Context, Jian Gomeshi, and what Q needs now.

I hear some of CBC’s Q most every weekday. Leaving aside any discussion about the scandal surrounding Jian Gomeshi, I note that this show is really missing his talent as the host. And, comparing various hosts to Jian, I am left wondering how the current context affects our perception.

I like to quote a study from the movie industry in which audiences were shown identical clips of an actor with a neutral expression on his face. This study often informs my thinking on context. For one audience the actor was juxtaposed with happy, celebratory scenes of a wedding. For another audience the identical clip of the same actor was juxtaposed with sad, mournful scenes of a funeral. In the former case the audience reported that the actor was very good at expressing joy. In the latter, the report was that he was very good at sorrow. Identical clips, same actor, radically different interpretations of his facial expression because of context. Fascinating. And as I often say, context matters. A lot.

Listing to Q, I find myself wondering at the real importance of the host and his or her presentation. How does the context – the host – affect my perception of the show? 

Terry O’Rielly is brilliant on Under the Influence. Having come to love him there, where his presentation is that of knowledgeable narrator, I struggle to accept him as a chat show host at Q. He filled in for Jian in that past and it felt awkward to me.

I was never a big fan of Jian personally – I found that from time to time his ego surfaced in his interviews and it troubled me. But, I was mostly very impressed by his presentation. He rarely sounded like he was reading and if he did, he wanted you to know that he was because it was part of the bit. He was a good listener, often picking up on a thread in the conversation and following it despite the prepared questions he had in front of him. He was elegant, natural, and dramatic. Occasionally too much, but mostly I felt that he was remarkably informed and knowledgeable. With Jian I rarely heard that hand of the producer – it sounded like it was all Jian. He didn’t write his own opening essays. I was amazed to learn this. He made them intimately his own with his presentation.

The temporary hosts that I have heard at some length are struggling to fill the void.

I hear Wab Kinew reading. He may not be. But, his deep voice and methodical presentation sound like reading, to me. His cadence, to my ear, is not as conversational as Jian and I am left feeling that he is disengaged in a lot of his interviews.

Piya Chattopadhyay is frequently not listening, although I think this is because she is frequently talking to guests out of her area of expertise. Jian, for instance, was intimately acquainted with pop music. His natural expertise in this area shone in interviews with musical guests. Piya is uncomfortable in this area and is, thus, much more dependent upon the preparation of the producers. I hear her moving on to the next prepared question instead of listening. He music interviews lack flow.

Wab and Piya are in a nearly impossible position. They are both very talented broadcasters. But the context of Q is such that it’s almost impossible to succeed. Listeners, like me, are waiting to knock you down. We don’t do it on purpose but because of the context of Jian’s departure we are hypersensitive listeners. We are alert for every imperfection. And we are hearing the imperfections because the model, to date, has been to have the new hosts do Jian’s show. CBC is inviting intense comparison because it's the same show, with new hosts.

Ultimately, CBC needs to recast the context. There is a lot invested in Q. If I were CBC I would try to maintain the good will built up in the entertainment industry by keeping the time slot and general pop culture themes. But, I would re-brand the entire show. New name, new host, new features, new everything. Remove the current context. Stop listeners from constantly comparing the current hosts to the past. Like it or not, it was Jian’s show. Perhaps you can keep the name but at the very least you need to remake everything inside. Jimmy Fallon, for instance, has re-made The Tonight Show. It is now so different that it’s impossible to constantly compare him to Jay Leno or Johnny Carson. Q requires this level of remake. Otherwise it is a lame animal limping along in the constant shadow of its defrocked former host because that is the context that we are hearing it in.

I have bad news for new parents…

Parents want their children to be happy. 
 

It’s slightly more nuanced than this.  We also desire safety, security, prosperity, and a few other things but it all really reduces to happy. We want our children to be happy.

When kids are young, we can provide this happiness. Read Horton Hears a Who. Load the stroller with toy trucks and head to the park where there is a sandbox. Run alongside holding onto the bike seat shouting encouragement. 

When our kids are young, our burden is time. Invest your time in your child and she is happy. Sometimes this is hard. Time with your child is time away from friends and other activities. But, time with your child is a virtual guarantee that he will be happy and so it’s an easy sacrifice to make. 

Here is the bad news…

When children cross from childhood into adulthood this formula no longer applies. You are no longer able to guarantee the happiness of your child with the simple investiture of time because, like you, they start to worry about the future. They have anxiety about school, friends, jobs, careers, and relationships. And you can’t fix any of it. 

I find this phase of parenting to be much harder. The burden is not on my time, it’s on my heart. I still just want my children to be happy but this is now in their hands, not mine. And, this is hard. Even when they are happy -- which is most of the time, I think -- I worry about it.

A whole new skill set it required. What are the boundaries? How much help can I offer? What kind of help do they want? It’s much more complex than simply going to the zoo with grandpa. 

 

Good luck. Parenting is a life’s work. The most stressful, worrisome, awesome, uplifting, and fulfilling thing in life. It is humbling. It defines my place in the universe. I am the person that occupies the space between my parents and my children. It gets harder, not easier. But, I wouldn't want it any other way.

Airstrikes alone cannot win? Actually, yes they can. Sort of.

In the fight against ISIS Canada has committed to a six-month air campaign in support of the U.S.-led mission. There is talk of extending beyond this initial six months and I expect that we will. Some allies are bombing targets in Iraq and Syria, to date, Canada is only involved in Iraq.
 

According to the Department of National Defence, Canada has conducted 211 sorties as of Dec. 18:

134 sorties conducted by CF-18 Hornet fighters.

36 stories by CC-150 Polaris aerial refueller, delivering some 1,911,000 pounds of fuel to coalition aircraft.

41 reconnaissance missions by the CP-140 Aurora aircraft.

This past Sunday, our most recent combat sortie struck an ISIS weapons facility in Fallujah, Iraq.

In the early days of our commitment to this U.S.-led mission we heard a lot about “mission creep” including a lot of questions about whether or not there would eventually be Canadian “boots on the ground.” The oft repeated analysis is that air power alone cannot win. 

If you define “win” as the total elimination of the enemy and complete safety of all people in the region currently occupied by the enemy then, that’s right, air power cannot win. You will need troops – soldiers and police – among the citizenry in order to preserve peace and security in the region. But, if you define “win” as "eliminate the enemy’s ability to wage war" then air power can win. It is well along that path.

German journalist Jürgen Todenhöfer is just back from six days with ISIS in Mosul, Iraq. He reports that ISIS fighters are highly motivated. And, he says, they have made themselves difficult to target by spreading themselves throughout the city and no longer travelling in convoys to avoid coalition air strikes. 

Under constant threat of U.S.-led airstrikes, ISIS cannot presently wage war in any significant way. Their fighters are dispersed because they know that any large concentration will be targeted. They have a great deal of difficulty in moving large concentration of forces which you need to do if you are going to expand your territory. Air power can make it difficult to move even a lone Toyota truck with a machine gun mounted in the bed. It would seem that significant ISIS geographic expansion has been stopped and, indeed, turned back in places by regional allies. If victory is eliminating ISIS’ ability to wage war then this battle is won. Or close to it.

But, to define “win” we need to talk about the end game. What is the goal of the mission? What set of circumstances will have us clapping hands and declaring victory. And what is our stomach for it.

One possibility is to provide air support to regional allies for years to come. This is a continuation of the current strategy. And, it will almost certainly contain ISIS. This maximizes the safety of our soldiers and pilots. It does, however, bring years of horrific atrocities – beheadings, rapes, persecution – in ISIS controlled areas. Amnesty International reports that some of those held by ISIS are children as young as 10, and the militants are using rape as a weapon in attacks amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity. Captives have been tortured, raped, sold, forced to marry fighters, and in many cases, forced to convert to Islam. These atrocities will diminish with time as there will be no victims left in ISIS controlled areas, having fled or been killed. So, we can contain ISIS while maximizing our own safety but abandoning those who remain in ISIS controlled areas. After years of containment we hope that ISIS fighters lose the motivation which Jürgen Todenhöfer reports.

Another possibility is to abandon the entire endeavour. Bring our aircraft home and let the regional powers sort themselves out. This seems laden with trouble as the regional powers have poor command and control. Their ability to stand against ISIS is in doubt.

A third possibility is to go all in. To send in the troops and to occupy land. To bring peace and security with the equivalent of a militarized police force. This places our troops at maximum risk but minimizes atrocities committed. And as we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, requires a commitment of decades which we are not appear willing to make.

Our choice falls on a continuum from "do nothing" to "total commitment." Given the atrocities being reported by Amnesty International, I am amazed by those who say that we have no role to play.

Can airstrikes alone win? Yes. But only if you accept that “victory” means containment, not complete defeat.

The next question is, if you contain the ISIS threat for, say, the next thirty years, what happens? Does ISIS influence fade? Does it grow and inspire ever more “homegrown terrorism” throughout the world? Does the world get safer or more dangerous? Will Canadians be safer? Tough questions.