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 2022

The Current Transcript for November 1, 2022

Host: Matt Galloway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

Fans don't want to sit in a stadium that workers died to build. It takes the joy and the love that they have for soccer and tramples on it.

MATT GALLOWAY: Soccer's World Cup begins in three weeks. There is excitement for the Canadian men in the tournament for the first time since the eighties. There's also a bright light being directed at the host nation, Qatar, and the harsh working conditions for migrant workers building those stadiums that the games will unfold. In in 30 minutes, the fight to have their stories told and the push to get teams participating in the tournament to speak up about human rights. Also this morning, Elon Musk has taken over Twitter. He's called himself the social media service's chief twit. Some users are amused.

SOUNDCLIP

My strong intuitive sense is that having a public platform that is maximally trusted and broadly inclusive is extremely important to the future of civilisation.

MG: In an hour, why his controversial vision may be more complicated than he thinks and why many are now questioning the entire relevance of Twitter itself. We start, though, in British Columbia, a year after record flooding. The cleanup continues. Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway and this is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

B.C. farmers fear a repeat of catastrophic floods

Guests: Mayor Henry Braun

MG: Well, yesterday on this programme we brought you stories from Atlantic Canada and the ongoing recovery from Post-tropical Storm Fiona. Now to the other side of the country. It's been a year since intense rainfall in British Columbia caused catastrophic floods and other disasters throughout the province. Landslides tore through roadways. Rivers swelled and washed away homes and the dykes protecting one of Canada's most fertile farming regions breached. About an hour outside of Vancouver, the Sumas Prairie rests in what used to be some ice lake. Philip Graham's grandfather started his family's farm in Abbotsford in 1943, just 20 years earlier. His land would have been a lake bed. Last year, the lake returned.

SOUNDCLIP

PHILIP GRAHAM: Walk into the next bar and there. Over 500 cows on farm milk, 230 of them. So we're just entering the bar. And this is the time of highest bar on the property. This is where we moved our most of our cows out of here. But the ones that we couldn't get out, they were in here that a lot of these cows that are in here now, we're on a boat right out of here and saved a bunch by boat after the flood. We had six feet of water in our yard and our barns varied between six feet and three feet of water on the porch bar. And it was we were under water for almost three weeks. I was standing in the next bar and down and I saw a river come around the corner, it was probably a two-foot wave coming straight through our yard, and as soon as it blew out to so many lives, near the dyke phoned me and told me I blew. And I told her I know a clue. I have two feet of a two foot wave coming right at me and the moment you don't realise what it is, you just power through it. You keep going and removing animals out of a barn that was getting flooded and then moving the ball into a dry barn. And you just you don't stop. You just keep going. I was waist deep in ice-cold water, but you just keep going.

TRINA GARHAM: My name is Trina Graham. I'm Phil's wife. Yeah, I was in charge of the kids. We have five, and I was in charge of them during the flood, so I wasn't here during the whole evacuation. I was on the other side of the phone constantly. And that had its own emotional drama, I guess you could say, when he saw that wave that he was talking about. I was actually on the other side of the phone with him that moment, and I just heard it. Oh, crap. I need to go. Water's coming fast. Click. And that was a very terrifying moment.

MG: The Graham's lost 200 cattle. Still difficult for them to talk about. For the past year, they've been trying to recover and rebuild. They raised about $400,000 between insurance, government support and a go fund me. But it cost more than $1,000,000 to fix the damage. And now they are facing another wet winter next to a dyke that still isn't fixed.

SOUNDCLIP

PHILIP GRAHAM: Can't say I'm not concerned. It's definitely a concern. It's I know I still sleep at night right now, but it's definitely some days you're like, Yeah, it occupies your thoughts quite a bit that it could easily happen again. So it says, yeah, definitely. It's definitely a concern. Like, it's, you hope the government's taking seriously that... I don't think I could do another flood here, like it's... it definitely takes a toll on you.

TRINA GARHAM: The one thing I do, you know, I would love to get across is just that the problem's not gone. I've spoken to a lot of friends who thought that the breach was fixed and it wasn't a concern any more, even just the past couple of weeks. But if you drive on that side of the highway from us, all the fields are still flooded. There's still homes that are flooded. It's been leaking all summer. We have fields that we rent over there. They have been leaking all summer. The the water has not been fixed. It was temporarily fixed and then it leaked again. And I know as of yesterday, apparently they've started to fix it, but it needs more than a temporary fix, because I don't know any farmers around here who could physically, emotionally go through this again. Rebuild and hope again for next year. We're a year into it and we still have so much that is not up to snuff, you know. And so I really just want to get that point across that it's not fixed and it hasn't been totally fixed.

PHILIP GRAHAM: It's not not easy talking about this. It definitely brings back memories and things that we've gone through. And yeah, it's definitely not easy. Yeah, they do. They say that they need to take a serious they need to stop stop waiting for it just to make a decision like they need to to act on things. And we're not- We're people. We have livelihoods. We come out every day to work. And we can't just come out every day not knowing that this could happen again. Right. It's it's it's really tough when you you know, that they've they know that there's a repair that they could do, but they're not they're taking sweet time to act on it. It's really, it's really makes it tough to continue on. And like, we're not just going to quit, but at the same time, it's, you know, it takes a toll knowing that there's a problem that could happen again. And that you might have to go through this one more time. Well, there's no real plan. There's lots of politics going on and there's lots of thoughts and ideas. But there's no- I don't think there's an actual plan. And it's there's nothing nothing in place. Like we still have our bridge out. Just down the road from us. There's no- they've come out and looked at it a few times. But there's nothing. There's no plan. That was you know, it was the last road possible out of here during the flood, like the last [unintelligible] left here, left on that road. And if this happens again. Hmm. There's one last route out of here.

TRINA GARHAM: It's hard because this is our family farm. Phil's grandfather came out here. He was an orphan. He actually bought this place with a handshake. He traded one of his horses for three cows. And that's how this farm got started. And Phil's dad took it over. And then Phil took it over. And it was his dream to stay here, to grow it. And this is the only home he's ever known. And it's the home that we desired for our children to grow up in. But at the same time, we've had to think about that since the flood. What would we do? And it's hard again, because if it floods again, who's going to want to buy it? So if we went to sell it, we don't have the same funds to go purchase another farm. We're farmers through and through. There's nothing that's going to stop us from farming, whether it's here or somewhere else. But that is a concern that we've had is, you know, we will stick it out here as long as we can. We love it. And this is the dream we have. We have a dream for our kids to take over this farm. But at the same time, you know, if we ever did decide to move, we need the funds from selling this farm to move elsewhere. And if it floods again and the government refuses to fix the problem, who's going to want to buy it? And who's going to give us that money to buy somewhere else and to continue living our farm dreams and raising our farm kids? It's it's a huge concern for us. And at this point, we just hope and pray that the government pulls up their pants and does something about it.

PHILIP GRAHAM: We look to invest in our place. We're looking to invest for the future. We're looking at things that will withstand climate change waves. We've added more cooling for our cows because of extreme temperatures. We had to. We've added more drainage in our fields to help with that. We can we can counteract a lot of climate change by making different investments. But flooding is that's a that's a whole other story. We can't like the amount of money we have to put into this property to do it on our own. We're just it's just insane. Like, it's not not something feasible for us to do. Flooding is something that we need. We have dykes for, we have pumps for. We need the government to help us out with our.

TRINA GARHAM: And it's important to remember that the farmers we might be a small minority, but we feed the thousands, we feed everybody else. That's, you know, I don't know the statistics, but it's often said that the 1% feeds the 99 and we might be a small community here in the C Mass Prairie and but we do our best every single day of the year. We are on call 24/7 to look after our animals and the dairy farmers as well, to look after their berries and chickens, everything. But we need the support of the community, the government, to keep going because if not, what's going to happen to our food supply if the farmers can't farm, you know? So we might be a minority, but we're an important minority, though. So, yeah, just just a reminder.

MG: Philip and Trina Graham at their dairy farm in Abbotsford, British Columbia. Henry Braun is the mayor of Abbotsford. After serving serving two terms as mayor, he is retiring next week. Mayor Brown, good morning to you.

MAYOR HENRY BRAUN: Good morning, Matt.

MG: Good to be with you. Good to have you back on the programme. What do you make of what you just heard? Phil can barely keep it together. Talking about what? Not just what he's been through, but what he and his family are still living through.

MAYOR HENRY BRAUN: Well, I can you know, I was out there as well, talked to many of the farmers. So listening to them brings back a flood of memories for myself. I actually teared up a bit on this end of the phone just listening to them. The Grahams are great farmers and they've gone through they and many others have gone through just horrific disaster. And my heart goes out to them because I understand their plight and I don't have to be convinced that our farming community is the backbone of our city and has been since it was founded.

MG: Phil said there's a lot of politics going on, but no real plan. What's the plan when it comes to figuring out what the road ahead is for people like the Grahams?

MAYOR HENRY BRAUN: Well, there is a plan we put we took a lot of the information that came out of the 1990 flood, which was the first one, and then the February 2020 Super Bowl flood and of course, the last flood together with our consultants we had been working on, on what needed to be done and Sue Mass Prairie and actually the Fraser River together and invested millions of dollars over the last three or four years. So we took all of that, put a plan together, consulted and gave. With our sue mass prairie farmers in particular, but the entire community as well. And out of that came an option that we preferred option, as we called it, which we presented to the province in I think towards the end of June it was together with the funding request. So there is a plan. I would also say that the the dykes in its current condition is much stronger and higher than it was pre-flood. So we increased the height of the dyke from Barrow Town upstream six seven kilometres by half a metre. And the breach itself is designed to let the water through because it's constructed of big boulders, right. As opposed to sand and gravel.

MG: Let me just go back to the plan, though, because you heard and you heard in their voice how frustrated they are, the sense that they feel as though I mean, as they said, the fields are still flooded. They want to know what the plan of action actually, as you mentioned, the provincial government as well. Take a listen to what Mike Farnworth, the minister of Public Safety, told us about the timeline in terms of figuring out how to repair those dykes and create a plan for going forward.

SOUNDCLIP

The province is actively working on ensuring that we have a proper flood and dykeing strategy for the province, something which has been missing for more than 20 years. I mean, the problems we got with our dykes didn't just appear overnight, that they have.. it has been decades in the making. At the same time, ensuring that the dykes that were damaged during last year's atmospheric river are repaired and so that they will be safe. They said that work has been underway and will be finished by the end of November.

MG: The reality is, a year later, as we heard, the repairs on the dyke still aren't finished, the fields are still flooded, and they're worried that they're going to get washed out again. What's taking so long?

MAYOR HENRY BRAUN: Well. Getting funding requests for $2.8 billion is not something that just happens overnight. And I understand the frustration of the farmers. I have talked to many of them in all sectors. So we are working with the province and with the world, with the province more or less exclusively because the funder is the federal government, because the province can't do this by themselves either. And Minister Farnworth is correct. This problem has been in the making for 30 years. We've known that. I, in council during my term, 11 years on council, have been pushing that we need to do something to our dykes and not just in Abbotsford, Chilliwack and upstream on the Fraser. They're all in the same boat. These dykes, 70 or 80% or 83%, I think don't meet provincial standards. They were built many, many decades ago with sand and gravel, and they don't meet earthquake standards or seismic standards, which is what we are asking that the province and the feds fund. But we as a local government don't have access to $2.8 billion. Our tax requisition through property taxes is $165 million a year. So people can do the maths to figure out how long that would take us to collect money to do it. So but there is a plan, but getting it approved and going through the bureaucracy takes time. And I am told it doesn't feel that way to me and it won't feel that way to the grams that we as local government have been working at lightning speed on this plan to put a plan six months after a flood before the province was not a minor undertaking, it was a major undertaking. And we've invested millions of dollars on the hope that we will actually this time get what we've been asking for since 1990.

MG: You heard them say that they want to stay in that community, that they want to to to do work that would allow that them and this family farm to remain in that community for as long as possible. But there are experts who say that because of a climate emergency, farming may no longer be feasible in the Fraser Valley and that perhaps the farmers should be bought out, that this is not a place where you can continue to operate with the risk of a flood in the rear view mirror. Is that a viable option, do you think? Do you think there's a future for farming in the community?

MAYOR HENRY BRAUN: Absolutely. And I totally disagree with people who take that view. You're not just talking about flooding out farming. 50%, five zero percent of all of the dairy, poultry, eggs, turkeys, chickens, you name it, that's consumed in the province of British Columbia, comes from Abbotsford, 50%. But it's not just farmers that you would wipe out for people who think that they should quit farming. Because really what that means is they're saying without saying, well, some of them are saying that the lake should come back. You're talking about flooding Highway One, the railways, Trans Mountain pipeline, Ford's gas, the main hydro feed coming in B.C., Hydro power lines coming into metro Vancouver. There's a reason why they're all on two mass prairie because you've got two Mass Mountain on one side and Vedder Mountain on the other side in the U.S. border. The only place to put all of this tens of billions of dollars of infrastructure is in Sue Mass Prairie.

MG: Which speaks to the long game here. Then, if you're mean, people are waiting for, you know, immediate repairs to be done on on the dykes. But this is about making sure then that the money comes to climate proof that community in the long game. Is that going to be possible?

MAYOR HENRY BRAUN: Yes, I really believe and I have been working weekly with ministers and and the provincial not so much the federal government, because they're the funder and they they want everything to go through the province. But every opportunity I have, I keep pounding this to the point where I think they're probably a little bit of sick and tired of hearing from me. They say, yes, we're doing the analysis and the assessments and that has to happen to make sure that this that our plan is sound. I haven't heard any criticism about our plan other than it's a lot of money. And that's true. But it's going to take an investment of. Well, first of all, the 2.8 is is a total plan. Right. The priority that we have is for a new pump station on the Sumas River to replace the floodgates that had to be closed. In November because the Fraser River was higher than the Sumas River. Otherwise the Sumas River would run backwards. If we opened them up, the Fraser would actually flood two mass prairies. So we have decoupled that from the entire plan. But that's still an $800 million bill. And I think that we are, you know, getting ever closer to a decision of the you know, at some point I had hoped that it would be done before, you know, in June when we presented it before I left office. But it hasn't.

MG: I think the Grahams are hoping that you're right and they're watching the water and hoping that it doesn't get any closer. It's good to speak with you again. We've spoken, as I say, a number of times over the course of this. Thanks for this morning.

MAYOR HENRY BRAUN: Yes, thank you. Good to be with you.

MG: Henry Braun is the outgoing mayor of Abbotsford, British Columbia. Your CBC News is up next. And then.

SOUNDCLIP

The winner is Qatar. Today we celebrate. But tomorrow the work begins.

MG: It has been more than a decade since Qatar won World Cup hosting duties. In that time, the work to get ready has been mired in controversy. Hundreds of billions of dollars spent, huge environmental costs and many alleged human rights violations. Coming up in six minutes. The consequences of the beautiful game. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current on CBC Radio One. Stay with us.

Back To Top »

World Cup host Qatar facing sharp criticism over workers’ rights

Guest: Natasha Iskander, Paul Brannagan

MG: Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

MG: Still to come, Elon Musk says he's going to free the caged bird now that he owns Twitter. Not everyone shares his definition of freedom or his belief in the value of this social media site. But first, fields of controversy.

[Music: Theme]

MG: The FIFA World Cup is just a few weeks away. This year's host, Qatar, has been the focus of controversy since it was awarded the tournament more than a decade ago. Thousands of migrant workers have been brought in to build the stadiums and other infrastructure needed to host the games. There have been several reports of a dangerous working conditions and human rights violations. And now Canada's team, as well as many others, have begun to speak up on this issue. Australia's men's team, known as the Socceroos, released a video criticising Qatar's LGBTQ plus laws and labour rights records.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: We have learnt that the decision to host the World Cup in Qatar has resulted in the suffering and in the harm of countless of our fellow workers.

VOICE 2: These migrant workers who have suffered are not just numbers like the migrants that have shaped our country and our football. They possess the same courage and determination to build a better life.

VOICE 3: As players, we fully support the rights of the LGBTI people. But in Qatar, people are not free to love the person that they choose.

VOICE 4: Addressing these issues is not easy and we do not have all the answers.

VOICE 5: We stand with faith from the building and what Workers International and the International Trade Union Confederation seeking to embed reforms and establish a lasting legacy in Qatar.

MG: Natasha Iskander is a professor of urban planning and public service at New York University. She's also the author of Does Skill Make US Human? Migrant Workers in 21st Century Qatar and Beyond. Natasha, good morning.

NATASHA ISKANDER: Good morning, Matt. Thanks for.

MG: Having me. Thanks for being here. How would you describe the working conditions for migrant workers in Qatar in the lead up to this World Cup?

NATASHA ISKANDER: Well, the lead up to the World Cup has spanned over a decade, really. Qatar began investing billions of dollars to reinvent itself as a centre for global sporting and culture. And so the working conditions have varied across that decade at the start of the decade. Human rights organisations documented a catalogue of labour abuses. That was devastating. The reports pointed to wage theft, often months long forced labour, forced overtime recruitment under forms of debt bondage, where workers paid several thousands of dollars to secure a job in Qatar. Passport confiscation, forms of physical, intimate intimidation. They also documented the effects of these labour violations on workers bodies through injury and death. They also reported on conditions outside the work site, describing how workers were confined to labour camps and segregated from the city and how the conditions in the camps were abysmal. Crowded with up to a dozen men, Stockton bunks in each room unsanitary, often with things like raw sewage leaked into the courtyards. And the human rights organisations compare these conditions to slavery as a form of modern slavery. And they pointed to the legal structure governing the employment of migrants in Qatar as the cause.

MG: This is this system that binds them essentially to.

NATASHA ISKANDER: That's exactly right. This system legally binds workers to their lawyers. It makes it illegal for workers to withhold labour for any reason, including things like non-payment of wages, abuse, dangerous conditions. Workers could not quit their jobs in response even to extreme abuse, and they could not leave the country without their employers permission. They needed an exit visa. They couldn't change employers, and they couldn't return to Qatar once they had left without their prior employer's assent. So really a form of bonded labour. And so Qatar, to its credit, in response to some of this coverage, made certain changes on paper, and this is important. In 2017, Qatar began a partnership with the ILO to reform its labour laws, and it did make significant reforms on paper. These included things like an electronic payment system to prevent wage theft, permission to leave the country and quit your job at, well, a minimum wage of about $250 per month. And the ability to change jobs. As I said, though, these reforms look great on paper, in practise. They haven't had a meaningful impact on working conditions and got that.

MG: How much or how much political will do you think? I mean, part of this comes from the outside pressure, but is there will within the country to improve, to meaningfully improve the conditions for these workers.

NATASHA ISKANDER: The will to meaningfully improve the conditions for these workers shears against the time pressures of delivering the World Cup. So there's a hard deadline. You know, Kick-Off is November 20th. This was always going to be an ambitious project, and part of Qatar's ability to deliver the World Cup has fundamentally rested on its exploitation not of thousands, but of millions of workers. Two million workers. These workers have been heroic in their construction of the world. They have built stadia, infrastructure, cultural centres, urban structures that are cutting edge in their technological sophistication. These workers worked long hours under hard conditions in the heat to construct these amazing structures under the most difficult conditions you can imagine.

MG: Do you think that that skill is being recognised? I mean, when when the World Cup begins and those stadia are unveiled, will. Will the fact that the stadia were built by people who were working in those conditions, will that at all be acknowledged?

NATASHA ISKANDER: I don't think so, Matt. You know, the representation of these workers, both by their advocates and by, you know, government actors, by FIFA, but by many around the world, is that these workers are unskilled. They are, in fact, not unskilled. Many of them arrive unskilled with little construction experience that corresponds to the kind of high tech, cutting edge construction required in Qatar. But they become very skilled, very, very fast. They are some of the most skilled construction workers in the world. They are the most skilled the scaffold ers, welders, cutters, you name it. They are amazing. And yet they are portrayed as unskilled. And that portrayal is wrapped up in the rhetoric that allows for their underpayment. So these are the most skilled construction workers in the world getting paid $250 a month. Now with the minimum wage. Prior to that, it was less. And they are represented as kind of these, just bodies that are just providing brute labour when in fact their ingenuity is what has produced the World Cup for us all.

MG: You will often hear athletes say that they steer clear of politics. They want nothing to do with making political statements. And then we hear this extraordinary video from the Australian team, an extraordinary in that context saying this is an issue, we're talking about it. We want the spotlight to be directed there. What influence do you think that's going to have on the Qatari government in this moment?

NATASHA ISKANDER: I think it already has had influence on the Qatari government. I mean, certainly the legal reforms that they put in place, even though they are not being enforced fully, are a significant step forward. I think that this World Cup provides a model for the kind of labour activism that we can see around global sporting events. It would be amazing if every time we have an international event, we also pay attention to the labour conditions involved in making that event possible. It would be really pathbreaking if we were to consider extending the kind of conversation that started in Qatar around these games to then exact FIFA World Cup in North America.

MG: Do you think that's likely? Because one of the things that happens is that when the circus arrives in town, those conversations get drowned out by the hoopla of the games and the excitement that that, you know, unfolds on the pitch.

NATASHA ISKANDER: I think to some extent it depends on our willingness to have these conversations as a global community and the steps we take, like the very brave video by the Socceroos to really make clear that these are part and parcel of holding an international event and that as a global community we are all responsible for the conditions through which that event was made possible.

MG: We just have a minute or so left and we're going to speak more in a moment about the responsibility of governing bodies. But what do you think the responsibility is for FIFA, multibillion dollar organisation that is in charge of of something like the World Cup?

NATASHA ISKANDER: I think, FIFA here, you know, pardon the pun, really dropped the ball. They could have been much more active in pressing the Qatari government to make these reforms and then to enforce them. It is notable that most of these reforms have gone into force. You know, late last year, early this year, basically the day before the World Cup is is going to start. These reforms should have been implemented earlier, enforced well and clearly, and the industry restructured as needed to make sure that workers worked under decent conditions and that their contribution was valued.

MG: Natasha, good to speak with you about this. Thank you very much.

NATASHA ISKANDER: Thanks so much for having me.

MG: Natasha Iskander is the author of Does Skill Make Us Human? Migrant Workers in 21st Century Qatar and Beyond. Paul Brannigan is a senior lecturer in sport management and policy at Manchester Metropolitan University. He's also co-author of the book Qatar and 2022 FIFA World Cup Politics Controversy Change. Paul, good morning to you.

PAUL BRANNAGAN: Hello.

MG: We know that the country has faced fierce criticism of its treatment of migrant workers. The leadership of the country has said that that criticism is unfair. Do we have any sense as to how people in Qatar, the Qatari people are responding to that sort of criticism?

PAUL BRANNAGAN: Well, I think that's what's really unique about this World Cup and this sport event, perhaps more than any other previously, is that this is very much a World Cup for the Qatar stage, so not necessarily directly a World Cup of the Qatari people. So I think, you know, it's very, very difficult to interview Qatar because have a very small minority in that country. But I think publicly a lot of the Qatar race would be very supportive of this World Cup by certainly and very supportive of the mayor and the Qatar hierarchy. However, I think they are also acutely aware, very much so, that this is a World Cup for Qatar side. This is about putting Qatar on the global map. It's very much a political first and foremost, a political World Cup, as opposed to a much more social type of World Cup. With regard to Qatar citizens themselves.

MG: I want to ask you more about the tournament and the placing of the tournament. But still, with the protests, I mean, the treatment of migrant workers is one thing. We know that in this country, homosexuality is still illegal. There have been some teams that have spoken out about this. The England team apparently is going to wear a rainbow armband to show support for LGBTQ rights. The Canadian Soccer Association has put out a statement of criticism. Are you expecting other protests from participating teams as the World Cup gets underway just more broadly when it comes to the issues in the country itself?

PAUL BRANNAGAN: Yes, I think most certainly the answer to that would be yes. I think we will continue seeing and quite rightly, protests around Qatar's various human rights record and various human rights laws. Now, from a contrary perspective, I would I expect to see is there any sort of on field protest? And as you mentioned there, you know, the wearing of very rainbow armbands and various slogans on shirts by various players I think will be tolerated. I think the tricky thing for Qatar will be any off field protests and how that's dealt with. You know, this is a country where it's illegal to gather. So unions and protest is something that this country is just not, you know, not certainly ready for, but it's just not something that happens on a day to day basis. So how they deal with off field protests, I think will be really, really key. But yes, quite rightly, I think we will continue seeing throughout the tournament various onfield protests by various athletes on sort of national national teams.

MG: What difference do you think those protests will make?

PAUL BRANNAGAN: I somehow I hope that these protests are enough to force Qatar into continued social change. I am a little sceptical of that side because what we tend to see is, you know, by the time the tournament's over, you know, it'll be very interesting to see if it continues to be sort of held to account in terms of its social reforms or whether we have seen this in previous events. The focus then shift away from the Qatar World Cup to the next event. So I think it really depends the nature of the protest. But what I hope is that any protest adds to Qatar's desire to continue with its social reform progress.

MG: Why did Qatar want to host the World Cup in the first place? Do you think?

PAUL BRANNAGAN: I think the obvious answer to that is really a question of so for Qatar. It's a small country and for a long time it's been very much in the shadow. It's much, much larger neighbour Saudi Arabia. So I think on the one hand this has really been about Qatar trying to emerge from the sort of foreign policy shadow of Saudi Arabia and really, you know, educate international audiences on its individuality and its right to sovereign independence. I think secondly, there's also a number of security sort of concerns here for Qatar. And again, we see this commonly with small states, is raising awareness of our existence. More importantly, their contribution to international society help shore up their security and survival. So this is really first and foremost about, you know, the state of Qatar looking to show what it can offer despite its size to international communities and the international system.

MG: Do you think that the leadership of the country would have anticipated this kind of criticism when it put in its bid for the World Cup?

PAUL BRANNAGAN: Well, I can I can categorically tell you the answer is no. I know that the Qatar hierarchy, you know, expected some scrutiny because we see the host of all these major events get some scrutiny. But I can tell you categorically, no, they were very much surprised about the level of scrutiny that Qatar has received.

MG: I mean, these sorts of big sporting tournaments, you think of the Olympics going to Beijing for the first time, even in the Olympics in Russia, the World Cup in Russia. They can be kind of coming out parties or seen as coming out parties for those sorts of nations. What's at stake for Qatar in this tournament, do you think?

PAUL BRANNAGAN: Well, I think how Qatar is remembered, I think, is really the key thing now. I think we're at the point now where I think Qatar very much missed the boat in terms of getting those social reforms in place. They didn't actually make substantial changes until 2020-2021. So I think the key thing now will be how Qatar operates during the tournament. And for me, this is really make or break. You know, I think if if the state continues to, for example, make arrests when it comes to protest, we see it only in the last couple of weeks. You know, it's just going to cause more issues for Qatar, and quite rightly so. I think how it actually treats the rest of the world during this tournament will really be make or break for how the country is remembered. And really that's the key crux of this matter, is Qatar want to use this to introduce itself to international audiences. So, of course, how we remember the country during the tournament will be absolutely vital to our long term, you know, view, if you like, of Qatar people and Qatar, the state as well. We bring forward.

MG: Why would FIFA, the organising body of world soccer award the tournament to a nation that we've been running through? You know, the reasons why people are protesting, the reasons why people are speaking out. Why would FIFA award the World Cup to a nation like Qatar in the first place?

PAUL BRANNAGAN: Well, I think you have to look at the sort of nature of FIFA. And historically, FIFA is run like a business. You know, it does seek to sort of make a profit like any other business. And we've seen that quite openly with FIFA, particularly FIFA's strategy in the last couple of decades about going to new lands. Right. So you see the first Africa World Cup in 2010 and the first Russian World Cup in 2018. Now, if you're an organisation searching for new wealthy markets, arguably the key player right now is the Middle East. So we've seen Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain all investing heavily in sport clubs, mega events, etc.. So I think your fee for this was really about breaking into new wealthy markets. And of course, the other side of that is, of course, I think FIFA acutely aware if your greatest asset is the World Cup, it does need to travel to different parts of the world. So it's just a matter of time before we had or needed to have the first Middle East World Cup. And of course, given the amount of investment on show at the moment, I think that's probably what led FIFA to steer towards now being the time to award it to a middle Eastern countries.

MG: Devalues. Have any play in that at all? I mean, issues around human rights or anything like that, does that have any determining factor in where the tournament would end up?

PAUL BRANNAGAN: I think people certainly should do, whether it's you obviously have to ask FIFA. Exactly. I think the key point here, though, is that one of the things we're really lacking at the moment in sport is regulation. So who is FIFA really held accountable to in terms of values, in terms of everything else is not really an organisation out there that really holds FIFA to account. So FIFA can essentially signal to the IC do whatever it wants. And you have to ask them how strongly values come into that sort of mix when it comes to deciding the next host. But I think we can see from this this is very much, much more about breaking into new financial markets than it is about values. And that's a really, really unfortunate, unfortunate thing, of course.

MG: You just wonder where that leaves the fans. I mean, the president of FIFA said everyone is welcome at this World Cup. Then the chief operating officer for the World Cup says that those who arrive need to respect cultural norms. So for people who are arriving and they might expect the normal World Cup experience where you can go, it's a big party. Some people might want to consume alcohol. Where where would that leave those fans in this country, at this tournament?

PAUL BRANNAGAN: Well, I think that's really okay. I think because I think what I've been saying this for a number of years. I know it's been on the minds of Qatar and we've already seen this now happen, is that a lot of farms and particularly farms maybe do want to have a drink at a party sort of carnival atmosphere will probably end up having to and are planning to stay in places like Dubai and Abu Dhabi, which makes this a very unique World Cup in the sense of the host nation, you know, is essentially almost indirectly outsourcing a major part of the World Cup process, right. That enjoyment in between games, etc., etc.. So in that sense, again, you know, it comes back to this idea and this all of this has been discussed of whether Qatar is actually a suitable destination for a World Cup. I think in terms of the sporting side of it, it comes from actually doing quite well in terms of organisation, particularly given its size. But in terms of that more carnivalesque type side of things, you know, I don't think this is going to be like any other World Cup that many fans would have experienced before in.

MG: The actual Cup, of course, will be here in Canada, as well as the United States and Mexico. So how different will this conversation be when the tournament makes its way over here?

PAUL BRANNAGAN: Well, I think I think that completely different. I think for obviously, you know, the US, Canada and Mexico, a very, very different type of sort of country and everything else to to Qatar and some of these Middle Eastern, Middle Eastern states. But also, of course, we're now seeing for the first time, as you mentioned there, the joint holding of a World Cup across three countries, three prominent countries, particularly the world of global politics, but also global sport as well. So, you know, I think going back to this Qatar World Cup will be very, very different feel to any previous World Cup and any future World Cup host as well.

MG: I guess just finally, before I let you go, do you think that what we've been talking about will will overshadow what's actually happening on the pitch in the matches that are happening there on the ground?

PAUL BRANNAGAN: You know, I mean, historically, what we tend to see is up until the World Cup and after the World Cup, it does tend to be about more sort of political issues. Once the World Cup actually stops, the focus does tend to be on what's happening on the pitch. However, again, I think this World Cup quite rightly will be different. I really do. I think we will see a lot more of the sort of coverage around political and social issues during the tournament in a much, much stronger way than we've ever seen before. You know, suffice to say, the next sort of two months is really going to make or break for Qatar's long term image.

MG: Paul, thanks for this. Appreciate it.

PAUL BRANNAGAN: Thanks very much.

MG: Take care. Bye bye.

PAUL BRANNAGAN: Thanks.

MG: Paul Brannagan, senior lecturer in sport management and policy at Manchester Metropolitan University, also co-author of the book Qatar and 2022 FIFA World Cup Politics Controversy Change. Well, coming up after your regional update, Elon Musk is running Twitter now. He says it's for the good of free speech. He has not convinced everyone that his blue bird will be all that joyful. And with the majority of people not on Twitter at all, why does this site actually matter? We will discuss. In 90 seconds. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current. Stick around.

Back To Top »

Elon Musk takes control of Twitter

Guests: Darrell Etherington, David Nasaw, Karin Marley

MG: Hello again. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current. After paying $44 billion U.S. for the privilege, Elon Musk now owns Twitter. Earlier this year, when he announced his intention to buy the site, he admitted that running a platform like Twitter might be difficult, but he thought it was worth it.

SOUNDCLIP

If I acquired Twitter and something goes wrong, it's my fault. So I'm going to hope it's not too much trouble. But I just think it's important to the func- like I it's important to the function of democracy. It's important to the function of the United States as a free country and on many other countries, and to help, actually, to help freedom in the world.

MG: And indeed, once Elon Musk took over at the end of last week, he announced with a tweet, "The bird is freed". That prompted an increase in tweets full of racist and hateful content, seemingly from the trolls who wanted to test that newfound freedom. Darrell Etherington has been tracking the first few days of Elon Musk's Twitter. Darrell is managing editor of TechCrunch. Darrell, good morning.

DARRELL ETHERINGTON: Good morning, Matt.

MG: Thanks for having me. Thanks for being here. How much has actually changed on the platform since Elon Musk took the wheel at Twitter?

DARRELL ETHERINGTON: Well, it's quite a bit. I mean, at first it seemed like a lot of things were kind of going to stay steady state. But in typical Elon fashion, things are happening very quickly and chaotically. So there's a few changes even this morning versus yesterday that have come into play. So it's hard to say exactly because we're not on the inside. But there's one thing that Elon does well. It's tell people about what's going on on the platform that he actually purchased. So we do know quite a bit more than we probably typically would with something like this.

MG: What does it mean, that huge spike in racist and abusive tweets over the weekend? What does that tell you about the sign of, you know, things to come?

DARRELL ETHERINGTON: Well, I think that was essentially just, you know, people responding to what they imagined was going to happen when Elon took over based on his previous rhetoric around this. So and he started out by saying, you know, 'the bird is free', which was, I think, his first tweet about the actual deal post close. And so what we saw and what we discovered through reporting was that that was essentially a sort of coordinated assault on the platform of people, just kind of tweeting out stuff that in volume access of how it would normally be. I mean, there's normally a lot of that already. But this was just a surge in that. Now, that didn't actually coincide with any rule changes on the platform. So the rules still prevented any of that from happening. And Twitter was using the tools available to it to try to shut that down. Now, they've never been terrific at that, despite their best efforts. And so, you know, we saw it represented as just a lot more racist and offensive content.

MG: What about his own actions on Twitter? He retweets this bizarre conspiracy theory about the attack on Nancy Pelosi husband. He then deletes the tweet. What do you make of that?

DARRELL ETHERINGTON: Yeah, that is also, you know, something that is pretty much par for the course for Elon in the past. I mean, he has previously espoused sort of belief for some very offbeat, far right conspiracy theories. And, you know, he famously even got in legal trouble and went to civil court over a comment about the cave rescue. So, you know, he's he's no stranger to doing this kind of thing.

MG: But now he's the boss.

DARRELL ETHERINGTON: But now he's the boss. Right. And I think that is representative of kind of how Elon approaches things in general. Right. He doesn't think that the rules will change now that he's responsible for a thing. He's very consistent to himself, which is, I think, a big problem for Twitter. Right. I mean, you saw that happen. I think the unusual thing was that he had deleted it, frankly, because in the past, he's just stuck by it, no matter how much criticism went his way. I think this time, you know, he was perhaps guided by cooler heads, but it was astounding to see that. And it no doubt encouraged the same type of people who we just talked about who were sort of throwing offensive content at the site to say like, well, Elon can do it, then we can do it, too.

MG: He said that he wants Twitter to be politically neutral. It wants to be better at promoting free speech. He also told advertisers that it would not descend into, in his words, a hellscape. And so to do that, he's going to create this Content Moderation Council. Do you think Elon Musk understands what's involved in moderating content and social media?

DARRELL ETHERINGTON: I no, I don't think so. I think I mean, that his interaction with that has been on the receiving end primarily to date, right, in some of these instances that we were just talking about. But I think he has very little understanding of that. I think, you know, it showed sort of his typical naivete or sort of the shallowness of his understanding of things that he tweeted that he was going to do that, you know, pretty much right away. You know, ignoring that Twitter already has a council that helps them make these decisions that I think they partner with some 50 organisations to do this right. They established this in 2016. Now it doesn't have the same kind of decision making authority as, say, Facebook's oversight board is supposed to have. So maybe Elon is thinking more in that direction, but it's not something where I would expect to see, you know, that result in something that satisfies all parties. I think a lot of people are going to probably criticise the makeup of that board once we actually see what I mean.

MG: This matters in part because there are laws that will be in place that will determine in some ways what he can do. There's regulation coming into effect in Europe next year. The Bill C-11, the sort of known as the online streaming act here in Canada, what is that going to mean in terms of what he can do when he talks about freeing the bird, when he talks about this being a platform that promotes free speech?

DARRELL ETHERINGTON: Yeah. So the immediate response that one of them was from Terry Burton, who's the European commissioner in charge of the like overseeing those that regulation in Europe. Right. And he said, you know, basically within reason or within the rules of the law that we're putting into place. And Ellen has previously spoken with Britain before. He had acquired any social media properties, but he is on video saying, I agree with everything that you have put forward in the Digital Privacy Act that is coming into play in Europe. So, and then he later spoke to Brett Hall, you know, since and has said Britain has said they had a great conversation and that he will abide by the rules. So it looks like he's he's shaping up to to follow these regulations. But, you know, in practise, Elon says a lot of things in the moment and then in practise, like when it actually comes to pass, like he doesn't live up to those words. So I think we should look for inconsistencies there for sure.

MG: But he's the one. I mean, he's in charge. He walks into the door and fires high level executives, fires the entire board of directors. Although he says now that this is just temporary, the he he is the person who is at the centre of this company right now. Is that fair to say?

DARRELL ETHERINGTON: Absolutely. Absolutely. I mean, yes. And we've seen him make so those are decisions that, like in an ordinary business process, probably wouldn't be unusual if they weren't done in the way that they have been done. So especially the executive firing, I mean, he fired CEO Parag Agarwal and also for other high ranking executives immediately. And he had Parag escorted by security out of the office immediately as well. So that is a highly unusual behaviour in this kind of process. Right. And it's meant to assert his power. Basically, a lot of what he's been doing has been asserting his power. He made engineers print out their code for review, which was sort of a mind boggling decision for anybody, any observers, because that's not at all how that's typically done. He's brought in Tesla engineers to review the code and review the processes of the Twitter engineers, which doesn't make any sense for a number of reasons. Number one, that they're in completely different industries. Number two, that Tesla is a publicly traded company and there are questions around how much information or resource sharing is allowable or, you know, like, does it violate any kind of S.E.C. guidelines to do that kind of thing?

MG: So just a couple of quick things before I let you go. One is what's going to happen in the future? There are questions as to whether people will leave Twitter. He has said that he wants to perhaps change the way that verified accounts are handled, that you might have to pay for verification. Stephen King, the authors say that if they do, he'll leave the site. But he used his deal of saltier language to add to say that. And Elon Musk says, well, we have to pay the bills. So do you think people will leave the site? And what is the challenge that Elon Musk is going to have in terms of paying those bills, in terms of being able to make this investment of $44 billion work?

DARRELL ETHERINGTON: Yeah. So that was a great exchange that Elon kind of came back with negotiating with Stephen King on the right, because the initial amount that was floated was $20 a month and that was what King initially responded to. And then Elon responded like, well, what about eight bucks? Right. But I think the it's an immense challenge there, and that is probably the biggest question mark from a business standpoint is, you know, this is, I think, the largest leveraged buyout in sort of tech company history. That $44 billion is an immense amount to be saddled with for a company like this that was already struggling in terms of consistently displaying positive revenue and profit. So Twitter has around like $600 million in debt on the books currently. And as a result of this deal, you know, it will now incur $1,000,000,000 in debt per year. Just as interest on the amount borrowed against it for the leveraged buyout. Like all other factors being equal. So he has an immense shortfall to make up and he's got to get money from somewhere. And the Twitter verification thing seems like a place that he his people do want Twitter verification. Is it something that people want on the platform?

MG: It offers protection. I mean, so that somebody doesn't pretend to be. Daryl Arrington, I know with the check that you are who you say you are.

DARRELL ETHERINGTON: Right, exactly. But if you turn it into a for pay scheme without any other considerations, like that's all going to go right. It undermines the entire value of that because I've talked with my colleagues, I'm not going to pay for it. No, but nobody in my newsroom is going to pay for it. And, you know, I think that's probably the case. The people who should probably be verified most are the ones who are going to be most unwilling to pay for, you know, politicians, journalists and the people who are willing to pay for it are the people who want to use it for financial gain, possibly through scams and other nefarious means.

MG: You can't take your eyes away from it. Darrell. Good to talk to you. Thank you very much.

DARRELL ETHERINGTON: Thanks a lot, Matt.

MG: Darrell Etherington, managing editor of TechCrunch. He joined us from Toronto. David Nasaw is emeritus professor of history at City University of New York Graduate Centre. David, good morning to you.

DAVID NASAW: Good morning.

MG: How much power do you think Elon Musk has now as the owner of Twitter?

DAVID NASAW: Wow. Too much. Too much. I don't think any one individual, you know, whether it's a reincarnation of Mahatma Gandhi or, you know, Shirley Temple or anybody else should have control over what Elon Musk rightly calls, you know, our digital town square. And the fact that he's taking the company private means that he's got no board to control them. He doesn't have to worry about investors. I mean, that's an extraordinary amount of power and and I think too much.

MG: What impact do you think his views on free speech and again, how he defines free speech I think is is important as well. But what impact do you think that and the content moderation conversation will have more broadly when when he really is able to figure out how to move that forward?

DAVID NASAW: You know, the question for me is not simply free speech. The question is disinformation that incites violence. And, you know, American law is much less restrictive than Canadian law or European law. You know, there's no there's no law against hate speech in the United States. And the so-called Communications Decency Act of 1996 said that Internet providers, unlike the publishers of newspapers or magazines, can't be held liable for whatever they they say. So, I mean, this is a dangerous road to go down. Let me just give you one example. I mean, before Paul Pelosi was attacked and before this, Nancy Pelosi, a scream fest against her. There were numerous calls on Twitter to do something about Nancy Pelosi and there were incitement to violence. And, you know, we know where that led. We see this all the time. And there doesn't seem to be any restriction, any regulation, any law, any attempt at public debate, certainly in the United States. Now, Canada is different because you have the public debate over over laws. But in the United States, there's no discussion of what do we do about this hate speech that incites violence. It's just not happening. And that's dangerous. I mean, these are dangerous times.

MG: Is there a way to bring that under control? In part because as you've written and others as well, that Elon Musk made his fortune in part through government subsidies for things like Tesla and for space. So does that does that give the government any leverage over what he does with this site?

DAVID NASAW: It could, if the government wanted to act, it could. But I think there is at this point what we need, certainly in the United States is a unfettered, open, inclusive public debate about the limits of free speech and. Whether we are going to find a way. Look. Free speech can't override. Can't trump to use it, pardon my expression, can't trump all other rights and freedoms? The Supreme Court has said that. But if the Congress hasn't acted to do something about it. I mean, yeah, free speech is important, but not free speech that incites and leads to violence.

MG: Do we make too much of the influence of Twitter? Something like 13% of Canadians are on this site. The majority of people aren't using Twitter. It gets a lot of attention because of what you've talked about and who does or doesn't have the ability to post on Twitter. But how important is it in the in the grand scheme of things?

DAVID NASAW: I think it's I think it's quite important because it's not simply a question of. Numbers. It's a question of how is it being used and by whom is it being used? And when rightwing armed militias use Twitter and other sites. Twitter is not the only one. Use Twitter and other sites to rally the troops. Based on disinformation. To commit violence. I mean, that's serious. That's serious. And if Twitter doesn't reach. A majority of Canadians are Americans. It has become a communication. Mechanism a rallying cry. A way to gather the troops. Tell them to get armed and send them into action.

MG: What do you think will happen with Twitter? Again, as I mentioned to our previous guest in speaking with Gerald. One of the things that people have said is, well, I'm leaving. You know, if he's going to just even take control, we've seen some people. Shonda Rhimes, the TV producer and others who have left Twitter. But also, if he enacts the policies that he says he's going to, the people will leave the site. What is the future for Twitter, do you think? Will there be an exodus? Will it be strengthened by by Elon Musk's ownership?

DAVID NASAW: I think that Elon Musk is has made probably a dreadful business decision. I mean, the numbers are such that I don't see how it can possibly be sustained without additional investors. And I don't know why additional investors would pour money into a sinkhole. The debt is now $1,000,000,000 a year and the revenues are less than that. So I just don't know. I just don't know where he thinks he's going to get the money he's talking about. He doesn't want advertisers. He doesn't want investors. Well, how's he going to keep this thing afloat? I don't know. I think in the long run, it's going to have to merge with some other service or shrink considerably. But that doesn't mean it's not going to be less dangerous as as long as it's there. And as long as it dwarfs all other sites, which it will do for a while, even with, you know, people leaving in protest, I mean, it's going to be a clear and present danger, I think. I think and I don't want to risk that, you know, any more. Paul Pelosi attacks. I don't want any more invasions of the Capitol. I don't want any more invasions of, you know, an FBI office that is incited by, again, by disinformation. That is spread to millions of people and to armed, you know, militia groups.

MG: David, good to speak with you. Thank you very much.

DAVID NASAW: My pleasure.

MG: David Nasaw is emeritus professor of history at City University of New York Graduate Centre and the author of several books, including biographies of William Randolph Hearst and Andrew Carnegie.

[Music]

MG: This is the current on CBC Radio One. My name is Matt Galloway. Last week on the programme, we brought you the story of a new helper at a montreal care home.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: Grace, can you hear me?

GRACE: Yes. With my microphones and artificial intelligence. I am processing what I interpret you are saying and giving you a behaviour in response.

VOICE: Did I pass?

GRACE: You did great.

MG: Grace is a humanoid robot. It's part of a pilot project from Montreal's Jewish General Hospital. Grace has been spending time with seniors at the long term care home residents Pearle and Theo. The goal is to help keep seniors from feeling lonely and to improve their mental health through conversation. This was an interesting discussion. We got a lot of mail about this. And the current senior producer, Karin Marley, is here with some of your letters. Karin, good morning.

KARIN MARLEY: Good morning. Yeah, the idea of robots helping to care for our seniors definitely caused a stir. Anna McCormick in Ottawa wrote: This idea is deplorable to me. How are we treating our seniors, especially those who experience dementia, who may be entirely confused by a robot? Technology is not our current seniors generation, and I am insulted that it is perceived as a potential solution to the labour market shortage in long term care. I work in the prison system and I see the same deficit in investing in relational care. Why is actual human interaction not valued? Have we not learnt from the pandemic? I could not imagine knowing my 82 year old mother was placated by a robot if she were to find herself in long term care.

MG: Truly insulting. A listener in Vancouver wrote: It's the chit chat, as your guest described it, that is so important. The human touch, the smile, the tucking in that are blatantly unnecessary from caregivers. I'm 83 now and in reasonably good health. I'm beginning to think that I too will be spending the last part of my life in a care home. God help that I die before the robots get there.

KARIN MARLEY: David Youngson wasn't sold on the idea either. He says: Grace just feels like a harbinger of further warehousing a generation we are all obliged to take care of in person.

MG: Rona Altrows in Calgary was thinking about her own future. While listening, Rona writes: I am in my seventies, currently able to live independently and lucky for me without cognitive impairment. But who knows what my future may hold? Not meaningless conversation all day with a robot, I hope, because care staff has no time to interact with me in a proper relational way.

KARIN MARLEY: Not everyone was against the idea, though. Jack Borden sees the robots as part of an evolving system. Robots can play a role in senior care. We have created a system that integrates all kinds of technology, including robots, to enhance the care of residents and reduce overall care costs.

MG: Enna Pearlston wrote about her mother's care in the Bay Crest Centre for Geriatric Care in Toronto. I recall a phone call asking if I felt it was all right for mom to be visited by a robot. Mom was always up for a new adventure, so we said yes to this request. The robot was in quite an early stage of development. However, it did interact with mom, who was quite delighted with the experience. My mother declined and passed away in a long term care facility during the lockdown at the beginning of the COVID 19 pandemic. This was indeed a terrible time as we were unable to visit mom for quite a long time, and this had a detrimental effect as she was used to regular in-person visits. Bring on the robots to hospital in long term care settings. I believe they will play an important part in future care.

KARIN MARLEY: And finally, Mike Tropp in Vancouver wouldn't mind giving something like this a try. He says, It occurred to me I've lived alone for 36 years, a visitor only rarely. I monologue during the day and evening. I wonder how a conversation would go if a robot were in the house with me, programmed to interact. Hmm.

MG: Karin, thank you very much.

KARIN MARLEY: You're welcome.

MG: Karin Marley, senior producer on The Current. Not a robot, real life human being. You can reach us with your thoughts on this programme. Get in touch. Email us thecurrent@cbc.ca or on the previously discussed Twitter @TheCurrentCBC. That's The Current for this Tuesday. q's up next on CBC Radio one, we'll leave you with a song about our lives blending with technology. Robots actually can write songs. This song was written by a real life human being. Stan Mangan and Tobots. I'm Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening. We'll see you tomorrow.

SOUNDCLIP

[Song] [/sc]

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

Tuesday November 1, 2022 Full Transcript

More Stories Like This