Its hard to cover EVERYTHING but I wish you had asked about Indigenous incarceration and Minister's thoughts on bail reform. Learning about Crystal Paskemin's brutal murder today and how murderer secured day parole made me cry. I don't cry often. A little less about "polysenthetic pronouns" in the Mohawk language would have rounded out this interview. Thanks Paul you're a patient man. I would have blown up.
I’m happily in the overlap, enjoying both the newsletter and the podcast, and I can’t quarrel too much with your approach to interviewing since the conversations you’ve published, including this one, have been fantastic. But I have to wonder: if you got the chance to interview, say, Pierre Poilievre for the podcast, would you refrain from asking the questions you set out some time ago in the newsletter? It would be hard to ask them without things getting a bit more confrontational. Or would that kind of questioning be reserved for an interview destined for print?
I do almost always put the hard questions in interviews. Here I ask Miller why he's not delivering promised clean water, for instance. I got in trouble once for not asking Trudeau about groping, but I think the stuff I asked him about the global crisis in democracy was harder. I just don't feel like grilling someone for an hour. With Poilievre, I'd ask about real-life cases of public-health restrictions during the lockdown, and I'd ask about that brewer he harassed for stupid revenge kicks, both of which were in that famous column. But there too the goal would be to get an answer, not to mike-drop about how tough the questions were.
"...you might notice a pretty sharp tonal gradient: I’m much more critical in print than in person. This isn’t a tactical choice. It’s a function of intended voice. If you’re reading me, I feel I owe you a sense of what I think. Whereas if I’m interviewing somebody, my goal is to have that person do most of the talking. They generally won’t do that if I act like Jeremy Paxman..."
Come to think of it, this isn't about tone or tactics, it's about guest selection. When you (and/or your sponsors) pick a politician or CEO, you know you'll be faced with a lot of pre-fabbed gab, corporate propaganda or party messaging. Non-answers in other words, most of which are uninteresting or, more damning, not funny.
Perhaps the mere fact that they get on the show, say what they want to say, and come across as half decent human beings, is enough to satisfy Telus, or whomever it is that influences these decisions.
Sad as this is, when you avoid the pols and fat cats, the podcast, I think, is on par with the print. That Margaret Macmillan conversation was outstanding.
Hi Paul. I have tremendous respect for Minister Miller and for how much he has enabled to happen in his portfolio. I am pleased that you have done this interview. Your reference to his strong partisan views was a little sharp, considering your own strong partisan views. Non? I do not think that one should or could hold a ministerial position without partisan views.
Thanks for the interview. He is a very interesting individual. Indeed, it seems to me that, prima facie, he is more impressive than the PM; and he is certainly more forthcoming. While, by the same token – his military experience aside – he is also such a quintessential example of the Laurentian elite! I would love to hear his views on the role of government, more generally, and on the challenges that Canada faces, and not just his travails in the portfolio that he now holds. But I guess that would trespass on the territory of the PMO. On the other hand, it is a reminder of the depth of the talent in an otherwise tired government, headed by a less than stellar leader.
I enjoy all your stuff, but please allow me to respectfully point out a twosome of common errors embedded in your ersatz Serenity Prayer link: “THE courage” should be simply “courage”, and “THE wisdom” should likewise be simply “wisdom”. A small thing, but the specific correct wording has been printed and distributed globally for precisely 944 months (since June 1944) on the back of AA’s monthly Grapevine magazine. Unfortunately Hollywood always gets it wrong.
Its hard to cover EVERYTHING but I wish you had asked about Indigenous incarceration and Minister's thoughts on bail reform. Learning about Crystal Paskemin's brutal murder today and how murderer secured day parole made me cry. I don't cry often. A little less about "polysenthetic pronouns" in the Mohawk language would have rounded out this interview. Thanks Paul you're a patient man. I would have blown up.
Refreshing. Future PM material?
Exactly what I was thinking
I’m happily in the overlap, enjoying both the newsletter and the podcast, and I can’t quarrel too much with your approach to interviewing since the conversations you’ve published, including this one, have been fantastic. But I have to wonder: if you got the chance to interview, say, Pierre Poilievre for the podcast, would you refrain from asking the questions you set out some time ago in the newsletter? It would be hard to ask them without things getting a bit more confrontational. Or would that kind of questioning be reserved for an interview destined for print?
I do almost always put the hard questions in interviews. Here I ask Miller why he's not delivering promised clean water, for instance. I got in trouble once for not asking Trudeau about groping, but I think the stuff I asked him about the global crisis in democracy was harder. I just don't feel like grilling someone for an hour. With Poilievre, I'd ask about real-life cases of public-health restrictions during the lockdown, and I'd ask about that brewer he harassed for stupid revenge kicks, both of which were in that famous column. But there too the goal would be to get an answer, not to mike-drop about how tough the questions were.
"...you might notice a pretty sharp tonal gradient: I’m much more critical in print than in person. This isn’t a tactical choice. It’s a function of intended voice. If you’re reading me, I feel I owe you a sense of what I think. Whereas if I’m interviewing somebody, my goal is to have that person do most of the talking. They generally won’t do that if I act like Jeremy Paxman..."
Sounds pretty tactical to me, but what do I know.
Come to think of it, this isn't about tone or tactics, it's about guest selection. When you (and/or your sponsors) pick a politician or CEO, you know you'll be faced with a lot of pre-fabbed gab, corporate propaganda or party messaging. Non-answers in other words, most of which are uninteresting or, more damning, not funny.
Perhaps the mere fact that they get on the show, say what they want to say, and come across as half decent human beings, is enough to satisfy Telus, or whomever it is that influences these decisions.
Sad as this is, when you avoid the pols and fat cats, the podcast, I think, is on par with the print. That Margaret Macmillan conversation was outstanding.
Hi Paul. I have tremendous respect for Minister Miller and for how much he has enabled to happen in his portfolio. I am pleased that you have done this interview. Your reference to his strong partisan views was a little sharp, considering your own strong partisan views. Non? I do not think that one should or could hold a ministerial position without partisan views.
I'll bite. What are my strong partisan views?
From my limited listening experience over a decade, I would call you a Conservative- not necessarily a reform type.
Thanks for the interview. He is a very interesting individual. Indeed, it seems to me that, prima facie, he is more impressive than the PM; and he is certainly more forthcoming. While, by the same token – his military experience aside – he is also such a quintessential example of the Laurentian elite! I would love to hear his views on the role of government, more generally, and on the challenges that Canada faces, and not just his travails in the portfolio that he now holds. But I guess that would trespass on the territory of the PMO. On the other hand, it is a reminder of the depth of the talent in an otherwise tired government, headed by a less than stellar leader.
I enjoy all your stuff, but please allow me to respectfully point out a twosome of common errors embedded in your ersatz Serenity Prayer link: “THE courage” should be simply “courage”, and “THE wisdom” should likewise be simply “wisdom”. A small thing, but the specific correct wording has been printed and distributed globally for precisely 944 months (since June 1944) on the back of AA’s monthly Grapevine magazine. Unfortunately Hollywood always gets it wrong.
This was such a good conversation. Thanks for doing it Paul!
Thoroughly enjoy emailed columns and podcasts.
Thank you