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 March 28, 2019

Host: Anna Maria Tremonti

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

This is something frankly that should never have happened. Democrats and the liberal media owe the president and they owe the American people apology.

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: Sarah Huckabee Sanders has been vocal all week in demanding apologies from journalists even tweeting out her own fun chant of those pundits from TV to Twitter who she believes are the worst offenders of hype and hysteria in the coverage of President Trump and a Mueller investigation. She is not alone in the view that media organizations push the narrative that at times seemed more like a personal crusade to take down the Trumps. So is this a time of reckoning for the mainstream media? We've got that debate in just a moment. Also today.

SOUNDCLIP

It's not a Canadian's business. It's America's. Why shouldn't we do the dirty job for the Americans?

AMT: He was a loud and proud protester holding a 'We love Huawei' sign last December at the Vancouver courthouse in support of executive Meng Wanzhou. But not all Chinese Canadians feel they can be as vocal on either side. In fact the rift between Canada and China has some of the diaspora feeling like suspects in their own country. We're asking how that's playing out in half an hour. And then he has a young child, Lorimer Shenher knew he was the boy. Everyone else saw little girl, except his grandmother.

SOUNDCLIP

She was just sort of make this pronounced: This one. This one looks like a warning. I remember just thinking, yes, I do and I am many and how come nobody else can see this.

AMT: In an hour we bring you the story of one man's long journey to embrace his own transgender reality. While the family he feared he'd lose, chose to love him all the more. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. This is The Current.

Back To Top »

Journalists let 'animus towards Trump' override objectivity in Mueller coverage, says columnist

Guests: John Fund, Sarah Kendzior, Erik Wemple

SOUNDCLIP

I think this has pried away the biggest most consequential screw up of the last 25 to 50 years. It is difficult to really comprehend or overstate the damage that the media did to the country, to their own reputation to the Constitution. This was an absolute catastrophe.

AMT: Strong words from Sean Davis the co-founder of the American conservative website The Federalist. He made those remarks Tuesday on the Fox News show Tucker Carlson tonight and the big screw up he is talking about is a reference to how the media has covered US President Donald Trump's relationship with Russia. With the conclusion of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, and with Attorney General William Burroughs memo saying there was no collusion, The President and his supporters had been on the attack against journalists and media outlets that tried to connect the dots. Here's President Trump on Fox News last evening.

SOUNDCLIP

When I watched all others nonsense. It was fake news just terrible news. The good news is that people never bought it. They get what's happening. Our country is doing fantastically well. So when I had all this in to CNN which is so so so horribly fake. I've never seen anything like this, and MSNBC, the same thing.

AMT: But not everyone thinks the media should be apologizing for its coverage.

SOUNDCLIP

Maybe the press, maybe the New York Times, maybe the Washington Post, maybe the Wall Street Journal, maybe they should just ignore the fact that Don Junior met with a bunch of Russians who said they were going the giving info, dirt on Hillary and he said 'I love it'. Now wait a second, I better contact the FBI because that's what everybody else would have done. He said 'I love it'. Maybe they should just ignore the fact that The President called everybody around on Air Force One and conducted a lie. So let's say, it's about [unintelligible]. I just ask what was the media's supposed to do with that point. Shrug it off?

AMT: Well Joe Scarborough on his MSNBC program Morning Joe set the table nicely there asking what exactly the media was supposed to do with this story. Reporting that to a panel today as part of our occasional Eye on the Media series. So joining me is Erik Wemple The Washington Post media critic he's in Washington D.C. Sarah Kendzior is a writer and cohost of the podcast Gaslit Nation. She's joining us from St. Louis, Missouri and John Fund is a columnist with The National Review. He is in Washington D.C. as well. Hi everyone.

GUESTS: Hi.

AMT: Erik Wemple let's start with you what do you think Sean Davis's assertion that the media did damage to the country and the Constitution through its coverage?

ERIK WEMPLE: Well I think what the media was basically follow along with the Mueller investigation. We have to remember all this talk about media irresponsibility. We have to remember that in May of 2017 to the Justice Department appointed Bob Mueller to pursue the question of whether the Trump campaign may have assisted Russia in its intervention in the 2016 presidential elections. So that's the Justice Department under the Trump presidency appoint a special counsel to look into this. Now that should give you some degree of perspective background for the investigation that the U.S. media undertook here. It was a parallel investigation along with Bob Mueller. There is nothing wrong with doing that. That said sure there are moments of overreach. There were definitely moments of overreach and those were primarily on cable news in cable news outlets should take a look at how that happens and how they use their time. This was in no way undermining the Constitution or anything wrong. This is what the media should be doing which is investigating something that it's own government has said is an important thing to look into. I think we can all agree that there were plenty of signs that there was something awry here. More signs than you could possibly cover in the course of proof in a year. As the media has shown. So that's my point.

AMT: So John Fund, I'll let you jump in here. Some conservative pundits including the editor of The National Review have called the coverage of the investigation into Russian collusion with the charm campaign a disgrace. What do you think?

JOHN FUND: Well it's certainly not just conservative pundits. Reid may actually be the reporter for The Rolling Stone he's an epic takedown and there's Glenn Greenwald, Katrina Vanden Heuvel of The Nation has been very critical of much of the coverage of Russia Gate. Look, let's stipulate two things they can both be true at the same time. I've covered Donald Trump for 30 years in New York City. I certainly could attest to the fact that he is a man of bad character in many respects. He makes things up. He lies. He doesn't honor all of his contract. He [unintelligible]. He's a man of bad character. But the Mueller investigation was about whether or not he was guilty of effectively treason, colluding with Russia to win a presidential election. That's a different standard. In the media, even though they detest Donald Trump - and I can point to all kinds of surveys of reporters who can confirm - that the media has a responsibility to follow its own rules and not step outside his job description to become advocates rather than an informed observer. And it is the responsibility not to connect a whole bunch of dots that not really add up. Yes there were certainly a lot of suspicious activity that deserved attention and the media certainly come out of the fact that Donald Trump was acting guilty. However that doesn't excuse the number of mistakes they made and the fact that time and time again the media abandoned objectivity. I mean I'm an opinion journalist. I was astonished to know how many people in the media suddenly were taking up my cause and becoming opinion journalism rather than the objective journalism that they wanted. And the last point is this: something is clearly wrong when a majority of American people, 50 percent plus, in the latest left USA Today Suffolk University poll, agreed with Donald Trump at the Mueller was a witch hunt. I don't think it was a witch hunt but the media has a reckoning and a responsibility to address the problems with this coverage, because when 50 percent of the American people think the media fame will fail badly, regardless of whether you agree with their conclusion you have a responsibility to address it.

AMT: Sarah Kendzior, what do you think?

SARAH KENDZIOR: That poll is flawed. I encourage people to look at the actual questions as well as the polls that came out now asking whether the report exonerated Trump. The majority of Americans believe that there are only 3 percent difference, since this report came out. I think most Americans realize that this is a four page summary written by a guy who was appointed by Trump to carry out the kind of exoneration of the GOP that he had been doing his whole life, Barr was the guy who exonerated that Europe during [unintelligible]. Before being appointed to Attorney General Barr released the giant memo critiquing the validity of the Mueller probe basically saying it shouldn't exist. That was essentially inside edition for the AG job. He was put in this role to [unintelligible] in plain sight of criticism of the Mueller probe. As a probe I don't think there are enough people were interviewed. I don't think enough people were indicted. But I cannot actually criticise the more they were poor because none of us have actually seen it. And so you know we have right now a coverup. I think that the focus should be on that though we have a government that committed crimes in plain sight and is now committing a cover up in plain sight, in violation of constitutional law. We have a government a president who feels that he can above the law and that's a crisis for the American people. This is not about Trump versus Mueller. This is about public safety and about national security.

AMT: Do you not accept, Sarah, the four page summary that quotes Mr. Mueller as saying there was no collusion?

SARAH KENDZIOR: I don't accept it in part because the only chorded 64 words from the actual Mauler report. The rest of it you know came purely from Barr who I don't think we can consider an objective witness in this process. I would like to see the actual report. It is also notable that there are 64 words that Barr put in there were actually for Mueller, specifically said that Trump has not been exhonerated. So you know I see a bit of a waiting game. I think congress should be demanding to see the actual report. I think the American public is owed the actual report.

AMT: John Fund what should the media have done with this story as it was developing?

JOHN FUND: Oh I think if you go back to previous scandals that the media has covered much more responsibly, I think that they should have not got into what I would call the intelligence industrial complex. The media decided that the same people if that they were suspicious of in the 70s and 80s are the FBI the CIA the national intelligence community, the same people who they were suspicious during the Iraq war when the whole weapons of mass destruction fiasco happened, they suddenly decided that any one of those organizations who have dirt on Trump, or wanted to speak with Donald Trump, or wanted to leak about Trump, deserves a lot more credibility than they did. The bottom line is two things can be again be true at the same time. Yes you do pay attention to authorities and government. On the other hand you also have to look at their motives. And there is all kinds of evidence into how this deal got a year which is we original a lot of this was created who created it, who paid for it. The Democratic National [unintelligible] Hillary Clinton GFP, who used it in giving warrants to eavesdrop on people the Trump campaign. That would be the FBI and the Justice Department. There was plenty of reason to not trust everyone on the FBI, CIA and the intelligence agencies what they were saying. Their previous skepticism which should have existed in the Iraq war and previous scandals wasn't applied here. It turned out that a whole bunch of the leaks did not pan out. Michael Cohen didn't meet with people in Prague. A whole bunch of things were gotten wrong and the media should have been more skeptical, not just of Donald Trump was a man of bad character but their sources.

AMT: Erik Wemple, The Washington Post and The New York Times won Pulitzer prizes for their coverage of President Trump and connections between his campaign and Russia. Was there anything you have seen since the end of the Marlar investigation that undermines their reporting?

ERIK WEMPLE: Interesting question you should ask that because I did look at those Pulitzer submissions, and quite frankly no. This is one of the major points here is that their reporting by and large stands up or stands up completely. I mean a lot of that was investigating. How Michael Flynn was handled. how he lied. What the origin story was for the dossier itself. I would also note that Pulitzer's submission especially on the part of the New York Times, looked back into the whole Comey thing with Hillary Clinton, that established some real real shenanigans by Loretta Lynch in terms of handling the Clinton email investigation when asked James Comey to call it, not an investigation but a matter. And that was something that the Conservatives picked up on. I think rightly so. So you have Sean Hannity and Sean Davis and other people empuning and casting shadow and shade on those Pulitzer prizes. I don't really care about the Pulitzer prize. I care about the reporting behind that. The reporting stands up in one thing else I would say about [unintelligible] is that [unintelligible] did not want the original counterintelligence investigation about Trump Russa, that was other series of events but not the [unintelligible] so the foundational moment in launching this entire FBI counterintelligence probe [unintelligible] did not have anything to do with that.

AMT: I am going to play another clip for you, Sean Davis. And he does mention the Pulitzers but he goes further in how journalists saw this. I want ot know what you guys have to say about that. Listen to him.

SOUNDCLIP

They were given Pulitzers. They were showered with adulation by their peers. They were able to pad it out there on the back and tell them that they were heroes, that they were going to bring down the next president and hold him accountable. There is no incentive in the mainstream media for them to have gotten this right. All the Internet wer in the wrong direction, whether with traffic or viewrship or just ideology. There is no reason for them to get this right.

ERIK WEMPLE: I just to make one point, pursuit to what I was saying earlier which is that the Barr summary says that Barb Mueller did not established collusion or conspiracy. Now he didn't say there was no evidence thereof. A lot of the stuff that won Pulitzer for the prize and for me for the Times and The Post was stuff to toss about the evidence. And I think that there is an important distinction there and a lot of media outlets are saying that the bar summary showed no evidence of conclusion. It didn't say that it just said that. It just said there was no establishment of conspiracy collusion and that is a pretty important distinction. So I'm sorry. You just heard the Sean Davis clip too. Did the media ignore facts because they really wanted this to happen, this to be proven?

SARAH KENDZIOR: I mean if anything I feel like the media ignored facts in the other direction. You know this investigation and this issue did not begin with Mueller. It did not begin with Comey. You can look at 2016 and look at Harry Reid asking for Comey to bring out what he knew was evidence of Trump elicitly collaborating with Russia to the general public. You can look back actually reporting from the 80s from the 90s that extensively documented trumps criminality, the criminality of the Trump administration. His relationship with the Russian mafia. His relationship you know with other criminals worldwide. This is not news feed that was watched in the public eye. Once Trump wine in action I think that the media botched the job during the campaign by not covering his criminality then. And we know why you know we have seen hearings in testimony, that document extensively Trump's use of his use of groups like Michael Cohen to threaten people, to bribe people, to black people. These are tactics that they backed to Trump's work with Mike Cohen [unintelligible] mobster lawyer. This is a very long story. For people to disregard the broader history and the broader context of this story has been a problem of the media all long. And then for them to continue this by going over a four page document written by Trump wackie that ignores the primary source, this is incredibly irresponsible. I mean the first tenet of journalism should be to examine the primary source to make sure the facts are accurate. We do not know at this point if we have an accurate summary of the Mueller report but we do know that that report is being denied to us. And I think people should certainly use common sense that House why that might be so.

AMT: John Fund why should the media accept William Burroughs version that those four pages especially after he was chosen by President Trump, after reading that the Mueller investigation was flawed?

JOHN FUND: Well we certainly should wait for the publication of much of the report which Mr. Borough will be released not all but much because his grand jury testimony, other things will have to be kept secret. I mean obviously the final conclusions will be drawn from that. But remember, a lot of what the media promised was that there was going to be collusion proved and that Donald Trump and his associates operated against the law. There's a standard of ethics which is perfectly appropriate to follow. Did Donald Trump act honorably in making up the fact the fact about the Trump meaning of the Trump Tower? No of course but. But there is a legal standard here. Did he commit crimes? Did his associates commit crimes? Two of them, I think that the media skipped over the ethical part right to the crime part. Let's get real. I've sat in green rooms for the last two and a half years with all kinds of people from the media, including you know bald faced names you'd recognize. Those conversations are off the record. But there was clear animus towards Trumpy, there was a clear belief he was guilty of crimes, there was a clear belief that he had done those things. It was the media's job to nail him the way they nailed Richard Nixon. Now I understand people have personal opinions. I think that in many cases of too many quote objective unquote reporters those personal opinions overrode standards and rules and practices of objective journalism and lead to more mistakes than were necessary. The fact of the matter is whether or not you agree or disagree with it too many of the American people now have too much suspicion about the mainstream media, which I am very sad about. And I think that the media now we have to wait for the Mueller report to make its final conclusions and also it to look in the mirror before they're release and say what can we do better to lower these levels of suspicion among our customers, our general public readers.

AMT: So what lessons can the media learn from the last two and a half years of coverage?

ERIK WEMPLE: I'm just going to say Trump and associates and especially his associates over this past couple years, and I'll defer to Sarah in terms of the counts on everything on this but there is a lot of crime that Mueller prosecuted and got guilty pleas for all these people lying, all these people cheating.

[Cross talking]

AMT: Some of these investigations are ongoing. There are investigations on going.

ERIK WEMPLE: I didn't say it was about collusion but you just said that you know these Trump associates or you know, the media somehow portrayed them as being involved in crime. Well that's what they were involved with.

JOHN FUND: Involved in treasonous activity regarding collusion with Russia.

AMT: You didn't say that you just said crime.

[Cross talking]

AMT: You know what. I'm sorry we are out of time. I'm going to have to stop it there. Thank you all for making the time for us today. But the clock is ticking and I have to say goodbye. Thank you. That is Erik Wemple with the Washington Post. He's the media critic for The Post. Sarah Kendzior is the co host of the podcast Gas Lit Nation. She's the author of The View from Fly over Country. She's in St. Louis, Missouri. John Fund is a columnist with The National Review. He's in Washington. Stay with us. The news is next and then, as diplomatic relations between China and Canada continue to fester, Chinese Canadians are reckoning with their place in it all. We'll hear about that. This is The Current.

Back To Top »

Chinese - Canadians discuss the political fallout from their two countries

Guests: Cheuk Kwan, Karen Woods, Winnie Hwo

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

[Music: Theme]

AMT: Still to come, Lorimer Shenher was the first police detective to look into Robert Pickton's serial murders. Now he's opening up about a dramatic personal journey outside of police work.

SOUNDCLIP

I remember being really puzzled. I've just never known any other mindset or identity than male.

AMT: More from Lorimer Shenher in just half an hour. First when politics and Huawei hit home.

SOUNDCLIP

In the beginning I thought it's going to be a temporary thing, but as the situation getting worse, I'm really concerned. It may not be change any time soon.

AMT: These are anxious times for David Fu. He is a Chinese Canadian farmer who grows canola in Saskatchewan and export it to China. For months now he has been watching as Canada feuds with his most important market. In the time since Canada arrested Huawei CFO Mend Wanzhou on behalf of the U.S., the relationship between China and Canada has gone from bad to worse. Last December Chinese authorities arrested two Canadian men and then charged them with espionage. A move viewed as retaliation for the Huawei arrest. The latest salvo involved China putting even more restrictions on buying Canadian canola, revoking the export rights of a second major company, Viterra, and Chinese importers have stopped all purchases of canola from Canadian producers now according to the Canola Council of Canada. All of this directly affects David Fu who worries the feud he thought was temporary wold end any time soon.

SOUNDCLIP

I don't think the Canadian government can do anything about it. Hopefully they can just do some negotiations with the Chinese partners, but I am not optimistic on this, because the Canadian government doesn't really understand Chinese government's position. For Chinese partners don't know our situation in Canada is. The Chinese people and costumers over there, they get the information from Chinese authorities and the media.

AMT: Well he is not the only Chinese Canadian who feels caught in the middle of this saga. For a look at what this means for other Chinese Canadians I'm joined by three guests. Winnie Hwo is the former news director for Fairchild Television a Canadian Cantonese language media outlet. She is in Vancouver. Karen Woods is the co-founder of the Canadian Chinese political affairs committee. She's also a senior associate at Solstice Public Affairs. Her work at that firm does not relate to China. She joins us from Mississauga. And Cheuk Kwan is the chair of the Toronto association for democracy in China and he is in our Toronto studio. Welcome everyone. Hello.

CHEUK KWAN: Good morning.

KAREN WOODS: Good morning.

WINNIE HWO: Good working Anna Maria Tremonti.

AMT: Cheuk Kwan, I want to start with you. What have you been thinking as you've watched the diplomatic crisis between Canada and China unfold?

CHEUK KWAN: Well I think we are caught between a rock and a hard place. We are basically the power politics of two elephants in the room who are fighting each other. Of course to make it worse, President Trump has made it into a political game of negotiation between China and the U.S. So in a sense where a median middle power, like Australia, like Norway who had also suffered the kind of consequences when we tried to play with the big boys.

AMT: Karen Woods what have you been thinking? What are you feeling as tensions between Canada and China mounted?

KAREN WOODS: Well because I have always worked in politics, so my views are a little bit introspective. I do you agree with Cheuk Kwan that we are definitely caught between a rock and a hard place. We are, because of the power discrepancy ,were not able to sort of maneuver our way out of this. That is also the result of a long time sort of fair approach to China. China strategy has completely failed. It's been dysfunctional. And that's because none of our political leaders have been given much too thought to it lately.

AMT: Winnie Hwo, what are you hearing from family and friends about all of this?

WINNIE HWO: I think there is definitely anxiety. I think what we heard from David Fu is quite indicative of what most people are thinking because it's not just the farmers in Saskatchewan. There is also this entire Chinese Canadian immigrant economy especially in immigrant centers like Vancouver, Calgary and Toronto and so those people depend on that as their livelihood. I can imagine what are thinking right now.

AMT: So there is fear that it will extend to other are specific businesses as well.

WINNIE HWO: I think there's a lot to be looked at beyond the canola situation.

AMT: Tell me a little bit what about that.

WINNIE HWO: I think part of what we're seeing right now is also a reflection of how little Canada or Canadians really know about this Canada-China trade relationship or even the Chinese Canadian situation in Canada. We really know very little. There is this whole immigrant community that depends on anything from tourism, from retail, from services that sell products and services mainly to the Chinese Canadian population across the country. Their economy has to be accounted for. And also there's also a friendship and there's this mentality that why do we have so many Chinese Canadians living in Canada, because Canada was always looked upon through the prism of this. Dr. Norman Bassoon story which was fantastic. It was a story that helps Chinese in China and that really help people in Canada to look at Canada in this particular prism. But right now it seems like this image is even shattered internally among the Chinese Canadian population here.

AMT: Cheuk Kwan what conversations are you having? Does that parallel what you're hearing what Winnie is talking about?

CHEUK KWAN: In this sense but one caution as we have alluded to this whole Chinese-Canadian population. It's a very diverse group. More recently the last two decades we see a lot more immigrants coming in from the mainland who are obviously quote unquote loyal to where they came from and also be proud of what People's Republic of China has become - recently Olympics and so forth. So in that sense we're seeing a little bit of nationalism in the Chinese-Canadian population as well. But the bigger community is more than just the mainlanders. These are people from Hong Kong in the 60s, like myself, who came in the 70s. So you have a very diverse opinions of Chinese-Canadians. I think most of that the Chinese-Canadians, even the new mainland emigrants, tend to see Canada as their country. So they will be on this side of our government in terms of dealing with China. Of course there will be suffering in trade, especially for oil and so forth, but I think everybody is more concerned that there is a fair treatment of the two Canadians that are arrested for example. So in that sense I think the majority of in in tell me of course on Canada's side.

AMT: Karen Woods we reached out to a number of people for this discussion who didn't feel comfortable coming on the air, whether they side with Canada or China or are watching it with a strong opinion like that. What does that tell you about the sensitivity of this issue?

KAREN WOODS: I can't speak on behalf of those people and I would like to caution our viewers and listeners to understand that neither Winnie, Cheuk and myself represent the entire Chinese diaspora. Before I answer your question I just want to give out a few numbers so people can have a better idea. Chinese-Canadians account for 4.5 percent of the population in Canada. So the entire diaspora stands about 1.7 to 1.8 million. Now out of that 1.8 million people only 35 percent are from mainland origin. So Cheuk clain that people from mainland are loyal to China or the Chinese government is not necessarily true. What I think, because I am of the mainland Chinese origin. My parents are form mainland. I came here at a very young age. I might as well just be Canadian. Through interaction with many friends and families in the mainland circle, what I can tell you is that not everybody has this positive feeling toward the Chinese communist government. Although a large majority of them do want a peaceful productive and friendly relationship with China, so it's easy for people to do business, to access another market. I don't know how many of you read the National Post, but three weeks ago our organization the Canadian Chinese political affairs committee just send an open letter to Presindent Xi asking him to release the two Canadians held hostage, because that's not the right thing to do for a superpower. So I think there is a little bit of a fissure if you will, a break from the traditional political stand in the Chinese community itself. And I think we need to realize like any other ethnic group we're very diverse were not monolithic, our opinions are not monopolized by a group of people one way or another.

AMT: And I think it's really important you've made that point and I think it's really important for us to hear that because we are talking about Canadians of Chinese descent. Maybe I shouldn't use the hyphenation. But I'm wondering if you feel that other people get that or if you do feel that there is a degree of xenophobia coming into this as this story goes forward? Let's start with Winnie and we'll go round the table go ahead.

WINNIE HWO: Okay. So I think Anna Maria that is a wonderful question because I think that is the question we need to tackle. At the end of the day it's not about China because we're all living in Canada and we're living in Canada for reason, because we love this notion of the rule of law transparency and freedom. That is why we're here. So I think when I talk about Chinese Canadians being anxious, some of them disappointed, is not about the two extremes of the pro and the anti-China. But it is to those in the middle live the real life and they are looking at this and asking that question. So are there double standard being applied? Are we actually looking at the same criteria for a Chinese company as opposed to the U.S. and Canadian companies? A lot of these questions are being asked and I think that at the end of the day I cannot emphasize more, it's about Canada. It's the Canada that we love, and we want Canada to show up as this brilliant smart country that can not only lead countries like China, because they obviously have a lot of human rights issues and challenges that they need to do better. But then our history with China in terms of this relationship is always that we're helping them to be a better country. And right now we're not seeing that and that is where the stress is.

AMT: Go ahead Cheuk.

CHEUK KWAN: I agree completely with Winnie and Karen. I think as we said there is a whole spectrum. However I want to caution the fact that know the mainstream press the weeks after the CFO of Huawei was arrested, there were a lot of photos of protesters saying 'Free Meng Wanzhou'. Basically we feel these are a small minority. But fortunately they get blown up by the mainstream press as if we have a divided opinion. We don't have a divided opinion. A lot of these people I like to point out, could be agents of the People's Republic of China. It could be people who are sympathetic or being brought out by the Chinese consulate and that's something that the mainstream media has to know about.

AMT: And how would you know that?

CHEUK KWAN: Throughout my 30 year career as the Chair of the Toronto Association for Democracy in China. We deal with elements like that where Chinese government is heavily right now influencing what's happening in Canada, from politicians, to the spreading of propaganda to [unintelligible], to our education system. You know I went through a fight with the Confucius Institute. They were trying to implement teaching Mandarin classes for the Toronto District School Board.

AMT: At the same time the very fact that you say that, then there are people who are going to look at like you know if in fact what you're telling me is that there are some people - and you're saying it's a very small group of people - there are going to be people who will be paid everyone with that brush. That's the problem.

CHEUK KWAN: That's a problem, yes.

WINNIE HWO: But however of that I am sure that like Cheuk's observation is valid but at the same time I got to bring this up as we need to put it in the context of the kind of world that we're living today. We're living in this Trump era that weirder things have happened. So what Cheuk said about all these propaganda measures and tools that these individuals have done on behalf of China allegedly, I have no doubt that those probably happened. But at the same time that doesn't surprise any of us because we know that these other measures that the Chinese regime are used to doing. So at the end of the day it is how we carry ourselves in Canada and we really do need our government to know what they're doing and to be smarter in terms of taking care and knowing that they are Canadians, like the farmers in Saskatchewan, and the tourist agents in cities like Vancouver and Toronto. People would depend on those businesses and also have family and friends and friendship with China. Those things should not be hurt by this round of conflict.

AMT: Okay and Karen Woods, do you want to jump in here? We're talking about the idea the degree of xenophobia there can be a problem and then if there's a small group of people that Cheuk talked about. What do you think that does to the wider view?

KAREN WOODS: I like to be more accurate with the term. I don't think it's so much of xenophobia, but rather than sinophobia. I actually wrote an article about it in the Toronto Star last December just shortly after the arrest of Meng Wanzhou. You have to understand Anna Maria Tremonti, the Chinese Canadian is probably one of the only racialised group that has been officially banned from immigrating to Canada in the early 190s through the Chinese Exclusion Act. So whenever something like that happened and we see pundits who do not necessary majority in China or the Chinese have jumped on the bandwagon sort of accusing massive number of Chinese Cadanian becoming agents of the Chinese government. If you have- I think as a white Canadian you sort of have to understand and be empathetic. How that plays with our psyche. Because you know at the back of our mind we were constantly thinking about 'oh my goodness, when is the next wave of sinophobia coming'. I personally have already seen that after the Meng Wanzhou affair. Are we going to see some symptoms as bad as in the early 50s or 60s in the [unintelligible] where unwarranted suspicion, investigation targeting towards Chinese individuals who work in politics, media, business. I don't think that happen but you can see a number of people of Chinese descent banned from entering politics and media.

AMT: Let me just ask a little bit more about what you're talking about of sinophobia because that brings us to the Huawei question. I mean here is this big corporation that there is other major governments with which Canada is an ally are saying don't let them in. There is a whole issue of security around it. There is also a whole issue of technology. There's lots of big technology companies. And you hear - even with Mr. Trump then he got into a trade war with China - you hear the talk of China as a monolith with companies are marching in lockstep. How does that play in to this whole equation?

KAREN WOODS: It certainly doesn't have a cause, and the Chinese government is just gradually starting to wonder understand that in order to you sort of be a player in this world [unintelligible] itself have to change. Going back to what Cheuk said about foreign student being bussed in a protest. Well my question is does the government do that? Do we not have advocacy groups in Canada that is backed by the Israeli government that are very pro-Israel and we seem to be okay with it? I mean I am certainly not condoning this kind of behavior but in any sort of, if you are like me who’s been involved in politics for a while, you know with protest there will be mobilization. People will we shipped in the you know anytime a union have a protest you bus some workers from out of town as well. Now I think what I would like to dispute with Cheuk's claim is the government has not really been effective with this massive propaganda, targeting people in the diaspora. People at the end of day seem to have a rather independent mind. They are not smart in what the governments think they are even though they might be quiet, but those people are what I call the silent majority, may understand that some position the Chinese government is taking now are now sustainable. And don't necessarily agree and they don't see what the Chinese government [unintelligible] on many issues.

AMT: Karen would like to jump in. Go ahead.

WINNIE HWO: Can I it's interesting and I find that I do agree with Karen in certain points and especially when it comes to China interfering with the Huawei situation because this all started with the Huawei arrest. In fact every step that China actually makes it worse and more difficult for anybody who would try to help in this scenario. So that's one point that's interesting. And on the second point I wanted to raise this also the double standard that I raised earlier. I think in your show yesterday Anna Maria, that you talked about you have this segment on SNC, and one of your commentators Breidbart said SNC is not guilty until proven guilty. So there's a process to proof that. The double standard comes in when we are not allowing the same kind of mentality when we talk about and look at Huawei. I don't know much about the relationship between Huawei and China, but for everything that I have read up since this issue flared up, I think we should actually be allowed to go through this process as SNC is allowed to.

AMT: I'm going to jump in just on the legalities here because the only judicial process going on right now is an extradition process for Meng Wanzhou who the United States has asked for and Canada has an obligation under its extradition treaty to consider that. The bigger question of should Huawei be allowed to operate 5G in Canada is not a judicial question. It is a question of corporate regulation and where security forces are weighing in and foreign policy is weighing in.

CHEUK KWAN: I want to bring us back to the attitude the Chinese government has. I mean you hear all the pronouncements from the Chinese ambassador. They are like lecturing Canada as if it was a parent teaching a child.

[Cross talking]

AMT: We want to invite him on and we can ask him that.

KAREN WOODS: Anna Maria, to be honest here, Ambassador Lu [unintelligible] is accusing Canadians of being white supremacists--

[Overtaking]

CHEUK KWAN: I wish everybody would be like you. Unfortunately not everybody is like you. People do take the words of Chinese Ambassador seriously. I think it's not so much whether we agree with them or not. It's the way he comes across. This is not the kind of dealing that you want to have with--

KAREN WOODS: And you noticed he's gone quieter since.

[Cross talking]

CHEUK KWAN: What I'm trying to say is that in one way Meng Wanzhou is now free on bail walking around Vancouver living in two big houses, while we have two Canadians who are in solitary confinement.

KAREN WOODS: I am totally in agreement with you.

[Cross talking]

AMT: We have to leave it there, we are out of time, I really appreciate all of you coming here. I really appreciate it. Thanks for your time and your thoughts. Winnie Hwa, former news director of Fairchild television Canadian Cantonese language media outlet in Vancouver Karen Woods, co-founder of the Canadian Chinese political affairs committee. Cheuk Kwan, Chair of the Toronto association for democracy in China. This is The Current stay with us.

Back To Top »

Journalists let 'animus towards Trump' override objectivity in Mueller coverage: columnist

Guest: Lorimer Shenhar

Hello I am Anna Maria Tremonti and you're listening to The Current when I first spoke with Lorimer Shenher three and a half years ago, he was here to discuss a book he'd just written about a botched police investigation into a convicted serial killer Robert Pecktin. It was a difficult time and a difficult topic. The former detective had played a central role in the troubled investigation and the experience almost broke him. It left him struggling with PTSD for years. But the legacy of the Picktin case wasn't the only thing Lorimer Shenher was dealing with on the morning of that interview. He had just started hormone therapy Lorimer Shannara is transgender. He was designated female at birth but after a lifelong struggle with gender dysphoria he was beginning the process of transitioning. Lorimer Shenher has written about that experience in a new book, This One Looks Like a Boy: My Gender Journey to Life as a Man, and he's joining me from Vancouver. Hello.

AMT: Hi Anna Maria.

LORIMER SHENHER: You write that you were worried that your voice might crack during our very first interview. You had a lot going on at that time.

AMT: I did. I definitely did. I had just released a book and I`d just started a master’s program and I was transitioning and my father was dying of cancer. So there is a lot happening behind the scenes.

LORIMER SHENHER: And you know I tried to think back after knowing that you felt that night. I don’t remember your voice cracking and I think if it had I wouldn’t have thought anything of it.

AMT: I think it was just wishful thinking on my part actually. You know I thought, well, I’m starting hormones. I guess you know it's going to magically change everything and it took quite a bit more time than that.

LORIMER SHENHER: When did you first now?

AMT: Well really from my first my most early memory. You know I recall being in the bath and my brother and I used to have baths together. And we were you know three to three years old and he's a year older than I am, and I remember being really puzzled because our anatomies, we're different and I'm thinking well, am supposed to have one of those and not understanding why. And I've just never known any other mindset or identity than male.

LORIMER SHENHER: You whispered that to a teacher, it was kindergarten wasn't it?

AMT: Yes. It was kindergarten I wasn't quite five and we were lining up to go into the washroom on the first day of kindergarten and she had told us boys line up overhere. Girls line up over here. And I just went and stood in the boys line. We were just getting ready to go outside and she came up to me and she said how come you're standing the boys line? And I said well I'm I'm supposed to be a boy. And she put her arm on my head over her hand on my arm and just said okay well that's you know I think that should be something that you only share with really good friends and I'm your friend. But you know I think you should keep this yourself but know how you feel inside. I remember just this profound feeling of sadness and understanding in that moment that that's how it was and that she understood how it would be for me. You know even in 1969 because that's what we're talking about. So it was profoundly sad.

LORIMER SHENHER: Was your gender ever something that was discussed in your family?

AMT: No not in any conscious or sort of overt way. I definitely know there were efforts I think through the years to try to push me toward more feminine pursuits and more feminine friendships. It was all very much very much subconscious.

LORIMER SHENHER: Who said this one looks like a boy? Where did that phrase come from?

AMT: My grandmother, my dad's mum. She had so many grandchildren. I honestly don't think that she ever even knew my name. But she said she would just sort of look over us if we were all playing and visiting at her house in Regina when she was retired by that point, and she was just sort of make this pronouncement this one. This one looks like a boy. You know and everyone just-- nobody really said anything and we just carry on. But I remember just thinking, yes, I do and I mean how come nobody else can see this.

LORIMER SHENHER: Well what was that like for you growing up? Because you were in Calgary and your growing up Catholic and it was the 70s.

AMT: You know Calgary in those days, it isn't like it is now where I might be exposed to to role models or messaging or stories of LGBTQ people. I mean there is literally nothing in the zeitgeist or anywhere in Alberta of the 1970s that would give me any indication that I wasn't the only person in the whole world who was like this. So it was very isolating lonely realization for me I guess.

LORIMER SHENHER: And so where did you find your support? What did it feel like to know what you knew and not being able to have an outlet to talk about it? Go back to that time and tell me what that felt like.

AMT: I don’t think that I even though hopefully enough to search for support. I think that it was more a question of coping and how to try to find a way for me to get through my life the way I was and as female, and to try to find ways to make that more manageable. It never really occurred to me that it was at all within the realm of my grasp too to think about transitioning. There just wasn't even on the table at all.

LORIMER SHENHER: When did you realise that could be possible? Who was out there?

AMT: I read a book which was by Christine Jorgensen who was one of the first people to transition and this was back I think in the 50s. And she was an American who went to Europe and had gender confirmation surgery and she wrote about it and she was quite a strong and I think quite grounded in her gender identity. And I read this book about her. It was her are a biography and I I was just gobsmacked that this was possible and you know elated to know that I wasn't the only person out there. But almost just as profoundly I was again so sad, because I thought right away, I thought well that person really has it together and they can do this. I could not possibly do this without losing my family, losing everything. I couldn't even conceive of it. You know I was probably 12 when I read that book.

LORIMER SHENHER: You ended up meeting somebody didn't you, a man who was trans.

AMT: Yeah I worked as a bingo caller, one of my summer jobs the Calgary Stampede. I was maybe 15 and our boss who owned the bingo tent was a man named Shirley. And you know when we first met him it wasn't that clear to me, really everything physical about him indicated to me that he was a man, and it was only his name that kind of give me [unintelligible]. But one day he called me into his little office you know in the corner of the bingo tent and said 'I want you to call the numbers would you be interested in doing that?' And I said sure you know it's kind of a bingo promotion and I felt the sense that he wasn't really ready for me to leave. And I stood there for a sec and then he said 'I see looking at me kind of wondering what my deal is'. And I was 15 and I thought oh you know I've offended him or somehow I've been caught out in some way. And he was just very reassuring and he said 'I think that you and I are quite similar'. And he started to talk to me about his experiences growing up and I started asking questions. He was very reassuring to me. He said 'if this is who you are too, it's going to be okay. You're going to be okay', because he had essentially been a runaway because his parents had rejected him early on. He'd run away. He'd started on bingo. And that was his survival story. And he just encouraged me to hang in there, try to listen to my parents and try to stay true to myself but to sort of see the bigger the bigger picture and to know that I was going to be okay. That had a huge impact on me in terms of just giving me the smallest shred of hope.

LORIMER SHENHER: Do you know what happened to him?

AMT: I have no idea. You know I would love to know but I don't. I never saw him again after that.

LORIMER SHENHER: It'd be interesting to talk to him, years later and talk about how that impacted you. So you say this is about the age of 15 and so you know you want to do something about this but you don't even really understand what's possible.

AMT: Yeah and I think that anything that I was aware of that was possible there was always sort of this asterix beside it where I thought, well it's possible for everybody but not for you because - and I don't know if it was because I felt I wasn't strong enough. I definitely had a sense that maybe my skin wasn't thick enough to put myself in a place of being such a profoundly marginalized person, in a world that was so unwelcoming to trans people, and to very seriously risk losing my family.

LORIMER SHENHER: And you move from Alberta to Vancouver. Why?

AMT: Well for a lot of reasons. Alberta felt very depressive to me on so many levels. I worked as a reporter there for a few years then I was covered indigenous issues. Just be exposed to that kind of racism and you know a lot of the things about Alberta that I find challenging. It was a natural move for me. I'd also applied to the bank of Ripley's force which was sort of a funny change of direction for me.

LORIMER SHENHER: Because you had been working as a reporter.

AMT: I had been and then I loved that and I actually saw that as my future and my passion but it also at that time I'd come out to my parents as transgender and it didn't go well. And I felt like getting away and I felt like going into a position, a vocation maybe where I didn't have to worry about what I wore to work every day. I could wear something very asexual in a uniform. I would have stable pay and benefits. And I really naively thought that there would be so many great things for me to read about that that this would be a real boon to my rating. And it actually ended up being the opposite because I couldn't read about a lot of the things I saw. And I also found it also emotionally challenging that it took me a lot of years to sort of tap in to writing about these things that I was so close to.

LORIMER SHENHER: There was also a gender dysphoria clinic in Vancouver, the only one in western Canada at the time.

AMT: There was and that was a big draw for me because prior to moving there I had gone out to Vancouver for a day to be assessed at that clinic and they have psychiatrists and psychologists. They ran you through a bunch of different tests I guess and discussions. And at the end of the day I was determined to suffer from quote unquote "true transsexualism". And so that's actually what it prompted me then to go home and tell my parents that I was transgender and that I was considering transitioning.

LORIMER SHENHER: And when you say it didn't go well what does that mean? What was that like?

AMT: I mean they didn't kick me out. So I guess in that respect it went quite well. But they were very concerned that I had somehow been encouraged toward I guess identifying as a transsexual or a transgender person. They were concerned that - and rightly because it was a mental health issue it is to some degree I think it certainly creates a lot of mental health issues when you are transgender. It creates depression and anxiety and all kinds of things. But I think they felt at the time that it was potentially delusional or where I needed psychological help, serious psychological help. And I think you know they didn't use the words committal, but much about our conversation led me to believe that they were going to be wanting to take me somewhere where I was going to be cured of this. And I wasn't interested in that. And that's a good part of why I went to Vancouver.

LORIMER SHENHER: You have written that transitioning in your 20s did not seem like a viable option and instead you lived as a lesbian. Why?

AMT: Well I think part of my process was that I had always known that I wanted to be in relationships with women. And it was such a challenge for me because the idea of being in a relationship with a woman, as a woman, didn't seem like a fit for me. But that's who I was that was my reality. And so it felt like a compromise. You know everything when you're transgender is a compromise. Nothing about your life or your identity is your ideal. So to try and live life as a lesbian, I thought well I can wear plaid shirts and boots and I'll have a girlfriend and maybe that will suffice. And so that's what I tried to do.

LORIMER SHENHER: And that brings us to the fact that you met your current spouse Jennifer. How much did she know about that side of you in those early days?

AMT: Well I told her about my struggles quite early on because I had a sense that she was someone who could be very important to me, that I could really see myself with for the long term. And I felt that it was only fair that just as far as her knowing more about me as a person, and she was very understanding very great. And I do you remember though, she asked she said 'do you still want a transition?' And I said to her what I really believed at the time and wanted to believe which is 'no, I'm good. I've worked at all. Everything's good' which is how I coped for so many years. And so that was that. I think she felt reassured and I and I felt reassured and we carried on from there.

LORIMER SHENHER: And then you've created a family, you decided as a couple to have children. She had your first born and then you were pregnant. Talk to me about that choice because this wasn't- this complicated a lot of things for you.

AMT: It was surreal and I did worry a little bit about my mental health I wondered if this was going to cause some sort of break in me because it was so antithetical to what my sense of myself was.

LORIMER SHENHER: You write that it felt foreign to your interior lived experience.

AMT: Yes. You know in my mind, my whole identity of myself was male and so the idea that I would actually pursue this and that my body was going to do this. It just seemed completely improbable to me.

LORIMER SHENHER: And after giving birth?

AMT: Now looking back it's sort of like a dream I had. You know it's really hard to - as I've told my son many times, I've said he was my best project. Nothing about their experience that diminishes my feeling for him and what that meant to me to be able to do that. Was it weird? Absolutely. Was it uncomfortable sometimes? Absolutely. But I don’t regret it.

LORIMER SHENHER: And again these are struggles you are having quietly with yourself. The outside world doesn't know you are struggling with this. At times your partner doesn't know you're struggling with this.

AMT: No. I think we both hoped that if I would just continue to try to share it and try to you know kind of release that pressure valve a little bit by talking about a little bit that maybe that would be good enough. You know over the years it just became less and less sufficient.

LORIMER SHENHER: So you're raising a family, and your police work is also very high pressure with its own traumas. You're in the midst of Pickton which takes up- what is it a decade?

AMT: Yes pretty much a decade really. You know almost 14 years from my initial involvement. And so that when he was finally identified as a suspect and then that search began you know it was just a slow drip of evidence coming in over months and months and the trial took so long, and there was a publication ban on the trial and then we knew there is going to be a public inquiry. That whole process just you know I can't imagine how it was for the families. I only know how it was for me and I must have been tenfold for them.

LORIMER SHENHER: And are raising a family and you were still struggling with the idea that you haven't been able to transition.

AMT: Yes and I don't think it was really- you know I had a breakdown in 2013 after the inquiry - we had a public inquiry into the missing women investigations - and the final report for that came out at the end of 2012. And when that happened I had really hoped that that would enable me to move forward, certainly professionally and emotionally, but also I thought that if that situation sort of started to be in my rear view mirror a little bit that I could move forward and try to continue coping as a trans person not transitioning. I was hit in the month or two after that report released. I was hit with quite serious depression. I was really at a point where I was incapable of getting out of bed in the morning and that forced me into therapy again. And I eventually went on sick leave from work and I started to deal with my PTSD for the first time really. And it was through that whole process I think that I started to address being transgender more fully.

LORIMER SHENHER: And you're afraid to move forward because you thought you would hurt too many people. Who were you afraid of hurting?

AMT: I think that I was afraid of losing too many people really. You know I think I told myself that I was afraid of hurting them again, and maybe to some degree I certainly Jennifer and our kids I felt that way, that I would scar them all. That was my primary consideration. But my real fear I think more than hurting the people in my life I think was afraid of hurting myself. I was profoundly afraid of losing my family. I was profoundly afraid of being alone. I was afraid that I would be cast out.

LORIMER SHENHER: How did you approach telling your children, three children by this point, about your gender dysphoria and your decision to transition?

AMT: Well it's funny because all these things that I worried about for years and years and years when I finally did broach the subject I had some clarity myself with where I wanted to go in terms of transitioning, the reactions were surprisingly positive and very underwhelming. And so it really left me a lot of time thinking like why did I wait so long. My oldest one day, he just said he just looked at me, and really without rancor, without impatience or anything but he just said 'Why don’t you transition?' And I sat there thinking yes why indeed? You know I didn't really answer for him.

LORIMER SHENHER: That was the sign that it wouldn't matter to who you were to them.

AMT: Yes I really felt like I would be okay in their eyes. And I still don't want you guys to be in a position of having to defend me that people. I want your choice to come out, even as my children to be your choice, and my hope and my belief is they haven't had any negative repercussions so far.

LORIMER SHENHER: Jennifer is still your partner. That's not always typical, is it?

AMT: No no it's very unusual. I am so lucky. I mean she's a phenomenal person.

LORIMER SHENHER: How did the two of you work through your decision? Did you had told her you didn't want to transition at one point.

AMT: Yes I think I think she's sensed it too that I was really getting to a point of desperation with it. I mean she was angry by it. You know it did force her into her own exploration I think of her own her own identity. And you know that's certainly her story to tell. She is a profoundly private person who has the misfortune of being married to a memoirist. You know so I've really felt a duty to respect her privacy. But we have certainly worked through so many things. I've just been astounded at how- the level of grace that she's brought to this whole process.

LORIMER SHENHER: She gave you the message that she was in love with you as the person regardless of the gender.

AMT: Yes. And so for us to be able to navigate that has just, has been great. It really has.

LORIMER SHENHER: I would imagine that many people listening to you who are struggling with their own journey would be happy to hear that the fears you had, they didn't materialize, those views.

AMT: I think that was my most profound hope for the book.

LORIMER SHENHER: You know I am left with that image of you as a five year old telling whispering to the teacher and the teacher saying that'll be our little secret. And I'm really wondering what you think you know this is a very big debate. We know there were many teenagers who are wanting to transition. And there is debate about whether that's too soon - beyond the physiological, the psychological - and there is a lot of pushback. There is a greater numbers of young people coming forward because people are talking about it as well. And I'm just wondering how you watch this go forward because you've known for so long.

LORIMER SHENHER: When I was growing up there was nothing that was influential to how I felt. Like zero. And if you wanted to follow that argument through and say well if we expose kids to this kind of thing call and quote that will encourage them in a direction that they might not normally go. If that thinking were to hold, then I would be you know a cis gender, heterosexual, probably married woman in our Alberta right now. And I'm not.

LORIMER SHENHER: Given your own concerns and the time it took you to move forward, and given what you know now, would you have started earlier?

AMT: How you know. I mean hindsight is always 20 20 and I really try not to think too much about regret as an emotion. Of course I know that had I transitioned at 12, 14, 16. I’m quite sure that a lot of the mental health issues I ended up with later on in life may have been avoided. Having said that you know I do believe were all the product of our experiences and I know that what I've experienced through this process has given me a lot of empathy and a lot of compassion. And you know I wouldn't have found where I have now. I would hope I would have some kind of a family but it wouldn't be this one. I am just so thrilled beyond belief of the family we've created. You know if you were to say to me you can transition it at 14 but you have to give up these amazing people. I don't I think I could do that.

LORIMER SHENHER: Lorimer Shenher, it's really important to hear your story. Thank you for sharing it with us.

AMT: Thanks so much for having me.

LORIMER SHENHER: Lorimer Shenher is the author of This One Looks Like a Boy: My Gender a Journey to Life as a Man. He spoke to me from then Coover. That's our program for today. Stay with Radio One for Q. Tom Power will speak to Pasek and Paul the acclaimed song writing duo behind the musical Dear Evan Hansen. Speaking of acclaim the winners of the Turing Award were announced yesterday. The annual prize is known as the Nobel Prize of computing. And this year all three winners work in the field of artificial intelligence and two of them are Canadians. Yoshua Bengio. from the University of Montreal and Geoffrey Hinton an emeritus professor at the University of Toronto. And [unintelligible], the third winner did his postdoctoral AI work at the U of T with Geoffrey Hinton. Today Geoffrey Hinton also works at Google as well as with a Canadian AI organization called the Vector Institute. I spoke with him in 2015 about his mission to get computers to learn like humans. And that's where I will end things off today. I am Anna Maria Tremonti thanks for listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

I started as a graduate student in 1972 and it was extremely unpopular then. Everybody told me this is crazy it'll never work and back then it didn't work. Computers weren't fast enough.

GEOFFREY HINTON: And when they told you you were crazy, what did you say to them?

AMT: I said basically this is the only way it could be. If you want to understand how the human mind works, you better understand how the brain works and how the brain is implementing the mind, and the brain is clearly a big neural network. So we better understand how systems that compute like that work.

AMT: So could we get to a point where anything our brain can do, a computer can do it as well?

GEOFFREY HINTON: Yes we could get to that point. We're a long way off so I don't think it's something I'm going to have to worry about.

AMT: Does it excite you?

GEOFFREY HINTON: It's very exciting yes and I think the consequences of that depend entirely on politics on what people decide to use it for.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

Thursday March 28, 2019 Full Transcript

More Stories Like This