flairto it so that they can be, they
(45:20):
can connect with the viewersand viewers can understand them
better in that way, cause ifyou're just a robot sitting
there giving talking points,people are going to turn it off
in 10 seconds.
Aaron Pete (45:29):
Is there anybody at CTV?
Um, and I'm not saying you haveto go to this extent, but who
goes?
Pierce Morgan is killing itonline.
Like he has figured out thepanelist approach, and I'm not
saying you guys have to carboncopy and do that, but I do feel
like the amount of debate onissues is really really low,
(45:52):
where I'm consuming a lot of USYouTube channels Because they're
willing to have somebody who'spro this and someone who's
absolutely against it and theyhash it out for 15 minutes and
we see where we land.
And that's really, from myperspective, engaging for people
, because it's tough when it'sthis perspective, that
(46:12):
perspective, they're notdisagreeing, they're not
challenging each other to thesame extent that we see in other
media forums, and I think thatreally captivates people because
then they go.
This was always myunderstanding and I've gone into
watching debates where Ithought I was going to be on
this person's side.
I've watched their show or Ilike their YouTube channel, and
(46:32):
then they go in and they debateand they get obliterated and I
go oh well, maybe I need tolisten to this person Like this
person's made really good pointsand knew their statistics and
stuff and I just feel likeCanada needs more of that
willingness to take two issuesand have the smartest people
really kind of go at it.
I know we have the monk debates, but like on a regular news
show where we're kind of gettingthat information.
Mike LeCouteur (46:54):
Yeah, it's a really interesting point because
I think there's a couple ofthings at play here.
One, the format.
And I say the format in that ifyou have people in a room
together, in a studio together,you can really muck it up right,
because then there's not thatfeeling of, oh wait, am I
stepping on them?
Am I talking?
Is there a delay?
I didn't quite hear you, areyou finished?
(47:15):
And I feel like our panels arebest when there's everybody in
the room together, and I know Ilike them more because then it's
a you can see the body language, you can.
I can sort of as the personwho's basically moderating is
kind of, you know, I can dosomething and give a hand
gesture that makes themunderstand that hey, no, I'm
going to bring this person in,but then somebody else who's
(47:36):
sitting at the table with themfeels more comfortable to jump
in.
That's one thing, and I thinkthat the pandemic was wonderful
for being able to do thesethings, even like, hey, you and
I can talk like this over Zoom,it's wonderful.
But would I feel comfortabledebating somebody over Zoom like
this?
I think it would be very tough,because I would want to try and
, you know, get my voice in andtry and speak, but sometimes
(48:00):
it's difficult because, you know, then you have that kind of
like cross talk and that's tough, I'll be honest, and this is
going to be a terrible answerfor you and but or a great
answer.
We're Canadian, we're too darnpolite about it, and I just said
, darn, imagine that that's notwhat I was thinking of saying,
but we're too darn polite aboutit.
Darn, imagine that that's notwhat I was thinking of saying,
(48:21):
but we're too darn polite aboutit.
Like, the people on the panelsdon't somehow, don't really, you
know, bare knuckle brawl andand you know, and I'm being, you
know, figurative about that,obviously you know it's
fisticuffs, but, um, I thinkthat too often it's a.
Well, I respectfully disagreewith your opinion.
Oh, I really don't agree withwhat you just said, as opposed
to a no, like let's really getinto it.
(48:43):
No, your guy said that and hesaid that, and that's wrong.
And here's why I think it'swrong.
And no, you guys haven't donethat.
And it's interesting because,you know, when you mentioned
Piers Morgan, I think, canadianTV, obviously we don't have that
, or we don't have that or wedon't have that yet, but I think
that there's an investment orthere's.
You know we need to look atokay, do we want that type of
(49:06):
thing and where's the space forthat and how would we do that
and how would we really sort ofget to it?
Because, as you said, like ifyou're watching it and that's
entertaining for you, wellthat's entertaining for a lot of
people as well, and if we'renot giving people that and they
really want that, then maybe wedo need to look at that a bit
more.
But in the panels that we have,I guess yeah, I come down to it
(49:30):
we're just too polite to reallytry and get into it pretty hard
, just really quickly.
Aaron Pete (49:40):
I just want to use the example evan sol.
This is when I becameinterested in news personally.
Was evan solomon being hosted,hosting power play with ellis
ross and pam palmitter, and thenjust going at it and completely
different world views on howthe world operates, on what
first nation communities needmore of and less of, and how you
(50:00):
work towards reconciliationpipeline no pipeline.
How do we support people Likethose are the moments that
really stand out to me as key.
My last piece that I just wantto touch on with you is just to
really recognize you for oneother thing that you haven't
mentioned yet, but yourattention to detail is very,
very impressive.
Your dedication to getting thenames of your panelists and of
(50:24):
guests on correct is somethingI've observed over the show and
is very impressive and justshows your commitment to your
craft.
Trying to make it light andunderstandable is another piece
that I see that you work towardsvery often, having jokes making
it a little bit lighter.
Politics can be so serious, sodivisive, and bringing that in,
I think, is really important.
(50:45):
So, mike, I really appreciateyou for being willing to make
the time today.
Is there any comments?
You want to leave the viewerswith.
Mike LeCouteur (50:52):
I just wanted to say on that piece of, first of
all, that attention to detail, Iwas warned.
Somebody told me you do yourresearch.
But wow, do you ever?
But I appreciate you noticingthat because I do my darndest as
somebody who's got a last namethat I anglicized, because in
French it's actually Le Coutard,but as somebody who's had their
name mispronounced a number oftimes.
(51:14):
I said this to PJ Kayokuk and Iknow I'm not saying it
perfectly to PJ Kayokuk and Iknow I'm not saying it perfectly
he's the Premier of Nunavut.
I said to him.
I said it's a form of respect Ihave to get your name right and
I'm going to do my darndest tomake sure I get it right,
because that's your name, it'syou, and if I don't get it right
(51:34):
then I'm not doing my job as ahost.
And I appreciate you sayingthat, aaron, and I appreciate
everything you do, man, like Ithink, uh, the space that you're
in and and what you're doingwith with your podcast is
fantastic and I appreciate thisopportunity as well.
Aaron Pete (51:49):
I also think another piece of as a sign of respect
is always the suit.
Um, I think that's veryadmirable.
I know it's a part of tv, but Ido think it's a sign of respect
to the viewership.
And when I wear a suit to mycommunity, to my First Nation
community, they don't always getit, but it's a sign of like.
I am a leader with it, I'm acounselor on my council, with my
community, I have obligationsto you.
(52:11):
I am a figurehead, a person tobe held accountable, and I dress
as such so that you know that Iam accountable to you and that
I am in this position.
That owes you a debt to thepeople to be held accountable.
So, mike, it's such an honourto get to know you more.
I hope we can do this again inthe future.
Congratulations on all yoursuccess and the work that you're
(52:32):
doing to hold politiciansaccountable.
It's not an easy job and I knowthere's some dream interviews
I'm sure you have, and I hopeyou're able to get them in 2025.
Mike LeCouteur (52:41):
I appreciate it.
Thanks so much for having me onand everything you say and for
all the work you're doing.
It's really fantastic.
I really really appreciate youhaving me on and anytime you
call I'm here.
Aaron Pete (52:50):
The honor is all mine.
Popular Podcasts
Cold Case Files: Miami
Joyce Sapp, 76; Bryan Herrera, 16; and Laurance Webb, 32—three Miami residents whose lives were stolen in brutal, unsolved homicides. Cold Case Files: Miami follows award‑winning radio host and City of Miami Police reserve officer Enrique Santos as he partners with the department’s Cold Case Homicide Unit, determined family members, and the advocates who spend their lives fighting for justice for the victims who can no longer fight for themselves.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.