Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2019

The Current Transcript for January 4, 2019

Host: Anna Maria Tremonti

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Clint Malarchuk suffered a horrific sporting injury. But PTSD put his life in peril again, decades later

SOUNDCLIP

[Music]

[Sounds: Sirens and dispatcher]

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: Hello I'm Anna Maria Tremonti and this is The Current. Today we continue our week-long series One Bullet, a CBC investigation into the impact of gun violence in our country, One Bullet One Person at a Time.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: A lot of us agree. We see patients, how alters their lives forever.

VOICE 2: As a trauma surgeon you think that there's really no accidents and really most injury is preventable.

VOICE 1: Recognising that person has individual value and what that person meant around that family, I think that to me is the hardest part of what I do. It's called a public health crisis. I think that that's very important.

[Music]

AMT: Those are two Canadian emergency room surgeons and we will hear more from them later, in half an hour. But first when it comes to Canadians dying from firearms, the leading cars by far is the self-inflicted wound. About three quarters of gun deaths in Canada are suicides. Nevertheless suicide is often left out of discussions about gun violence. Today we continue our one bullet series with a story of a former NHL goalie from Alberta, best known for a horrific on ice accident in 1989. Few people will know that he later shot himself. Our documentary editor Joan Webber spoke with the player and his wife for this documentary; The Cowboy the Gun and the Trigger. And a warning of the subject matter and the details in the story are graphic and will be disturbing for some.

SOUNDCLIP

CLINT MALARCHUK: I grew up in northern Alberta, Grand Prairie, then Edmonton, then Calgary. Played for, I was drafted by the Quebec Nordiques then traded to the Washington Capitals and then traded to the Buffalo Sabres. My name is Clint Malarchuk. I am a former NHL goaltender.

JOAN MALARCHUK: When I first met Clint-- Well we met in an ice rink. So I was a figure skater from refigured skate and I was coaching so it was. I used to always joke around that I will never get to meet anybody, they must walk into an ice rink and sweep me off my feet. There he was. My name is Joan Malarchuk and I never really paid attention much to hockey. I work with a few hockey players. I didn't know anything about him, who he was, and then you know people in the rink said, "Oh yeah this guy is famous for this accident".

CLINT MALARCHUK: The accident in an NHL game in Buffalo where I sliced my Jugular vein.

JOAN MALARCHUK: I never even thought that something like that could even happen and then how it could affect somebody for that long and that bad afterwards.

CLINT MALARCHUK: Looking back in reflection on all that changed my life, oh man. It as vivid, still vivid in my memory. The play is clear, the puck comes from the corner across, where resupplies coming and gets hold up the skates kind of flipped up and clicked me on the neck .

COMMENTATOR: Oh Wow.

CLINT MALARCHUK: And then I saw the blood.

COMMENTATOR: Oh God! Please take the camera off. Oh my God.

CLINT MALARCHUK: I was like oh my God, I cut a major artery or vein.

COMMENTATOR: Oh my God. What happened?

CLINT MALARCHUK: In I'm in trouble here. I'm in big trouble. I think I'm going to die in two or three minutes. My first thought was to get off the ice, because my mom was watching on TV up in Canada. And I didn't want her to go through that, to see her son die on the ice. Plus, being a cow boy, you die with your boots on. You don't lay on the ice. And my mindset is preparing for death.

COMMENTATOR: You can't pay a person enough money to go through what I just watched. Wow. I mean the blood in the...

CLINT MALARCHUK: The most calm probably was our trainer who is a former Vietnam medic and you know he came out and put the pressure on, and did everything by the book and saved my life. Not just saved my life, but in front of 18,000 people and a TV series.

COMMENTATOR: It happened so fast. It was just a matter of seconds.

CLINT MALARCHUK: I'd only been traded to Buffalo about three weeks or four. I didn't know a lot of people. So I used my manager - who I was fond of at the time - because bullies tend to bond with them. And Rick came back and I said, "Rick hold my hand while I die". That is called trauma.

COMMENTATOR: I don't even want to take a look at the replay.

GERRY CHEEVERS: Back here at the [unintelligible] intermission is Clint Malarchuk. Before we go any further I like to tell you last Wednesday a very frightening thing happened here at the auditorium...

CLINT MALARCHUK: Two or three days after my throat was cut I was back around the team. I did a TV interviews between periods.

GERRY CHEEVERS: It was very frightening situation. Glad to see that everything's very good with you and you are going to be back. Let's talk a little bit about that night when the incident happened.

CLINT MALARCHUK: Gerry Cheevers was interviewing me injury. Cheever's a former goalie, kind of my idol and here he is interviewing me between periods. I got a bandage on my neck. He said Clinton you grew up in a ranch.

GERRY CHEEVERS: You know you grew up on a farm in Edmonton, Alberta, around the outskirts of Edmonton, Alberta. You've watched cattle being slaughtered I'm sure. Did this help you at all?

CLINT MALARCHUK: Did that help you at all? [Laughs]

CLINT MALARCHUK: [To Cheevers] That's funny you talk about that. The first thing you do when you slaughter a cow or something... I was ready to move out there.

CLINT MALARCHUK: I looked back on that whole time. I think I was in shock for months. Cowboy guy you know. You get bucked off a hourse and in the first thing you do is get right back on. It was very emotional because they stopped the game at a whistle. And they opened the doors and I walked out. Because in Buffalo the whole stadium is just interrupted in a huge standing ovation. [Stadium noises] I was back on the ice with no counselling. I didn't think of it back then, nor did they. I got my jugular vein cut in 89, and so it was next season when I started to really digress into depression, anxiety, panic attacks. The nightmares were becoming every night where I couldn't sleep. And I would sit up in a chair. Like you know on an airplane and it is really hard to get into a deep sleep but you kind of doze off a little bit. So I'd sit straight up in a chair, so I wouldn't go into deep sleep so I wouldn't visualize in a dream the flashback of that skate coming up and cutting my jugular vein.

JOAN MALARCHUK: The first time I ever watched it was after we had gotten together and people that would come over to our house wanted to see it. And he had it on a DVD. It was like a couple would come and then they would want to see the video. Then the next time they'd come over they would bring a friend of theirs and their friend would want to see it. But then that friend the next time would bring another friend. It would get to be too much from me and I just couldn't watch it anymore. People used to say 'doesn't it bother you to watch it' and he would say 'no it doesn't bother me'. He actually did a show called Sport Science and it kind of would go over myths of sports and science stuff. Like is a goalie as quick as a cat. And the one they did on Clint was how quick can a body lose this much blood.

ANCHOR: For the first time ever, we'll show you how he survived.

JOAN MALARCHUK: And they hooked him up to these electrodes for heart rate and everything and they showed him a video of...

ANCHOR: The following contains graphic footage.

JOAN MALARCHUK: Like goals and saves and then they were throwing in accidents like good and bad stuff in these short clips. And they threw his accident in there and they wanted to see how it would affect him, like his heart rate and everything. And he told them and I told everybody, I said I don't think you're going to get any reading and that EKG thing because he watches this thing all the time and he says it doesn't bother. It was interesting because I was watching the reading and as the clip, it just showed the outside of the ring. And when you've seen that clip even a few times you know the sound of it when it's coming. Here is the heart rate just baked but he said she couldn't sense it. You know everybody that was standing behind and looking at the reading was like, 'you don't feel that?' I did think for a long time, how can you not notice that. There must be some huge disconnection between what you're feeling and what you're seeing and maybe that's not a really good thing. Maybe we should work on this. We were married in 2006 so between 2006 and October of 2008 is where things just gradually got from good to just- he didn't want to live in his head anymore.

CLINT MALARCHUK: A lot of tears, a lot of self-doubt. I'm not in a good place at all. And I hid it, I hid it, I hid it. I was always the clown.

JOAN MALARCHUK: At this time too he was coaching [unintelligible]. They called him a part time goalie coach. And I noticed that when he would get home and he'd started to drink. He used to occasionally have a beer here and there. And then the friends that he had met that also roped and rode horses, they would come over as soon as he got harm, with their horse trailers 30 packs of beer. After drinking all day long, everybody would leave. Anywhere between 10:30 and11:30, he wanted to talk. And that was his-- I didn't know it at the time, but that was his OCD kicking in where he just felt unsure about our relationship. And he would just ask the same questions every night. It was like Groundhog Day.

CLINT MALARCHUK: Well leading up to that day, I was drinking a lot, just trying to cope with anxiety, I couldn't turn my head off.

JOAN MALARCHUK: Like I knew stuff was going off. He was getting more erratic and more erratic. It was draining. I had stayed at a hotel. I just needed to get a good night's sleep. And it was the next day where I'd gotten up and I went to my very very first Al Anon meeting. It was October 7th, 2008. It was probably exactly 2:30 in the afternoon.

CLINT MALARCHUK: It was 2:30 in the afternoon when she finally came home.

JOAN MALARCHUK: It was a Tuesday.

CLINT MALARCHUK: I'm sitting behind the barn.

JOAN MALARCHUK: And when I came home he was nowhere to be found. I thought that's really weird as he's calling me 100 times a day. And I remember both his phones were sitting there. And I just got this-- The quietness of it was just kind of eerie. And that's when I walked outside and I started calling for him.

CLINT MALARCHUK: Joanie came up. Then she said what are you doing?

JOAN MALARCHUK: What are you doing up here? He said...

CLINT MALARCHUK: Hitting targets, rabbits, whatever, with a 22.

JOAN MALARCHUK: I said, Oh. And he had a beer. He had some beer sit beside him and I said you're drinking and he goes, yes.

CLINT MALARCHUK: She you could see I was in just total pain, in my face, everything.

JOAN MALARCHUK: He says you don't know what it's like to live inside my head.

CLINT MALARCHUK: I was mean, angry. [Unintelligible] I blamed her for everything. I'm a very sick man right now.

JOAN MALARCHUK: And he just kept talking about how he couldn't turn his head off. And we had this table it kind of looked like a big spool of yarn with no yarn on it. And he had a rifle shot gun sitting there.

CLINT MALARCHUK: And not knowing if the gun is loaded or not loaded, because I've been shooting.

JOAN MALARCHUK: He picked it up and he said, I just wish my head would stop. This is what I wish would happen. And he just shoved it under his chin.

CLINT MALARCHUK: And I pulled the trigger and it went pop, like boom.

JOAN MALARCHUK: You could just hear the noise. It just went off. He just stood there looking at me.

CLINT MALARCHUK: Holy crap, Clint. You just shot yourself.

JOAN MALARCHUK: And I remember thinking did that-- Did it really go of? Did it really happen? Because I didn't see a bullet go anywhere. I didn't see anything happen to him.

CLINT MALARCHUK: I didn't lose consciousness which is amazing. I should have been dead, you know.

JOAN MALARCHUK: And then all the sudden I remember his nose started bleeding and there was like blood coming out of his chin.

CLINT MALARCHUK: Then I blamed her for that.

JOAN MALARCHUK: And he looked at me and said, see what you made me do?

CLINT MALARCHUK: I said see what you made me do? Now am crying and distraught.

JOAN MALARCHUK: Okay you're intact. You're in one piece. Where is my phone? Call 311. That's all I thought of.

CLINT MALARCHUK: And I was like in shock.

JOAN MALARCHUK: Clint actually started walking round. He got up and went around to the side of the barn, pick up a towel to put under your chin. And he, at this whole time, kept looking at me saying I can fix this, I can fix this.

CLINT MALARCHUK: They took me from the rich to town in an ambulance, then they are trying to get me on this life flight helicopter. And I'm staying. And the whole town showed up. Because of dog catcher. We're in a small rural area and dog catcher got on a radio, my friends with a dog catcher. And she started putting out the word that Clinton is in distress and big trouble.

JOAN MALARCHUK: They were going to take him into surgery. The surgeon came out and said that it had gone through the roof of his mouth. The only damage that he has is he's got a hole under his chin. It knocked a tooth out. He's [unintelligible]. He's got a hole in the roof of his mouth. But it went, it followed I guess you sinus pathway and it lodged right into the sinus pathway. So it did no damage at all to anything in his head, in his brain, in his eye, in nothing.

CLINT MALARCHUK: It's stuck in my forehead. Just another goalie I guess.

JOAN MALARCHUK: He actually has an X-ray of it. We have a friend who is a large animal veterinarian. We were at the clinic one day talking to him and he said hey let's take an X-ray. And see what that bullets is doing in there.

CLINT MALARCHUK: It's amazing that that happen. I should be dead. You know I did a lot of I guess recollecting you know my thoughts, when I got out of intensive care and had my fights in order, thinking you know what? God spared me for those that are still suffering. I am not a preachy religious- I'm spiritual but God spared me for those that are still struggling. Now I'm a mental health advocate, and out there trying to help people. Don't do what I did because you might not be as lucky.

JOAN MALARCHUK: And people say well, you know there is nothing you could do. And you know that logically in your head, but there's still that feeling that 'yes but what if?' What if I had come home a little sooner? What if I'd said something different the day before? Would if I hadn't stayed away the night before? I want to catch it so it doesn't happen again. For me, I don't think that thought and that feeling will ever go away. You learn to live with it.

CLINT MALARCHUK: Yes yes. I feel a lot of guilt on that deal. I'll tell quick story. I was speak in Red Deer, Red Deer college, and a guy named Jesse Wallan spoke. He was told his story. He was 14 years old. The second he walked in the room his dad did-- and Jesse went on to say 'I know it wasn't my dad. I know it was the illness.' Well I, I just knelt down and cried. I knew how sick I was and everything but I still carried so much guilt.

JOAN MALARCHUK: It wasn't until after he had shot himself that- He was in rehab. It was two months after he was in there where they were telling him that he had PTSD from that accident. And that accident is what set him on the edge.

CLINT MALARCHUK: I went 20 years with undiagnosed PTSD that almost ended my life 20 years later. Boy, did I want to die? No. No I didn't. But I want to kill that pain, and I think more suicides survivors will tell you the same thing. They don't want to die. They don't want to. When I did it I wasn't thinking of Joanie. I wasn't thinking of my kids. I wasn't thinking of my mother who went through so much with me and support with me. None of those things.

JOAN MALARCHUK: Making it more of a common topic I think is what Clint and I are doing. You know everybody talks about having diabetes. Everybody talks about you know if they get cancer, their bosses give them off work. They go on they get chemo and they do therapy or if you get a knee replacement. But if you have a mental illness just don't talk about it.

CLINT MALARCHUK: I am at a high school. I get emotional because there is a kid out there who's in so much pain and just let me forward my message to you. You are not alone. You're not alone. That's the first step I think. And the second step I think would be get help. Don't suffer in silence. Because we think we're weak and were not. We're sick. But with any illness or sickness you can get well.

[Music]

AMT: The Cowboy, the Gun and the Trigger was produced by The Current's Joan Webber. Joan and Jessica Linzey are co-producers of our One Bullet series. If anyone listening is thinking of suicide or knows someone who is please help is available nationwide. You can call a toll free number it's 1 8 3 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 6. 1 8 3 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 6, or you can text 4 5 6 4 5. Text 4 5 6 4 5 or chat online with Crisis Services Canada. One Bullet continues in our next half hour with a view from the emergency room. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti and this is The Current.

Back To Top »

Gun violence takes a heavy toll on families of victims, says trauma surgeon

Guests: Dr. Bernard Lawless, Dr. Paola Fata

AMT: Hello I'm Anna Maria Tremonti and you're listening to The Current.

[Music]

AMT: Coming up in half an hour we'll hear arguments for and against indigenous ownership of the controversial Trans Mountain pipeline. After that, why the people of Lac Megantic Quebec were disturbed to see footage of their 2013 tragedy appear in two recent Netflix shows. But we're continuing now with our series One Bullet a CBC investigation into the impact of gun violence in our country. One Bullet One Person at a Time.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: What's the consequence to that patient? Did it go and injure his spinal cord? You know, will people would be able to walk? How is this bullet eroding the fabric of the community? What are we doing to respond?

VOICE 2: Really the power of one bullet it in extrapolating even beyond you know the injuries that can cause sometimes fatal, but how life changing it can be for so many people that are impacted by it, and not just the victim, the victims' families. Even the perpetrator whoever was holding the gun. I think for them it has to be a powerful life changing element as well.

AMT: I was speaking with two Canadian trauma surgeons, Dr. Bernard Lawless from St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto and Dr. Paola Fata from the Montreal General Hospital, who are describing the impact of a single bullet and the ripple effects that extends well beyond their respective emergency and operating rooms. I want to talk more about that in a few minutes, but first, could each of you give me a snapshot of what you seeing in your hospitals. Paola Fata, I'll start with you.

DR. PAOLA FATA: We probably get, regularly, I'd say one to two gunshot wounds per week that come to the emergency room. And of course there are seasonal variations. You know and it's a varied kind of prevalence in terms of whether the violence is self-directed, whether it is gang related or whether it is in even conjugal.

AMT: And of the gunshot victims coming through the doors, is there a profile? Who are they?

DR. PAOLA FATA: A lot of it is you know suicide intent. There are also gang related events. But there are probably far fewer than had them either conjugally or what one does to oneself. And I think that that's something that's often overlooked.

AMT: Bernard Lawless, what are you seeing at St. Mikes in Toronto?

DR. BERNARD LAWLESS: I think, in a similar scope that Dr. Fata has described in terms of the types of scenarios that result in these devastating types of injuries. So whether it's crime or violence related, whether it's domestic partner violence, whether it's self-inflicted harm or injury you know we'd probably see the same types of mix, I think. When you hear it on the news or when you hear it the next day it's easier I think sometimes for it in general to think that these are often crime or violence violent crime related and they're not always but often times there are. And I think sometimes it's difficult to get a full story. When you're treating patients in the emergency department your focus is on identifying the injuries, resuscitating from their injuries. And that's why you know it takes a whole group of people wrapped around caring for that patient to try to delve into some other issues to try to see what you can do to support the patient. You don't always get to see the elements of their life that may have contributed to that circumstance happening to them at that particular time.

AMT: Is there one case that's really stuck with you as being particularly illustrative of the damage that one bullet can do?

DR. BERNARD LAWLESS: There are times but I think you're so focused in that moment, as a physician as a surgeon the task at hand, that it's not necessarily it's sometimes usually after the fact when you may have finished a case endurable to reflect back and things like 'holy cow, that was awful', or 'that was as bad as I thought it was going to be'. And then you start to reflect I think on the impact that you see, the broader impact. And then sometimes you start to think like 'wow that was like devastating' or something you'll see something that wasn't particularly devastating, but you'll recognize that the path of the bullet may have become millimeters, the very vital structures that if it had just been for a few millimeters that injury could have caused death. And I marvel sometimes that sometimes you think like, gosh, like but for the grace of whatever the path of that bullet didn't cause even more injury than it could have. And you think like, wow, how could that possibly have traversed all of those structures and missed causing a fatal injury.

AMT: So Dr. Fata we talk about the physical damage, but of course you see the emotional damage that it has on families and friends of victims. Talk to me a little bit about that side of it.

DR. PAOLA FATA: Part of the nature of trauma and what we do is that it's always unexpected. So the family is not expecting it either. And they think once you've addressed sort of the physical injuries then you and the patient is stabilized, it's how do you how do you talk to the family, what are the consequences on that first person. Was there a spinal cord injury? And now their life is completely different from what they knew just the day before. And then most of the time these people are very young and they have a sort of a lot to contribute yet their life now is completely altered.

AMT: Bernard Lawless what do you think when you go through that as well, dealing with the aftermath?

DR. BERNARD LAWLESS: When you have to sit down with the panel and explain to them what the consequence of that was in terms of the types of injuries that somebody might have, laying out what this really rocky trajectory, your course in the hospital or maybe with multiple surgeries and rehab and recovery and things like that. One of the things I think that afternoon will rest with me the most, even sometimes beyond the impact that it might have on the actual victim, is the reaction of patients families or their loved ones, and their inability sometimes to be able to comprehend what could have happened that this person could have been in this circumstance that this happened to them. It's really hard to convey any sort of assurance or pick the right words to a patient's family when they really are having understandably difficult time even been absorbing like why this happened, or how it could have happened, or what happened. And you get all kinds of different reactions from people. I remember updating a family once and it was probably a distant relative from the third row back of updating this large family, and someone put up their hand and said, "Well can you tell me like how far away was the shooter?" And I thought about it and I wanted to answer the question but I would not have had enough information to even be able to pretend to give a real answer. We probably have countless stories of those encounters I think. And when you really start to peel that away and see the impact on not just the victim but on people, and I think as we've alluded to you don't always operate on people to find and take out the bullets. And even that concept I think is difficult sometimes for patients’ families or their parents or their loved ones. They like, "Aren't you going to take the bullet?" And sometimes it's difficult to relay that you can cause more injury trying to find the bullet. But that notion I think that somebody may still have bullet retained in their body, I think for loved ones and family it's tough. It's hard for them because it's a reminder.

AMT: That's so interesting. Paula Fatah, do you have that experience as well. I know intellectually that sometimes you guys can't take it out, but the idea that just talking about that, that these vulnerable soft bodies of ours could actually keep something like that for a long time. It's hard for people to understand, I guess.

DR. PAOLA FATA: Yes certainly, I think you definitely don't go chasing after bullets that are going to cause like more injury. Then I think for families, I don't know, my experience has been a little bit different. I think when you explain that, they do get a sense. They get wrapped around it. I think part of it is also you know cultural and they believe that you've got to get the word out and that something bad could happen. You know they could get infected and cause even more harm. But I think it may just be all sorts of a metaphor. You know, there's so much disbelief and so much-- I think probably from the reaction of the fact that this is such an unexpected event, that people, when you are dealing with families, or I am dealing with families, I think there's a lot of denial and anger. We heard from Dr. Lawless, too. But not directed necessarily at you, probably the situation. And people feel that things are all out of their control and I think that sense, what's going on early on, is probably driving a lot of the reaction.

DR. BERNARD LAWLESS: I was just going to add and unlike most people don't get to rehearse their reaction to a catastrophic event. And so I think that's where you got to see that range of how to cope, where to direct their anger, their disbelief that the tragedy is huge.

AMT: I want to play something for you.

SOUNDCLIP

EYEWITNESS 1: I was walking down the escalator and someone got hit beside me, and ran down full of blood. I just went into a classroom.

INTERVIEWER: And you were [unintelligible] enough inside the classroom?

EYEWITNESS 1: Yes we put tables and stuff in front of the door and the police came to get us about 20 minutes later.

INTERVIEWER: So you just left the building.

EYEWITNESS 1: I got out like five minutes ago.

INTERVIEWER: And what was running through your mind all the time.

EYEWITNESS 1: I wanted to get out.

EYEWITNESS 2: I just started to hear like bang bang bang, like super close. Instantly I thought fire fireworks or something like that. And I saw someone with a gun holding a gun up, seemed black, I'm pretty sure. And then I asked someone just dropped to the floor. As soon as they saw that I literally just ran.

EYEWITNESS 3: We were sitting outside. We heard them shooting. I thought it was fireworks and we heard them shooting, and we ran inside and then they came in the restaurant. He shot the girl right in front of me.

AMT: You can hear the urgency in those voices. That's really emotional. Voices of eyewitnesses in two mass shootings in Canada. The first, Dawson College in Montreal 2006. The second a set of eyewitnesses there on the Danforth in Toronto last summer. Bernard Lawless, you were called in the night of the Danforth shooting. Tell us about that night and how it began for you.

DR. BERNARD LAWLESS: So you go in to any sort of period of time when you’re on call, always expecting that you could get called in. It only takes me about six or seven minutes to go to the hospital. And by the time I had arrived I think a number of the victims had already arrived. You may we prepare for these types of things, when you may receive multiple casualties at the same time and having the teams in the emergency department who are properly able to also help assess which victims are which patients need more urgent intervention, or which ones seem stable. And recognising I think that one thing that I was unsure of was how many more were possibly coming in. So that was the unknown piece of the entity. But clearly when I had arrived even at the emergency department there is lot of ambulances, lots of police cars. That I think to me was the signal of the magnitude of the event.

AMT: So you kick in right away. You just start, like the tumbler start turning in your head about what needs to be done.

DR. BERNARD LAWLESS: It's immediate and you even start thinking about that before you go to the hospital. You anticipate the worst case scenario and how to be prepared for that.

AMT: Fatah, you were not on duty the day of the Dawson College shooting, but you were at the hospital. What happened?

DR. PAOLA FATA: I was actually on vacation and I was doing charts which is probably the most boring part of my work. Then I heard the code orange. I walked down to the emergency room and saw some of my colleagues already there. And I think that's one of the things you started doing when you don't know anything. You just start sort of slowing down your thinking, what do we know about the events, who is coming in. We were all sort of waiting and we were all waiting for the patients. And we didn't know how many were coming, and we didn't know how many shooters there were. We just sort of had intermittent reports and I think that was the hardest part. With events like that, I think what's key is really to keep communications going, communications from the pre-hospital into the hospital, so that we can kind of just and respond to anticipate. And I think that that was what was happening at the time. And I think that's probably why we saw a reasonably good outcome in this case.

AMT: How does the emotional impact of those kinds of mass shootings differ from other shootings where you might be treating somebody?

DR. BERNARD LAWLESS: Again, you don't always appreciate what's been happening or the why or the how it happened or the circumstances that happened. And when you think back to some of those events I think that seem more random, that seem to have involved a significant number of victims who really are innocent bystanders and out maybe for an evening with their family, or out you know doing what they would do during a regular day, and you think of the magnitude of the number of people who are injured and impacted by that. It has a certain sense of just lack of being able to comprehend the whole piece behind it. And so the impact I think gets especially when you know the magnitude of it, the senselessness of it, the impact on the victims all leads you to really reflect and I think you have to spend some time personally sorting through that. And also then with your colleagues and with other people who may have been involved in things like that, in terms of debriefing. You know those events which are a large scale often of course generate large media coverage and that contributes I think to the emotion that people feel around those things. But you also have a Tuesday night where two people could be shot and come in, and the same feeling of like senselessness, and how could this happen, and whether they were involved in crime activity or whether they were innocent bystanders. The same element occurs and I think it's important not to lose sight of--.

AMT: What's important for us to remember that because you are dealing - as you say - with all sorts of variations of the shootings. Paola Fatah, mass shootings in Canada generate a huge amount of media coverage. You see a danger in that?

DR. PAOLA FATA: Well I think the coverage is important. I think that we need to kind of address it as a problem. I think we need to see it for what it is, it's called a public health crisis. I think that that's very important.

AMT: Do you do you think that gun violence in Canada is a public health crisis?

DR. PAOLA FATA: I think when you're looking at the scale of what is happening, I think it is a public health crisis.

AMT: Bernard Lawless?

DR. BERNARD LAWLESS: Yes I think we definitely have to look at it as a public health crisis. And I think there's been a lot of discussion in the media recently around whether it's a public health issue or not, and do physicians have a role in playing and highlighting that it's a public health issue, and is it even anything that physicians should be weighing in on. And I think as a trauma surgeon when you think about what we do on a day to day basis, if you equate it to other types of injury and the role that we play in trying to promote injury prevention or understanding the quote "epidemiology or the science behind injury" and those things that we work towards to decrease injury. So whether it's wearing helmets when you're bicycling, or wearing seat belts when you're driving your car, or making sure that you don't drink and drive. Those are all things that you know campaigns that have had highlight by various groups around how we can create a decrease in injury rates. As a trauma surgeon you think that there is really no accidents and really most injury is preventable.

AMT: Paola Fatah, in the US we see surgeons speaking on a response to the National Rifle Association suggestions that doctors should quote "stay in your lane" and keep quiet on the subject of gun control. There would be people in Canada who would agree with that, that doctors don't have a place in the politics surrounding this kind of thing. What would you say to them?

DR. PAOLA FATA: Well I would say treating patients, treating victims of gun violence is what I do and what I have always done so I consider it also my lane. A lot of us agree. We see those consequences immediately like in terms of life threatening injuries and also the consequences and sort of how it erodes patience, how it alters their lives sort of forever no matter what the injury is. Even if the injury never put them at risk for their life, it still alters them sort of on an emotional basis. And then you look at the communities and the families and how those people are irrevocably altered. I think if you forget the consequences, I think then we have to do more than what we're doing now. And I think it's a responsible thing especially to come up with a statement and ask for a deeper awareness, changes in our policy and approach to sort of even what we do with evidence behind us.

AMT: Paolo you have made the point that we see recalls of a very items that are damaging.

DR. PAOLA FATA: Well I said that as a joke. I said that we don't think twice about recalling romaine lettuce and it's killed far fewer people. Yet, we won't touch the gun law. I think it's probably there is also politics involved and there's probably strong sentiment about our freedoms. But yes, we do a lot more for romaine that we do for guns in Canada.

AMT: Lawless, what do you think?

DR. BERNARD LAWLESS: You know it's challenging and I think when you think about it from a political perspective, you cannot capture the nuance of anything that potentially can be done at looking at any sort of prevention strategies from a single sound bite. We need to ban guns, or not ban guns, or these types of guns, or restrict these guns but allow these types of other guns or rifles or things like that. And so I think it begs a more thoughtful discussion between many people who could be involved in the fact that contribute to gun violence. Canada has reasonably good regulations around buying a gun and license to buy a gun and renewing those licenses and things like that. You know it's too easy from an emotional standpoint to say 'okay well let's call for a ban on handguns'. Because then you have to think about well that may be okay but then what do we do from a policing perspective. How is that going to impact on people who obtain guns illegally? What does that do from a social or criminal justice system in terms of those pieces that also have to be considered I think when we when we talk about these things?

AMT: How does that affect each of you at the end of the day when you go home and you think about lives that have been altered forever by a bullet?

DR. PAOLA FATA: When I look at the actual patients and their injuries it doesn't really affect me as much. The things that mark me in my day, after events like that or after a call, it's really been about the discussions I've had with the family. Recognising that that person has individual value and what that person meant around that family, I think that to me is the hardest part of what I do.

AMT: Bernard Lawless, what about you?

DR. BERNARD LAWLESS: You know it's easy in a sense to describe how we can be methodical about approaching injuries from gun violence. And it seems very sterile and separated from all the other pieces that could be impacted. But I think at the end of the day we're human and you can't divorce yourself from seeing the impact that it has on patients and families. You have to be careful I think about how much of that weighs on you from a day to day basis, or else it can be a bit crippling and then you can't function the way that you need to in the moment that you should. And so you have to have a mechanism of how you kind of deal with that. But I think the important thing is to recognise that if there are things we could be doing to decrease the burden of these types of injuries then we need to look for those opportunities, and explore those and have the right discussion with policymakers or a dominant decision makers or other people who are in the sphere of researching why there is gun violence in society and the other factors that contribute to it. And that I think an element of at least provide you with out that thought about were roaming sense of despair of looking at the negativity that you can see when you see that somebody has been shot, and the injuries that they have and the very significant impact it has on them and their families or other communities, and look for those opportunities of where can we make a change or where can we take relevance from the experience that we have in seeing these things and witnessing these things to craft something that hopefully makes a difference.

AMT: How big is that piece of metal?

DR. BERNARD LAWLESS: About the size of from the last joint on your pinky to the tip of your fingernail often.

AMT: So it’s not a very big piece of metal but it has this incredibly lasting effect.

DR. BERNARD LAWLESS: Well it comes with a huge amount of energy behind it. And I think we need to maybe search out ways of having an equal amount of energy from a societal perspective of looking at other things that we might be able to do different, or address those elements I think contribute to gun violence in our society.

AMT: Okay we'll leave it there. Thank you.

DR. BERNARD LAWLESS: Thank you.

DR. PAOLA FATA: Thank you.

AMT: Bernard Lawless is a trauma surgeon at St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto. And Dr. Paola Fata is a trauma surgeon and associate professor of surgery at McGill University. Our series One Bullet, a CBC investigation into the impact of gun violence in our country, One Bullet One Person at a Time, was produced by The Current Jessica Linzey and Joan Webber. Monday on the program we're going to try to answer questions we've been getting from you all week and to share some of your stories. Stay with us. In our next half hour, the case for indigenous ownership of the Trans Mountain pipeline and some unwelcome onscreen appearances of the Lac Megantic free train disaster. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. This is The Current.

Back To Top »

Indigenous ownership won't solve problems with Trans Mountain pipeline, says Squamish Nation councillor

Guests: Khelsilem, Stephen Buffalo

AMT: Hello I'm Anna Maria Tremonti and you're listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

[Laughs and cheers]

Who won in court against this project? The process was flawed, that the consultation was inadequate that the Trudeau government did not respect our rights as a people.

AMT: Cheers from indigenous activists in British Columbia last summer after a Federal Court of Appeal put a major roadblock in the way of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion which would carry oil from Alberta to the B.C. coast. The court overturned the federal government's approval of the project, after finding the feds hadn't done enough to consult with First Nations. And as you may recall, the federal government at the time was already in the process of buying the controversial pipeline for 4.5 billion dollars in order to get it built. The future of the project and its ownership is unclear. But at a conference this week in Calgary one possibility under discussion is for First Nations groups to purchase the pipeline. The Conference of indigenous leaders and oil executives was put on by the Indian Resource Council of Canada. It represents more than 130 First Nations groups with oil and natural gas resources on their land. Their president and CEO is Stephen Buffalo and he joins me from Calgary. Hello.

STEPHEN BUFFALO: Good morning.

AMT: Why do you want indigenous groups to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline?

STEPHEN BUFFALO: Well first off, as an advocacy group for the oil and gas producing First Nations, they're definitely feeling the pinch with the price differential without having world market access. And you know there's been interest. There's been four or five different groups that have come forward and either met with TMX or met with the federal government, in regards to participating in equity owners or what have you. We talked to create some sort of forum for that dialogue. You know it's a long way to go but we need to come together. Because right now industry and government are looking at first nations as 'okay, who do we talk to?' And we are trying to create that form.

AMT: So you met with the oil executives and other First Nations leaders who have oil and gas assets on their land yesterday. What kind of models have you been discussing? Give us an idea.

STEPHEN BUFFALO: Well you know we could always reference the Fort McCoy and [unintelligible], Suncor Gas form model which you know went to the bond markets which is oversubscribed. It was proof that the industry and First Nations can do business together. You know there's other models out there. Obviously some of our issues are investment capital and where we can get that in oil. You know I think as we move along these creative ways that our nations can participate. So you know we've heard four different models yesterday. In [unintelligible] was this the tip of the iceberg. It was kind of an introduction. I think we're going to probably move to another type of meeting and conference to talk about those models. If there is anything out there that's innovative- It's a long way to go yet.

AMT: So are you talking about full indigenous ownership or are you do some kind of by partnering with perhaps some prostrations and the Feds? Like give me an idea of the range of what you might be looking at.

STEPHEN BUFFALO: Well in a perfect world of course I'd love to see 100 percent ownership, even though at the end of the day, 634 dividends cut to our communities each fiscal year. But saying that I know that there are some communities out there that [unintelligible] pipelines. But there are different models that we can look at. It is really an early stage to see how are we going to be dealing with this.

AMT: You had some energy executives meeting with you yesterday what was their response like?

STEPHEN BUFFALO: Well of course you know the industry is going to benefit tremendously if we can get this pipeline built. You know, I'm among very excited to be part of the Canadian Energy Executive Association, a.k.a. the oilmen. They've done a tremendous job in reaching out and trying to bridge that gap with First Nations in regards to their development, because they understand that without First Nation participation, it's really tough to get development moving forward.

AMT: And what about the federal government? Have you had any kind of conversations already with federal officials, either fort of back room or...?

STEPHEN BUFFALO: Yes. You know indirectly. We actually when Minister Morneau was in Calgary we did try to reach out to him. Partly Ministers so [unintelligible] we had the minister and we presented something to him. But as you know the dialogue has been just kind of a 30 second meeting. We reached out to the minister Sohi to attend here. Unfortunately he could not. But you know what's promising is the provincial government is a step forward in a big way. Premiere could not be here yesterday due to the [unintelligible] that she had to attend. But understanding that she communicated with us that she had good intentions of being here and she had spent two minutes just to attend in in to join us in our meeting here. So you know as far as the federal government is concerned, it's really difficult. But our intention is to at least have sort of consensus is on something and then be able to continue to dialogue with the federal government.

AMT: And what would the Indian Resources Council of Canada bring to the table with this? What are the benefits of having you have ownership or a majority or close to a majority ownership?

STEPHEN BUFFALO: Well you know I think part of the ownership, it definitely gives us a different form of revenue for our communities. But technically we don't want to be the owner of the pipeline. Obviously we would be working with industry itself. Or maybe they're managing. But those are conversations we have to have down the road. But let me tell you this, if we have First Nation ownership, it's our people that are going to be doing the monitoring. The pipeline regulations in are already world-class. It's in our job that we continue to build that capacity and helping people understand what this really is. You know I have to say that right now, pipelines are the safest way to move this bitumen. It's our job to ensure that our own people can understand that the whole industry before it's criticized the way it is whether. The oil gas industry is not responsible for poisoning of salmon. It's not responsible for the effect it has on killer whales. There are other factors. I hope people understand.

AMT: That just this week the Winnipeg based International Institute for Sustainable Development released a report, saying that the Canadian government has not conducted an analysis of how the international effort to avert the worst effects of global warming would affect the long term profitability of that pipeline. And it's warning that that kind of risk assessment must be done for investors. How do you respond to that?

STEPHEN BUFFALO: Well there's other factors that lead to that. We've heard presentations yesterday about the continuous need for oil and gas. Some of the new serious you know you look at them. It's a little hypocritical if they're generally a big diesel truck. We need to continue to build capacity and understanding where those are coming from. Like here in Canada what we do here in Canada in the oil and gas industry, our regulations are world class. So you know we have to do some further dialogue on this report. But right now, like I said, oil and gas here in Canada is not a problem. There're other problems all over. For some reason now the attack has been primarily against this industry.

AMT: Thank you for your thoughts, Stephen Buffalo. Thanks for bringing us up to date on your meeting. Thank you.

STEPHEN BUFFALO: Thank you. Thanks for having me.

AMT: Stephen Buffalo president and CEO of the Indian Resources Council of Canada. He joined us from Calgary. Some first nations are helping to take ownership of the trans mountain project but others remain resistant to its expansion. Khelsilem is a Squamish Nation counselor and spokesperson. He's joining us from our Vancouver studio. Hello.

KHELSILEM: Hi.

AMT: I'm wondering what you think of what Steven Buffalo was saying, he just said oil and gas is not the problem.

KHELSILEM: Well I think the problem for the Squamish Nation and I think for a lot of First Nations with this project is the way it's been proposed, the way it's been reviewed, the way that it continued to cause problems in the relationship between the crown and indigenous communities. And then there's that aspect of it and there's the problem about you know the future of our country and the future of our communities to play such an emphasis infrastructural. Like this project as opposed to other types of investment that could be made into renewable energies and things like that. So there's a number of aspects that are challenging. I think when it comes to the Trans mountain pipeline it's got a lot of risk to our communities especially on the coast, to protect our inlets and our communities and our oceans. But there's also just a lot of concern around the future of our world.

AMT: So the idea of a consortium of first Nations groups taking ownership of the Trans Mountain Project, does that does that alleviate any concerns for you? Would you support that?

KHELSILEM: No, for us it doesn't change anything, whether it be Texas based company, whether it be the federal government, whether it be the [unintelligible] council, the issues on the ground remain. The Squamish Nation has maintained throughout this entire process that the lack of respect for our jurisdiction over an indigenous government is just not present. And that any project that's coming through our territory, depending on the scale and scope, needs to be fully assessed by our own nation to determine, to put potential impact in how what we're going to do about the project or whether we support it or not. And so we continue to press the government broadly in where our communities live and where our territory. We have title to the land with our neighboring nations, it continue to remain unresolved issues. And we need to have jurisdiction over what happens to our territory and we don't support the project in its current form. There are a lot of questions that remain around the impacts of this project. And the government and the [unintelligible] process has failed to do a proper assessment.

AMT: The Indian Reserves Council makes the point that it represents one hundred thirty first nations, with oil and gas assets on its land. But you just make the point that that's not your territory. You have jurisdiction over another piece of land one that comes on it.

KHELSILEM: That's the main principle too. It's like, say they want to purchase the pipeline, and there is a number of First Nations that seem to be interested in that. And there are some along the road that have expressed their interest in that. But the reality is that other First Nations don't have a say over what happens in our territory, just that we don't have a say to happens to their territory. So they wanted to build a oil and gas pipeline in their backyard, they're welcome to do that. But we're standing up and looking out for the interests of our people, future generations and the rights of our people. And there's a lot of issues to consider in this. When it comes to the risk to our communities on safety, the risk to our inlet, the risk to our economy. I mean the Squamish Nation has a number of business opportunities and we are expanding our economic development portfolio. And the threat of a oil spill or a pipeline leak in a major area in our territory will put risk on economic growth. So there's competing visions for what economic growth looks like for our communities. I think other communities have to do what they have to do for themselves. But that doesn't mean that they get to push their view on us.

AMT: Do you think he'd be ever negotiate with them in a way that would be more advantageous to both sides than if you're negotiating with others?

KHELSILEM: Well I think the issue is still relies on The Crown. As we've seen recently in a number of issues in the news and events, The Crown had a duty to hold the responsibility and the honour of the Crown. And the way they conduct themselves in this project as [unintelligible] owners but also as - in this case - the federal government to approve the project and apply conditions to the project. And then of those also remains there unresolved issues that are making their way to the courts as well. So we have no reference case happening by the British court the government has been opposed to the project. We have other appeal cases going forward on the provincial level. And then who knows what happens with the federal court case. The federal government kind of does the same redo what i did last time. They might be looking at another federal court challenge.

AMT: Well the Crown says it will sell, the Canadian government says it will sell this pipeline, not for at least a year, but it plans to sell it. Would you prefer to have some indigenous ownership of that pipeline?

KHELSILEM: It doesn't change anything for us about who the owners and it didn't change when it went from Kinder Morgan into the federal government. [Unintelligible] First Nation group or other. It wouldn't change our opposition to it, our concerns to project and what we're expecting in terms of the relationship between the government and the proponent and our nation.

AMT: And we certainly know that the federal government is going forward with consultations. We know that, again, the Winnipeg based International Institution for Sustainable Development says it has not conducted analysis of how the effort to combat the effects of global warming are going to affect its long term profitability. But it should the Canadian government do all the analysis is that it is supposed to do, is there anything that will make you feel better about that pipeline or do you remain opposed to it regardless?

KHELSILEM: Our position has been that there are a number of questions that remain unanswered. That's what we are dealing with the Federal Court of Appeal. We will communicate that repeatedly during the previous round of consultation to any [unintelligible] is that there is adequate level of investigation and research into the impacts of a number of aspects of this project. And we want to have control and influence over that investigation and that review, and the ability to apply conditions to the project. So at this point based off of all the information that we have, we remain opposed and we keep demanding that there needs to be more research and more analysis done, that takes into account more than just with the [unintelligible] would and take from that to our own prospective.

AMT: If you get that, if you get the analysis and the consultation that you want, would you be opposed to the pipeline, if you had more of a say in the conditions?

KHELSILEM: At this point we don't know because we don't know what we're going to find out from having the ability to do more research. For example the impacts of oil [unintelligible]. That is one aspect of the company and the federal government refused to allow our experts to be able to do proper analysis, because the products that they're shipping is not considered proprietary. And so they've pumped it full of all these chemicals are transported through the pipeline and they keep it as proprietary right in terms of the content. And so we actually can't do analysis on what would happen with the information available. So that is really harmful. So there is a lot of aspects where we need to find out the answers before they're able to determine what our final position, whether we're going to find a way to be supportive or whether we're going to remain opposed.

AMT: Okay well thank you for your time today.

KHELSILEM: Thank you.

AMT: That's Khelsilem, Squamish Nation counselor and spokesperson. He joined us from Vancouver.

Back To Top »

Removing Lac-Mégantic images from Netflix shows should be 'no-brainer,' says academic

Guest: Robert Thompson

AMT: You are listening to The Current series and CBC Radio 1 and Sirius XM. I am Anna Maria Tremonti.

SOUNDCLIP

Quite simply it was out of a good old movie. Fireball coming out of the downtown of Lac Megantic. The thud in the chest from the shockwaves, bright lights and huge bang also. It was a fireworks display from hell. Where the train derailed is within 50 feet from Main street. The big fire is still raging. You still have a big plume of smoke coming out. Half of downtown is gone.

AMT: That is an eye witness report on CBC from July 6th of 2013. It was a catastrophe that killed 47 people in Lac Magentic, Quebec. As the first responders said it was like something out of a movie. Now it seems those hellish images have made their way into fictional programming on Netflix. A Netflix series called Travellers included footage from their real life disaster in an episode. And the new movie Bird Box, also on Netflix has done the same. For people of Lac Megantic this is disturbing. Here's the Mayor Julie Morin speaking this week, in translation.

SOUNDCLIP

The good news is that the producers reacted quickly, but we need to denounce these types of practices because it really shows a lack of respect for their families in mourning, among others.

AMT: Well we contacted the president of the production company behind the show Travelers. Carrie Mud's sent us the statement it reads in part, and I'm quoting: "We acquired this footage from a stock footage vendor and weren't aware of its specific source. We sincerely apologize and had no intention to dishonor the tragic events of 2013". End quote. The statement goes on to say that the footage will be replaced and new policies will be adopted to ensure it does not happen again. The stock footage vendor has also apologized and it is reviewing its policies. Netflix has said it is taking steps to remove the footage from Travellers but the footage will remain in the film Bird Box. Of course any time producers of a fictional drama used real life footage of disasters where real people have lost their lives, it is a fraud undertaking. For more on the ethics involved we've reached Robert Thompson. He's the director of the Bleier Center for Television and Popular Culture at Syracuse University and he is in Syracuse, New York. Hello. Welcome back.

ROBERT THOMPSON: Thank you for having me.

AMT: Now what do you think of this use of real footage of carnage, in the specific example first of all, in these shows?

ROBERT THOMPSON: Well I think in this specific example it was a terrible oversight. I can see how it happens. But to say that you just make moves and grab stock footage and have no idea what the context is, I think that's really irresponsible movie making. Now I would say that if these were films about the tragedy, of course documentaries are going to be used all the footage they can get about things that have happened, but even fictionalized versions often go to footage so they can show what would actually happen. And I think that that's a typical practice that makes perfect sense. The fact however, is that these images of people dying in a horrible tragedy are being used in a completely different context, in not one but two things Netflix which is kind of breathtaking when you think about it, that I think is a really careless oversight.

AMT: So let's look at the wider picture here. How do the development of photography and change the way we can fictionalize history?

ROBERT THOMPSON: Well of course photography changes everything. For the first, I mean it used to be that newspapers sent artists down to you know the battle of New Orleans or whatever, and they would draw pictures of it. Photography of course immediately allow you to capture exactly what was happening and of course motion photography, even more so. Therefore, I think when we have pictures moving or still of really really terrible things, from the still photographs from the battlefields of the Civil War to certainly I suppose the most extreme case would be the World Trade Center, that photography, those images immediately acquire a certain kind of sacred stared at. It's not as though you're not going to show them or play them. We've all seen the Challenger blow up played over and over and over when that story happened and of course September 11. However I think the context in which one uses those have to be very carefully, if not from a legal standpoint which this really isn't a legal issue, but certainly from an ethical standard.

AMT: So in other words if someone's doing a film based on a true story related to that Carnage that might not cross the line versus someone doing a movie that has nothing to do with anything to do with that thing but that they think instead of like creating their own set, they just use that one.

ROBERT THOMPSON: Yes. I mean I think if this were - and of course we have to judge whether it was done responsibly and respectably and whatever - but if it was a movie based on this event of 2013, I can see many situations where using news coverage and actual footage would be appropriate, even if it were fictionalized and dramatized. To, however, take pictures of a town exploding and people who have died - many people have died - to just use it as a way to plug in something that looks like an apocalyptic event, I think that's something entirely different.

AMT: In 1961, the movie Judgment at Nurnberg used actual video from concentration camps and movie goers watched thousands of dead and naked bodies being bulldozed into pits. Should they have been used in a Hollywood movie?

ROBERT THOMPSON: I don't I think that was an appropriate use of that. By the way that was the 1961 Hollywood movie version. There was a 1959 live television version of Judgment at Nurnberg that played two years earlier and also used that footage. It was incredibly alarming footage. Some of the most horrible images I think ever to be captured on film. But that was a story about war criminals and their trial. That's what it was about. And I think one of the ways one continues to remember and continues to tell generations about how history has gone down, including horrible things like that, are these kind of dramatized shows. So I evolved I have an ethical problem at all. As a matter of fact, I think that was a very effective way of showing the horror of those historical events to an audience, many of whom had never seen those before. That's very different than what we saw in Bird Box or Travelers. By the way Travelers people have said they're taking it out. As far as I know there's no plans to take out the images from Bird Box. Even though it's only the second one.

AMT: That's our understanding as well.

ROBERT THOMPSON: Which strikes me as- I mean it would seem to me that once one's caught having made a slip like this that fixing it would be number one really easy to do. And number two a no brainer.

AMT: Well you know with today's digital technology, is there really a need for production houses to use stock footage from news event and actual event in their dramas?

ROBERT THOMPSON: There isn't. I mean there are certainly lots of ways you can make things look like horrible things are happening and do it all in the at a laptop. However I think what they look for in going to these libraries is stuff that looks like it's real. It's the production values are lower with hand-held, it's jiggling. They want to give that sense that you know this is like news coverage. And of course that's exactly what they got. But if you're going to go to those kinds of libraries, I think one has to be responsible for knowing what it is you're using. And you know any film maker, a film maker ought to be responsible for every single frame, every single second of what they play. I don't know how this worked. But it's like we've sent an intern to get a film of what looks like disaster and they got what they asked for. But of course now we've got this problem.

AMT: Yes. They should know every frame and their own film.

ROBERT THOMPSON: I would sure think so.

AMT: Robert Thompson good to talk to you.

ROBERT THOMPSON: Always a pleasure. Thank you.

AMT: Thank you. That is Robert Thompson director of the Bleier Center for Television and Popular Culture at Syracuse University. He joined us from Syracuse, New York. That's our program for today. Stay with Radio 1 for Q. Tom Power speaking with Michael Schur state TV writer and producer behind shows including The Office, Parks and Recreation, and Glen Ninety-Nine. Remember you can always take The Current with you to go on a CBC Radio app, free from Google Play or the app store. I am Anna Maria Tremonti. Thank you for listening to The Current.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

Full Transcript for Thursday 17 January, 2019

More Stories Like This