Latest / Question Everything / A Rant or a Slant: When Should Reporters Speak From the Heart?

Transcript

A Rant or a Slant: When Should Reporters Speak From the Heart? · Question Everything

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: You ever get frustrated with that charade reporters are supposed
• 0:02
  Speaker 1: to keep up where we pretend we don't have opinions
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: or feelings or any kind of human thoughts about a
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: story we're working on? And then the charade that you're
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: supposed to keep up as a listener or viewer or
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: reader or whatever, where you're supposed to pretend that you
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: believe us. You're supposed to pretend that you believe that
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: we're basically like emotionally vacant fact vessels. Plenty of reporters
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: are frustrated with it and sick of it and have
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: been breaking out of that charade for a while now,
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: which I think is exciting. But what you may not
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: know is that the decision to do that, it's often
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: pretty fraught and personal when you're deciding as a reporter
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: whether to reveal your feelings or not. And the choice
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: you make about whether you share your point of view
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: or not while reporting a story, it can have a
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: real impact. It can affect the people you're reporting on.
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: It can affect whether they're seen as guilty or innocent,
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: trustworthy or not. It can have an impact on the
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: policies you're covering, how people think about them, and it
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: can affect you as the reporter, your credibility, your career.
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: This is what we're going to explore today. We're going
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: to go inside this decision, which is both personal and journalistic,
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: and we're going to do it with this new podcast
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: series that was recommended to me called The Kopernik Affair.
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: The Kopernik Affair is about an unassuming sociology professor in
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: Canada who gets accused of carrying out a bomb attack
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: on a Paris synagogue. some 40 years after it happened.
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: It's from the Canada Land Network. Copernic is the name
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: of the synagogue that was attacked. Four people were killed.
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: Dozens were injured. The sociology professor is named Hassan Diab.
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: He's originally from Lebanon. Hassan has always claimed that he's
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: completely innocent of this crime. He says he wasn't in
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: France when it happened, that he never associated with the
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: militant group from Lebanon that suspected of being behind it. Still,
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: Hassan's life is turned upside down while French investigators try
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: to get him extradited from Canada so they can prove otherwise.
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: And they do get him extradited.
• 2:00
  Speaker 2: It was cold. And I had practically no clothes on
• 2:05
  Speaker 2: me except maybe jeans, a T-shirt and a jacket. And
• 2:10
  Speaker 2: practically nothing more than that.
• 2:12
  Speaker 3: You didn't pack a bag or they didn't allow you
• 2:15
  Speaker 3: to bring a bag from Canada or anything? Zero.
• 2:18
  Speaker 2: Zero. At night, they put me on the plane, and
• 2:22
  Speaker 2: here we go. It's like you feel or you wish
• 2:27
  Speaker 2: if the plane goes down, I don't care anymore now.
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: Eventually, they do get him to France, where he's held
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: in prison for years, awaiting trial, until two judges review
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: his case and decide it isn't strong enough, and they
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: release him. He's sent home to Canada. Prime Minister Justin
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: Trudeau says what happened to Hassan Diab never should have happened.
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: And then... French authorities bring a case against him again.
• 2:52
  Speaker 4: On Monday, France's top court put Hassan Diab on trial
• 2:56
  Speaker 4: in connection with a 43-year-old bombing attack outside a Paris synagogue.
• 3:00
  Speaker 4: This trial comes five years after a lower court set
• 3:03
  Speaker 4: Diab free.
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: This time, though, they can't get him back to France.
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: So they try him in absentia. Hassan stays in Canada
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: and doesn't attend his trial. And despite multiple judges having
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: already declared that the evidence against Hassan is very thin...
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: A French court convicts him from afar. So now Hassan
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: is living as a free man in Canada, yet is
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: still a convicted terrorist in France. Actually, just as the
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: podcast series was coming out these last few months, this
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: cross-Atlantic fight over an Arab man's culpability in a 40-year-old
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: attack against Jews has become an international flashpoint. A right-wing
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: Canadian lawmaker reposted an inflammatory article not long ago calling
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: Hassan Diab a terrorist. He said they should send Hassan
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: to France to face punishment. And then, of all people,
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: Elon Musk picked up on the story. He tweeted about Hassan,
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: saying a mass murderer is living free as a professor
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: in Canada. 21 million people saw this. Just the other day,
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: the Daily Mail sent a photographer to trail Hassan as
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: he went about his daily routine. So the controversy is
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: heating up again, and Hassan's case is becoming a right-wing
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: outrage generator. I enjoyed the Kopernik affair. I liked learning
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: about the case, and the reporting is excellent, diligent. The
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: reporters who co-host it, Dana Balut and Alex Atack, get
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: in-depth interviews with most of the key figures in the
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: case across five or six countries, including with Hassan Diab.
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: I had a conversation not long ago with the reporters,
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: Dana and Alex, and we got to talking about this
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: one part of an interview they did with Hassan. It's
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: one of the more memorable moments in the series. Dana,
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: in particular... had a really strong reaction to this section
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: of the interview. So much so that the editorial team
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: decided they should include her reaction as part of the show.
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: It was dramatic. Everyone was on board. And then Dana
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: decided to nix it.
• 4:58
  Speaker 5: There's one section in particular where I went on a
• 5:00
  Speaker 5: little rant and we had it in there for a
• 5:03
  Speaker 5: little bit and then we took it out because I
• 5:06
  Speaker 5: was so self-conscious about people perceiving me as biased towards Hassan.
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: For Dana, this choice about how much to insert herself
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: into the story was especially wrenching. Like Hassan Diab, the
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: man she was reporting on, she also is Lebanese. She
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: grew up in Lebanon in the 90s. And while she
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: wanted to believe this shared cultural background was an asset
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: to her reporting the story, she also worried that people
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: might use it against her and it could become a
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: liability for her reporting. And that did end up happening.
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: So she found herself having to make all sorts of
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: calculations as a journalist as to when to express commonality
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: with Hassan, when to hold back. On today's Question Everything
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: from KCRW and Placement Theory, we're going to pull back
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: the curtain on a single editorial decision and how the
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: complex emotions surrounding it prompted me to revisit a decision
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: a colleague and I made in our own work.
• 6:03
  Speaker 6: I'm Brian Reed.
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: Stick around. Here's the part of the Kopernik affair that
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: I asked Dana about. It takes place during an interview
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: she and her co-reporter Alex did with Hassan Diab, who's
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: accused of the synagogue attack. Dana and Alex want to
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: know whether or not Hassan associated with a specific Palestinian
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: militant group that was based in Lebanon at the time.
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: They're focused on this because the investigators in France claim
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: this group was behind the attack on the Kopernik synagogue
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: and that Hassan was part of the group and carried
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: it out on their behalf. Hassan's alleged affiliation with this
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: militant group is central to France's case against him. Dana
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: and Alex try to get at it by asking Hassan
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: what his relationship was to these types of groups in general,
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: various political groups that were fighting in the civil war
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: in Lebanon during Hassan's college years. And Hassan answers. Again,
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: this is all from the series, The Copernic Affair. You'll
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: hear him first, then you'll hear the reporter.
• 7:04
  Speaker 7: Alex, and then Dana.
• 7:07
  Speaker 2: The university was a place where you see all these
• 7:10
  Speaker 2: groups from leftists to nationalists to few Islamists. And you
• 7:16
  Speaker 2: have friends because they are in your class. So I
• 7:19
  Speaker 2: was well known of a person who was anti all
• 7:24
  Speaker 2: these groups. But I was more concerned about, you know,
• 7:29
  Speaker 2: going every day to the sea. I would swim in
• 7:33
  Speaker 2: winter and summer, and I have my motorcycle. If you
• 7:37
  Speaker 2: want to call it hippie life, call it hippie life.
• 7:41
  Speaker 3: You were in this context at university where there were
• 7:44
  Speaker 3: lots of young people interested in being part of these
• 7:47
  Speaker 3: political groups, maybe even fighting with them, and you were
• 7:50
  Speaker 3: able to stay away from all of that. Is that
• 7:54
  Speaker 3: what you're saying? Absolutely.
• 7:55
  Speaker 2: Absolutely. Even some people would say, we envy you the
• 8:00
  Speaker 2: way you can manage with all these different groups who
• 8:03
  Speaker 2: fight for anything.
• 8:05
  Speaker 3: So just so I have it completely straight, you were
• 8:07
  Speaker 3: never part of a group that could be considered a militia.
• 8:11
  Speaker 3: You never fought with any of them. You never picked
• 8:14
  Speaker 3: up arms.
• 8:15
  Speaker 2: It's strange you ask this because most of these groups,
• 8:18
  Speaker 2: everybody thought I was like with another group. They just
• 8:24
  Speaker 2: put the tag on you. Ah, he's with the Iraqis.
• 8:26
  Speaker 2: He's with this.
• 8:27
  Speaker 5: But Hassan, are you able to answer the question yes
• 8:30
  Speaker 5: or no? So the question is, did you ever belong
• 8:33
  Speaker 5: to any political party? Is there a yes or no answer?
• 8:36
  Speaker 2: No, of course.
• 8:38
  Speaker 5: And then also, did you ever fight and pick up
• 8:41
  Speaker 5: guns for any group?
• 8:42
  Speaker 2: For any group? No. For myself, maybe. I used to
• 8:47
  Speaker 2: shoot at birds, but I missed most of the birds, luckily.
• 8:51
  Speaker 5: So you never fought in the civil war for one
• 8:55
  Speaker 5: political party over another?
• 8:57
  Speaker 2: I told you I would go with all these people
• 9:01
  Speaker 2: out and they would shoot. They would let me shoot
• 9:04
  Speaker 2: maybe at glasses or whatever. And maybe if they considered
• 9:09
  Speaker 2: me a fighter at the time, I would be with
• 9:11
  Speaker 2: all the groups at the same time.
• 9:14
  Speaker 5: So the most correct answer is you had friends from
• 9:16
  Speaker 5: all groups, but you're saying that you didn't belong to
• 9:19
  Speaker 5: any one group.
• 9:21
  Speaker 2: In particular. Yeah, correct.
• 9:23
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 9:23
  Speaker 4: All right.
• 9:25
  Speaker 5: Because sometimes, Hassan, it's hard to get you to answer
• 9:28
  Speaker 5: yes or no.
• 9:29
  Speaker 2: Oh, well, you have to explain because this situation in Beirut,
• 9:33
  Speaker 2: it's really, it's not yes or no.
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: So that's the scene Dana and I talked about, along
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: with her co-reporter, Alex.
• 9:43
  Speaker 5: I think a lot of people see that as him
• 9:45
  Speaker 5: dodging questions and see it as suspicious. And that's totally fair.
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: I'll just say, like, my reaction, it was, yeah, I
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: don't know if, like, suspicious is the word I'd use,
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: but it's like, it seems like the answer should be simple.
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: for him to give. And why isn't it?
• 10:02
  Speaker 6: You know? Yeah.
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: Is that how you guys were feeling in the interview?
• 10:06
  Speaker 5: Even on our team that was like, oh my God,
• 10:09
  Speaker 5: that's like, you know, so damning. And I think I
• 10:12
  Speaker 5: viewed it in a different way. I understood why it
• 10:15
  Speaker 5: wasn't yes or no. And this is the rant that
• 10:18
  Speaker 5: I go on and we ended up cutting it.
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: Okay, so here's what happened in the final story, the
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: episode as they released it to the world. That scene
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: ends with Hassan saying, you can't just give a yes
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: or no answer, you have to explain.
• 10:31
  Speaker 2: Because this situation in Beirut, it's really, it's not yes
• 10:36
  Speaker 2: or no.
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: And then there's music. And then Alex and Dana move
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: on with the story.
• 10:42
  Speaker 3: While our conversations with Hassan circled a lot around the
• 10:44
  Speaker 3: civil war, it was really just a few months that
• 10:47
  Speaker 3: are at the heart of this story, the summer and
• 10:49
  Speaker 3: autumn of 1980. from August to October, when the bombing
• 10:53
  Speaker 3: in Paris took place.
• 10:54
  Speaker 5: According to the French narrative, in this window of time,
• 10:57
  Speaker 5: Hassan took a trip to Greece, then came back to Beirut.
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: Dana had lots to say about that exchange with Hassan,
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: but in the story, she doesn't say it. No comment
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: on Hassan's response to their questions or what it might
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: mean or what it was like to ask him about this.
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: But for a while in that spot, what they'd planned
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: to do instead was include what Dana calls her little rant.
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: It was a conversation she recorded with Alex in the
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: studio where she did react to that moment in the interview.
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: She did give her personal and emotional response to it.
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: This is the part the team ended up cutting near
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: the final hour. I have heard the recording. Dana shared
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: it with me. It's never aired and we're not going
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: to air it either. But I can tell you the
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: way she described it to me when I talked to
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: her about it, what you're about to hear, it's pretty
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: darn close to what was in there and the tone
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: of it too. All right, tell me the rant that
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: got cut. Let's hear it.
• 11:47
  Speaker 5: Yeah, so Hassan does like, why do we have to
• 11:49
  Speaker 5: get into like shooting birds and this and that and
• 11:53
  Speaker 5: hippie life? Like, just answer the question, you know? And
• 11:57
  Speaker 5: so my rant is that I agree with Hassan that
• 12:00
  Speaker 5: in Beirut at the time, and actually even Beirut while
• 12:03
  Speaker 5: I was growing up until today, there is no like
• 12:06
  Speaker 5: black or white. There's no like, I didn't know anyone
• 12:09
  Speaker 5: that was from any militia. And I am like, you know,
• 12:12
  Speaker 5: I've never touched a gun. That is not the context
• 12:15
  Speaker 5: in which he grew up. It's not the context in
• 12:17
  Speaker 5: which I grew up. And I think a lot of people,
• 12:20
  Speaker 5: I'll say, in the West want black or white. You know,
• 12:23
  Speaker 5: you've either shot a gun with groups, you either are
• 12:27
  Speaker 5: related to these groups or you're not. But in Lebanon,
• 12:29
  Speaker 5: it's a tiny country, you have to remember. And he's
• 12:32
  Speaker 5: right that universities are a hotbed for political parties. So yes,
• 12:35
  Speaker 5: you do have friends from all sorts of groups. And
• 12:38
  Speaker 5: some of them are the kind of shady groups, according
• 12:40
  Speaker 5: to Americans and Europeans. So I understand the context in
• 12:44
  Speaker 5: which it's hard to explain. And I empathize with the
• 12:47
  Speaker 5: dance that he's doing because sometimes I have to do
• 12:49
  Speaker 5: that dance too, right? Because that context, when you're living
• 12:53
  Speaker 5: in a city like Beirut and when you're going to university,
• 12:56
  Speaker 5: especially the one that he went to, it's totally normal
• 12:59
  Speaker 5: that Hassan had friends from different political parties. It's just
• 13:02
  Speaker 5: hard to explain to an American audience. I mean, it's
• 13:07
  Speaker 5: totally normal that he probably shot guns, not at people,
• 13:10
  Speaker 5: but maybe like Shot guns, you know, here and there.
• 13:13
  Speaker 5: Shot birds. I mean, I'll tell you, in my village,
• 13:17
  Speaker 5: people shot, you know, birds. I shot guns for fun
• 13:20
  Speaker 5: in rural villages, just like glass bottles or whatever. It's
• 13:25
  Speaker 5: changed now a little bit. But, you know, in the
• 13:27
  Speaker 5: 90s when I was growing up, like it's a chaotic place.
• 13:30
  Speaker 5: In the 60s or 70s, it was even more chaotic.
• 13:33
  Speaker 5: It was the Civil War. So, yeah, even if it
• 13:37
  Speaker 5: frustrates me and I just want him to be clear
• 13:39
  Speaker 5: about I also empathize with the dance that he's trying
• 13:42
  Speaker 5: to do.
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: Did you say any of this to him?
• 13:45
  Speaker 3: No.
• 13:47
  Speaker 5: No, I didn't. Why not? I don't need to say it.
• 13:51
  Speaker 5: I don't need to say it. He understood. I mean,
• 13:53
  Speaker 5: he probably, well, let's see. Why didn't I say it?
• 13:57
  Speaker 5: Because we're journalists and I want to make sure that
• 13:59
  Speaker 5: there's like a little bit of a distance between us.
• 14:03
  Speaker 5: That's probably why. The only time where I was like, oh,
• 14:06
  Speaker 5: I get you is when he was talking about like,
• 14:09
  Speaker 5: foraging dandelions from the prison grounds to eat. I foraged
• 14:15
  Speaker 5: dandelions with my dad growing up. Otherwise, I tried really
• 14:20
  Speaker 5: hard to keep a distance a little bit.
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: It's interesting the way you're asking the questions there. It's
• 14:28
  Speaker 1: like hearing you say this rant that you cut from
• 14:31
  Speaker 1: the series, I get to see how you're thinking in
• 14:36
  Speaker 1: that moment and But what you're actually saying is you're
• 14:40
  Speaker 1: trying to help translate this very kind of like a
• 14:45
  Speaker 1: lifetime of cultural understanding, basically, and political understanding and all
• 14:49
  Speaker 1: sorts of other standing. You're trying to help ask questions
• 14:53
  Speaker 1: in a way that translates it for the West, basically.
• 14:56
  Speaker 6: Yes.
• 14:57
  Speaker 5: A thousand percent.
• 14:58
  Speaker 3: Yes.
• 14:59
  Speaker 5: I am exactly that. I'm trying to translate it.
• 15:01
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 15:01
  Speaker 5: I like it. see, I can understand what he's trying
• 15:05
  Speaker 5: to do. I empathize with it. And I'm also like,
• 15:09
  Speaker 5: I just wanted a yes or no. Were you a member?
• 15:12
  Speaker 4: Were you not?
• 15:13
  Speaker 5: And I was like, Hasan, the West needs yes or no.
• 15:17
  Speaker 1: It's funny because I think you could come away with
• 15:19
  Speaker 1: the impression without the rant that you are suspicious of
• 15:22
  Speaker 1: him in that moment, you know, which doesn't sound... No,
• 15:26
  Speaker 1: I wasn't suspicious.
• 15:28
  Speaker 5: I was frustrated. I was really frustrated. And I get,
• 15:30
  Speaker 5: you know... And Hassan answering questions for me was very
• 15:33
  Speaker 5: frustrating because, as you can hear, like he just he'll
• 15:37
  Speaker 5: start off somewhere and then he'll end somewhere else. But
• 15:41
  Speaker 5: it's true. Hassan does not. There's no such thing as
• 15:44
  Speaker 5: a short answer. Like at one point in the interview
• 15:46
  Speaker 5: was like, you know, my parents, they always answer questions
• 15:48
  Speaker 5: and stories. And I'm like, you are your parent. Like you.
• 15:52
  Speaker 5: So I think I was really frustrated in that moment
• 15:54
  Speaker 5: more than suspicious.
• 15:56
  Speaker 3: I also think you can read it in a couple
• 15:58
  Speaker 3: of ways.
• 15:58
  Speaker 1: This is Dana's co-reporter, Alex.
• 16:00
  Speaker 3: Like it's, you could read it that it's like to
• 16:02
  Speaker 3: his credit that he's, you know, he could just say, look,
• 16:04
  Speaker 3: I never went near guns. I never went near political groups,
• 16:07
  Speaker 3: militia groups. Yeah.
• 16:09
  Speaker 6: And, you know, we.
• 16:10
  Speaker 3: Probably would have aired that as well. Like it's like,
• 16:15
  Speaker 3: it's to his credit that he's like sort of giving
• 16:16
  Speaker 3: us these honest, quite sticky, nuanced answers. Yeah. even if
• 16:21
  Speaker 3: it takes a bit of explaining and a bit of like.
• 16:23
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I understand that too. He's like, yeah, no, I
• 16:25
  Speaker 1: do got to tell you, like I did shoot birds
• 16:26
  Speaker 1: with some of these guys.
• 16:27
  Speaker 5: Yeah, right.
• 16:28
  Speaker 6: You know.
• 16:29
  Speaker 3: And that's how I read it.
• 16:30
  Speaker 1: And it's not, in this context, easy to share, you know?
• 16:34
  Speaker 5: Yeah.
• 16:34
  Speaker 3: But we had like a lot of editorial talks about
• 16:37
  Speaker 3: that section because people on our team read it differently
• 16:40
  Speaker 3: as well. I mean, if your conviction is that you're
• 16:43
  Speaker 3: completely innocent, you'd be like, why are you asking me
• 16:45
  Speaker 3: this stuff?
• 16:45
  Speaker 5: It's not relevant.
• 16:46
  Speaker 3: Yeah, like, you know what I mean? Like, everything, I guess,
• 16:49
  Speaker 3: can be read two ways.
• 16:52
  Speaker 1: Have you had second thoughts about maybe wishing that you
• 16:55
  Speaker 1: did put that rant in in the end? Or, you know,
• 16:58
  Speaker 1: and let's not call it a rant. It's context. It's
• 17:02
  Speaker 1: drawing on your considerable, like, both life experience and professional analysis.
• 17:10
  Speaker 1: It's transparency, you know, about you as a reporter. Like,
• 17:15
  Speaker 1: have you thought about, like, oh, maybe on balance it
• 17:18
  Speaker 1: would have been better to.
• 17:19
  Speaker 6: Put it in?
• 17:19
  Speaker 1: Possibly for the story, for people's understanding of that moment,
• 17:23
  Speaker 1: for people's understanding of Lebanon, of this case. Like, have
• 17:27
  Speaker 1: you thought about that?
• 17:27
  Speaker 5: Yeah, I did think about it a lot because pretty
• 17:30
  Speaker 5: much everyone on our team wanted that in. And, you know,
• 17:33
  Speaker 5: they left the decision to me in the end, but
• 17:35
  Speaker 5: everyone on the team thought.
• 17:37
  Speaker 8: To keep it in.
• 17:37
  Speaker 1: Oh, really? So you're the one who cut it?
• 17:40
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 17:40
  Speaker 7: Okay.
• 17:41
  Speaker 1: Why did you ultimately come down on the reason to
• 17:43
  Speaker 1: cut it?
• 17:44
  Speaker 5: I think there were two things. One is that I
• 17:46
  Speaker 5: felt like it wasn't in our style and we weren't
• 17:48
  Speaker 5: giving opinion. We wanted to just stick to giving opinions
• 17:50
  Speaker 5: until the very last episode. And the second was that, uh,
• 17:54
  Speaker 5: made me vulnerable. And I was, you know, ironically, like
• 17:57
  Speaker 5: you're asking everyone in the podcast to be vulnerable with you.
• 18:00
  Speaker 5: And yet you like, don't want to show your vulnerabilities.
• 18:04
  Speaker 5: You know, I got really passionate talking about it. Um,
• 18:09
  Speaker 5: And so I think to protect myself, to protect against
• 18:13
  Speaker 5: like people thinking that I was somehow defending Hassan, I
• 18:18
  Speaker 5: left it out.
• 18:20
  Speaker 1: For Dana, this wasn't a theoretical fear. Her shared background
• 18:24
  Speaker 1: with Hassan was held against her during their reporting, specifically
• 18:29
  Speaker 1: as she and Alex were reaching out to interview victims
• 18:31
  Speaker 1: of the Copernic bombing in France and their families.
• 18:34
  Speaker 5: Some of the victims expressed that um because they although
• 18:39
  Speaker 5: they had spoken to the press before did not want
• 18:41
  Speaker 5: to talk to alex and i and uh.
• 18:44
  Speaker 3: Yeah i had an interview lined up with the rabbi
• 18:46
  Speaker 3: of the synagogue he was going to meet me at
• 18:48
  Speaker 3: the synagogue and show me around and he was going
• 18:51
  Speaker 3: to talk to me he was there that night and
• 18:52
  Speaker 3: um then um the week before he basically pulled out
• 18:56
  Speaker 3: because he'd um I think there was sort of like
• 19:01
  Speaker 3: a lot of discussion on sort of WhatsApp groups about
• 19:03
  Speaker 3: who we were and what our intentions were, and maybe
• 19:06
  Speaker 3: a bit of a misunderstanding around what our intentions were.
• 19:09
  Speaker 3: And loads of, yeah, a bunch of people cancelled interviews
• 19:14
  Speaker 3: with us.
• 19:15
  Speaker 5: Yeah, and one of the victims said it was because
• 19:18
  Speaker 5: I was Lebanese and that I couldn't possibly tell this
• 19:22
  Speaker 5: story without bias because Hassan is also Lebanese, which is unfair,
• 19:27
  Speaker 5: I think. because no one asks an American, you know,
• 19:30
  Speaker 5: you can't report on an American story because you're American.
• 19:33
  Speaker 5: So I had a lot of issues with that. I
• 19:36
  Speaker 5: think I became overly self-conscious about that as well.
• 19:41
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I feel like what you're talking about just is
• 19:43
  Speaker 1: such a, just a dilemma I've heard so many colleagues
• 19:46
  Speaker 1: and friends talk about, you know, just when reporting on people,
• 19:50
  Speaker 1: from the same background as them and just trying to
• 19:53
  Speaker 1: make those decisions and those calculations about when, as a journalist,
• 19:58
  Speaker 1: it makes sense to invoke that connection, you know, and
• 20:01
  Speaker 1: when it makes sense to downplay it or distance yourself
• 20:06
  Speaker 1: from it. It's so tricky. This dilemma that Dana was
• 20:09
  Speaker 1: talking about, I realized that I had lived through it
• 20:12
  Speaker 1: in my own way and also witnessed a more direct
• 20:15
  Speaker 1: parallel to Dana's experience up close with this podcast series
• 20:19
  Speaker 1: I did called The Trojan Horse Affair. The Trojan Horse Affair,
• 20:26
  Speaker 1: not to be confused with The Kopernik Affair, was an
• 20:28
  Speaker 1: investigative story I co-hosted for The New York Times and
• 20:31
  Speaker 1: Serial in 2022. It was about a moral panic in
• 20:35
  Speaker 1: England some years back where the government came down hard
• 20:38
  Speaker 1: on Muslims after a mysterious anonymous letter showed up at
• 20:42
  Speaker 1: a government building in the city of Birmingham, which looked
• 20:45
  Speaker 1: to be plans for a radical Islamist plot to take
• 20:49
  Speaker 1: over British schools. The letter was bogus and the government
• 20:53
  Speaker 1: knew it, but they used it anyway to ban Muslim
• 20:55
  Speaker 1: educators from teaching, to target majority Muslim schools and beef
• 21:00
  Speaker 1: up counterterror policies across the country. The British press also
• 21:05
  Speaker 1: played a big role in running with unsubstantiated claims about
• 21:08
  Speaker 1: Muslim teachers, printing scary headlines about a radical Muslim plot
• 21:12
  Speaker 1: that they should have known was not real, and really
• 21:15
  Speaker 1: just driving this harmful narrative, which they have clung to since.
• 21:20
  Speaker 1: I co-reported the story with a journalist named Hamza Syed.
• 21:23
  Speaker 1: We were investigating who wrote the dodgy letter that started
• 21:26
  Speaker 1: the whole mess and trying to correct the media narrative.
• 21:30
  Speaker 1: But a big part of the eight-episode series... ended up
• 21:32
  Speaker 1: being about Hamza and my differing perspectives on the investigation itself,
• 21:37
  Speaker 1: the way our backgrounds influenced each of our approach to
• 21:40
  Speaker 1: the journalism. Hamza's as a British-Prakistani Muslim from the city
• 21:44
  Speaker 1: where this happened, Birmingham, and me as a white non-Muslim
• 21:47
  Speaker 1: outsider from America. So we both put a lot of
• 21:51
  Speaker 1: ourselves into the final story, though Hamza in particular had
• 21:55
  Speaker 1: many strong opinions and reactions because it was so close
• 21:58
  Speaker 1: to home for him. Literally, it all happened across town
• 22:01
  Speaker 1: from his flat Here's one moment from the Trojan horse
• 22:05
  Speaker 1: affair after one of our very first interviews with a
• 22:07
  Speaker 1: city politician who told us he bought into the allegations
• 22:10
  Speaker 1: that Muslims were running a plot to take over schools,
• 22:13
  Speaker 1: even though the letter was fake. As soon as we
• 22:16
  Speaker 1: left the city council building, Hamza could not contain himself.
• 22:20
  Speaker 1: He went on a rant of his own.
• 22:22
  Speaker 6: To sit here and talk as if from day one
• 22:24
  Speaker 6: you received this letter you accepted it you went around
• 22:28
  Speaker 6: and you tried to get other people to reflect your
• 22:30
  Speaker 6: urgency no one else was on board like you were
• 22:32
  Speaker 6: no bullshit mate I love how mad you are mate
• 22:36
  Speaker 6: I'm pissed why.
• 22:39
  Speaker 7: Look at the power that the letter had on officialdom
• 22:42
  Speaker 7: right look at it four years on it is so
• 22:46
  Speaker 7: ingrained in their mentality that you know all these things
• 22:50
  Speaker 7: are sinister as fuck All these things were happening. It
• 22:53
  Speaker 7: had to be stopped.
• 22:54
  Speaker 6: These practices, these steps. What the fuck was concerning? Tell
• 22:57
  Speaker 6: me what's concerning, mate. Just break it down to me.
• 23:00
  Speaker 1: You're literally poking me in the chest right now.
• 23:02
  Speaker 7: I'm seething.
• 23:05
  Speaker 1: Unlike Dana and her colleagues, Hamza and I, along with
• 23:08
  Speaker 1: our editors, made the decision to include this and all
• 23:11
  Speaker 1: sorts of other personal takes from Hamza throughout the story.
• 23:14
  Speaker 1: But it wasn't an easy decision for us either. We
• 23:17
  Speaker 1: worried about it being cliché. We worried about it being
• 23:20
  Speaker 1: a distraction from the complicated investigative reporting we were trying
• 23:23
  Speaker 1: to explain. It took us some four years to make
• 23:26
  Speaker 1: the Trojan horse affair. And I know Hamza and my
• 23:29
  Speaker 1: feelings about the experience evolved over that long time. We
• 23:32
  Speaker 1: still hang out and talk about it. So I have
• 23:34
  Speaker 1: a decent sense of how he feels about it now.
• 23:36
  Speaker 1: But it was hard to remember at the moment when
• 23:39
  Speaker 1: we were really first talking about this, should we put
• 23:42
  Speaker 1: that rant of Hamza's in and then following from that
• 23:45
  Speaker 1: a bunch of others, how we felt about it then.
• 23:48
  Speaker 1: So I gave him a call to gut check.
• 23:50
  Speaker 7: I had a very specific issue with including that tape.
• 23:56
  Speaker 1: That's after a quick break. Were you ever against including
• 24:03
  Speaker 1: that part where you're like poking me in the chest,
• 24:06
  Speaker 1: kind of unloading your personal point of view and feelings?
• 24:08
  Speaker 1: I'm talking to Hamza to find out what his feelings
• 24:11
  Speaker 1: were back when we were deciding whether or not to
• 24:13
  Speaker 1: include that part I played you.
• 24:14
  Speaker 7: Yeah, I had a very specific issue with including... That tape.
• 24:19
  Speaker 3: Okay.
• 24:20
  Speaker 1: Remind me.
• 24:22
  Speaker 7: I just was clear from the beginning that the second
• 24:24
  Speaker 7: we use tape like that, we are deliberately pulling ourselves
• 24:29
  Speaker 7: into the story. We are making ourselves characters, not reporters.
• 24:34
  Speaker 7: And the second we do that, all the reporting that
• 24:37
  Speaker 7: we do is going to be delegitimized because the character
• 24:42
  Speaker 7: allows an easy target for people to aim at. And
• 24:45
  Speaker 7: so I did not want to do that. for that reason.
• 24:49
  Speaker 7: The second you make us characters, they're not even going
• 24:52
  Speaker 7: to pay attention to what we report. All they're going
• 24:54
  Speaker 7: to do is focus on us.
• 24:55
  Speaker 1: All right, just to air this out a little bit,
• 24:56
  Speaker 1: because you're saying us, but do you mean us or
• 24:59
  Speaker 1: do you mean you because you're a brown Muslim guy
• 25:02
  Speaker 1: from Birmingham?
• 25:03
  Speaker 7: Yeah, I mean me. You know, you are barely going
• 25:07
  Speaker 7: to get mentioned as just like a, you know, useful idiot,
• 25:10
  Speaker 7: you know, but like me. So what I was cognizant
• 25:14
  Speaker 7: of is that I think this could potentially damage the story. Um,
• 25:18
  Speaker 7: We're giving people just easy reason to ignore the findings.
• 25:23
  Speaker 7: And should that happen, should all the follow-up be entirely
• 25:27
  Speaker 7: focused on us, you know, it's my primary concern was
• 25:32
  Speaker 7: the way the British press were going to receive the story.
• 25:36
  Speaker 7: I wanted them to focus on the reporting. I suspected
• 25:40
  Speaker 7: they were going to focus almost entirely on me slash
• 25:44
  Speaker 7: us because of scenes like this. So that was my reluctance.
• 25:50
  Speaker 1: And just give me the headlines you were picturing that
• 25:51
  Speaker 1: would come out in the coverage of this.
• 25:55
  Speaker 7: It's going to be very easy to say this guy
• 25:59
  Speaker 7: is a biased activist, Birmingham, dangerous, brown guy, bearded, crazy,
• 26:08
  Speaker 7: you know, irrational, completely just kind of like twisted the
• 26:13
  Speaker 7: narrative to fit his agenda. You know, the classics.
• 26:17
  Speaker 1: That like you had a dog in the fight and
• 26:19
  Speaker 1: you couldn't be trusted to report on this story.
• 26:21
  Speaker 7: Yeah, precisely.
• 26:21
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 26:22
  Speaker 7: He's a Muslim from Birmingham. So what do you expect
• 26:24
  Speaker 7: him to say about this? Full stop. I was trying
• 26:27
  Speaker 7: to get this story to a point where they had
• 26:30
  Speaker 7: to engage without reporting.
• 26:33
  Speaker 1: What I recall is like at some point you decided
• 26:36
  Speaker 1: that it wasn't going to work for you personally to
• 26:40
  Speaker 1: withhold that stuff in your work. And instead you were
• 26:42
  Speaker 1: going to lean into it. Am I remembering that correctly?
• 26:45
  Speaker 7: Yeah, precisely.
• 26:46
  Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah.
• 26:46
  Speaker 7: It was with my full consent that like that stuff
• 26:49
  Speaker 7: got used in the end because I changed my mind,
• 26:51
  Speaker 7: you know. And I changed my mind realizing they're going
• 26:54
  Speaker 7: to come for you anyway, you know. So you might
• 26:57
  Speaker 7: as well take advantage of who you are and bring
• 26:59
  Speaker 7: that into the story. And when I say they, I
• 27:04
  Speaker 7: mean the British media. I knew I was about to
• 27:07
  Speaker 7: report the Trojan Horse affair that Britain does not want
• 27:09
  Speaker 7: to return to. Well, guess what, mate? you might as
• 27:12
  Speaker 7: well make the most of this opportunity. You know, really
• 27:14
  Speaker 7: say exactly what you want to say because you're not
• 27:16
  Speaker 7: going to get that chance again. Story's going to come
• 27:18
  Speaker 7: out and it's going to get trashed and ridiculed. And then,
• 27:20
  Speaker 7: you know, there you go. You just wave a goodbye.
• 27:22
  Speaker 7: So make the most of it, mate. You have eight
• 27:23
  Speaker 7: hours at the New York Times.
• 27:25
  Speaker 6: Speak.
• 27:31
  Speaker 1: But is the benefit solely personal then? Or do you
• 27:34
  Speaker 1: think actually there's value journalistically or in the story to
• 27:38
  Speaker 1: doing it?
• 27:38
  Speaker 7: Here's the value. Here's the value. Yeah. Think about the
• 27:40
  Speaker 7: people who listen to your journalism and are reasonable enough
• 27:44
  Speaker 7: to follow it along, listen to the facts, listen to
• 27:47
  Speaker 7: the evidence and believe it, right? Think about them. The
• 27:51
  Speaker 7: reason you should speak is because you want to motivate them.
• 27:55
  Speaker 7: Your detractors are always going to fucking hate on you.
• 27:57
  Speaker 7: Don't worry about what you've done. It's got nothing to
• 27:58
  Speaker 7: do with your journalism, right? But the people who are
• 28:01
  Speaker 7: motivated by your journalism, why you should speak passionately is
• 28:04
  Speaker 7: because you're trying to engender a reaction in them. You
• 28:07
  Speaker 7: don't want them just to listen to your report and
• 28:09
  Speaker 7: understand it and go, oh, that's sad. Or, oh, that
• 28:11
  Speaker 7: seems to be a miscarriage of justice. I'll move on.
• 28:14
  Speaker 7: You want to make an impression. You want to make
• 28:18
  Speaker 7: them feel something. Yeah, you want to make them feel something.
• 28:20
  Speaker 7: So when the people who listen to your podcast and
• 28:23
  Speaker 7: understand your podcast, why you should speak full-throatedly to them
• 28:27
  Speaker 7: is because you want that passion to be imbued in them,
• 28:31
  Speaker 7: for them to maybe do something about it, the work
• 28:33
  Speaker 7: that you've done. So I think it's an essential ingredient.
• 28:36
  Speaker 7: Don't just do the journalism, mate. Make people feel something
• 28:39
  Speaker 7: about it so they go and do something in reaction.
• 28:47
  Speaker 1: I have no way to live out the alternate history
• 28:50
  Speaker 1: where Hamza and I make the choice that Dana and
• 28:52
  Speaker 1: Alex made to keep most of our point of view
• 28:54
  Speaker 1: out of the series. So I have no way to
• 28:56
  Speaker 1: know if Hamza's right, if critics would have come for
• 28:58
  Speaker 1: us regardless, even if Hamza and I had played it
• 29:01
  Speaker 1: totally straight. What I do know is that they definitely
• 29:05
  Speaker 1: did come for us I don't know if you and
• 29:07
  Speaker 1: I personally were, but our story was disparaged in the
• 29:11
  Speaker 1: House of Lords.
• 29:13
  Speaker 7: We're condemned, yeah. We're condemned in the House of Lords.
• 29:16
  Speaker 1: Were we personally condemned?
• 29:18
  Speaker 7: I don't remember hearing my name. I remember the podcast
• 29:21
  Speaker 7: being referenced and, you know, whatever they said about us.
• 29:23
  Speaker 8: I thank my noble friend, the minister, for her answer.
• 29:28
  Speaker 8: and pay tribute to her great diligence in having subjected
• 29:31
  Speaker 8: herself to listening to all eight hours of the New
• 29:33
  Speaker 8: York Times podcast on this subject. It was not a cruel,
• 29:37
  Speaker 8: unusual punishment that I intended to subject. her to when
• 29:40
  Speaker 8: I originally intended to ask the question.
• 29:44
  Speaker 7: That was exciting. Yeah, that was really exciting.
• 29:46
  Speaker 1: Definitely a bucket list. That was a conservative politician who
• 29:50
  Speaker 1: did that. But the left came first, too. Probably the
• 29:53
  Speaker 1: most influential takedown was from a columnist, Sonia Sota. who
• 29:57
  Speaker 1: trashed our story in The Guardian's Sunday publication, The Observer,
• 30:01
  Speaker 1: and she calls Hamza out for being open about his
• 30:04
  Speaker 1: motivations in the story. She writes, quote, Sayed's apparent determination
• 30:09
  Speaker 1: to make the facts fit his pre-cooked narrative is paired
• 30:12
  Speaker 1: with Reid's meditations on race, which seem to use Sayed's
• 30:15
  Speaker 1: experience of racism to excuse his questionable approach to journalism,
• 30:20
  Speaker 1: the soft bigotry of low expectations, end quote. After that,
• 30:25
  Speaker 1: there was a double-page spread in the Times of London
• 30:28
  Speaker 1: which suggested Hams and I were at risk of going
• 30:30
  Speaker 1: to jail for contempt of court.
• 30:33
  Speaker 7: Not true.
• 30:34
  Speaker 1: National politicians weighed in, saying our work was shoddy journalism.
• 30:38
  Speaker 1: And then, almost a year after our story came out,
• 30:40
  Speaker 1: when we thought this had all quieted down, a hawkish
• 30:43
  Speaker 1: think tank in Britain, the Policy Exchange, which was founded
• 30:46
  Speaker 1: in part by the Secretary of Education, who we had
• 30:48
  Speaker 1: reported on, released a whopping 195-page report. All about our series,
• 30:54
  Speaker 1: claiming to refute it, though it didn't actually disprove the
• 30:57
  Speaker 1: facts in our reporting. It did, however, have a section titled,
• 31:01
  Speaker 1: Who is Brian Reed? That went into my career, my
• 31:04
  Speaker 1: social media, brought up my wife, her family. And with Hamza,
• 31:09
  Speaker 1: they insinuated that he was an Islamist. Honestly, I'd repressed
• 31:13
  Speaker 1: a lot of this until I pulled the report up
• 31:15
  Speaker 1: while talking to Hamza. What did it say about you?
• 31:17
  Speaker 6: Oh, here, here.
• 31:19
  Speaker 1: I'm reading like the abstract here of the report.
• 31:21
  Speaker 3: Okay.
• 31:22
  Speaker 1: Chapter 12 of the report provides an analysis of the podcast,
• 31:26
  Speaker 1: noting the self-confessed prejudices of Hamza Syed.
• 31:30
  Speaker 5: Wow.
• 31:31
  Speaker 1: They spend pages picking apart Hamza's words from the podcast,
• 31:35
  Speaker 1: mostly from all the personal stuff.
• 31:36
  Speaker 7: Yeah, that was that chapter.
• 31:37
  Speaker 1: That's exactly what we're talking about.
• 31:39
  Speaker 7: This decision. Yeah, precisely.
• 31:40
  Speaker 1: To confess your prejudices in a story.
• 31:42
  Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly.
• 31:46
  Speaker 1: I know Hamza and I are chuckling about this, but
• 31:49
  Speaker 1: we're not patting ourselves on the back. It's one of
• 31:53
  Speaker 1: those situations where, I don't know, the best way I
• 31:56
  Speaker 1: have for how to deal with the stress of major
• 31:59
  Speaker 1: publications from a foreign country disparaging me with bad faith
• 32:03
  Speaker 1: criticism is to laugh at it. I talked to Hamza
• 32:08
  Speaker 1: about it, and we both empathize with the difficult choice
• 32:11
  Speaker 1: Dana was faced with. And she made the decision she
• 32:14
  Speaker 1: felt was right for her and for the story she
• 32:16
  Speaker 1: and Alex were telling. There are pros and cons to
• 32:19
  Speaker 1: either choice, personally and journalistically. Reaction is still coming in
• 32:24
  Speaker 1: to the Kopernik affair, but so far what press there
• 32:26
  Speaker 1: has been is pretty positive. They're not getting the pushback
• 32:29
  Speaker 1: Hamza and I did. Does that tell you something about
• 32:32
  Speaker 1: the impact of the different choices we made? Honestly, I'm
• 32:35
  Speaker 1: not sure. The podcasts aren't one-to-one like that. Dana did
• 32:39
  Speaker 1: tell me that Hamza and My Series, which came out
• 32:41
  Speaker 1: a few years before, actually led her and Alex to
• 32:44
  Speaker 1: feel some pressure to go the more personal direction.
• 32:47
  Speaker 5: Trojan Horse was one of the, you know, podcasts that
• 32:50
  Speaker 5: was used as like a comp for us. Like, why
• 32:52
  Speaker 5: can't you be, because, because we were two people reporting, like,
• 32:55
  Speaker 5: can you be more conversational in the way that Trojan
• 32:58
  Speaker 5: horse was and like, you know, go back and forth
• 33:01
  Speaker 5: off of each other. Um, and obviously that, you know,
• 33:04
  Speaker 5: Trojan horse did it so well, but I don't, we landed,
• 33:07
  Speaker 5: we tried it. Alex and I tried it. It just
• 33:09
  Speaker 5: wasn't good. And, Ultimately, it's not that it wasn't good.
• 33:13
  Speaker 3: It just felt like it was too revealing of like,
• 33:15
  Speaker 3: we did a bunch of conversations of me and Dana
• 33:17
  Speaker 3: kind of talking candidly.
• 33:19
  Speaker 1: Too revealing, you said?
• 33:20
  Speaker 3: Yeah, a bit too revealing of like, how we, I
• 33:23
  Speaker 3: don't know, Dana, maybe you can elaborate more on this.
• 33:25
  Speaker 3: But like, we had sections in there that was almost like,
• 33:28
  Speaker 3: sort of, yeah, us sort of debriefing about interviews and
• 33:32
  Speaker 3: about all of that. But it just felt like we
• 33:35
  Speaker 3: were so giving away how we felt too early. And
• 33:39
  Speaker 3: it just... we did we we and then so we
• 33:42
  Speaker 3: kind of just radically went in the other direction which
• 33:44
  Speaker 3: was like we just want to be completely straight and
• 33:47
  Speaker 3: not kind of give away how we feel until we're
• 33:49
  Speaker 3: ready to at the end and like here are our
• 33:52
  Speaker 3: conclusions and it's based on our journalism and not how
• 33:54
  Speaker 3: we feel it's just like maybe we sort of like
• 33:57
  Speaker 3: worried that people wouldn't trust us as much if we
• 33:58
  Speaker 3: like put our perspective in there which i don't know
• 34:03
  Speaker 3: i don't know what the answer.
• 34:04
  Speaker 1: Is it's a paradox of journalism because it's it's like
• 34:07
  Speaker 1: journalism's supposed to be about sometimes brutal honesty. And yet
• 34:12
  Speaker 1: what we're talking about is calculations made, not to be dishonest,
• 34:17
  Speaker 1: but to hide certain parts of the truth about ourselves
• 34:20
  Speaker 1: to the world and the people we're talking to. So
• 34:23
  Speaker 1: it is a paradox.
• 34:25
  Speaker 5: It's like you're always taught in journalism, at least like,
• 34:28
  Speaker 5: I don't know about now, but I mean, I got
• 34:29
  Speaker 5: into journalism over a decade ago. So, you know, it's
• 34:33
  Speaker 5: always like, it's never about you. It's about the story.
• 34:36
  Speaker 5: And now everyone's like, oh, but the journalistic process is
• 34:39
  Speaker 5: what's so interesting. And we've learned that, you know, people
• 34:42
  Speaker 5: do want to hear about that, but it's still uncomfortable.
• 34:45
  Speaker 5: You know, it's still an uncomfortable thing to do.
• 34:50
  Speaker 1: I realize it's tricky to pull back the curtain on
• 34:52
  Speaker 1: a personal reaction that a reporter purposely removed from their
• 34:56
  Speaker 1: story because they didn't want it public. Because now we've
• 34:59
  Speaker 1: essentially put that reaction into the public anyway. So I'm
• 35:03
  Speaker 1: grateful to Dana for letting us do that. vulnerability is
• 35:07
  Speaker 1: so hard, she wrote me when I emailed her to
• 35:10
  Speaker 1: ask if we had her blessing to run this. But,
• 35:12
  Speaker 1: she wrote, I ask that of the people I interview
• 35:15
  Speaker 1: all the time, so I should be able to do
• 35:17
  Speaker 1: it myself. She also wrote that as time passes, she's
• 35:21
  Speaker 1: even more glad they cut the rant and that she
• 35:23
  Speaker 1: maintained a more neutral relationship to Hassan Diab's story. Given
• 35:27
  Speaker 1: the times we're living in, she said, I'm increasingly aware
• 35:31
  Speaker 1: that my background and lived experience could be a reason
• 35:34
  Speaker 1: I don't get hired or or get my citizenship revoked
• 35:36
  Speaker 1: or something. Which, to me, just brings home that the
• 35:40
  Speaker 1: risks of burying ourselves in the reporting are not the
• 35:43
  Speaker 1: same for everyone. And the stakes are not the same
• 35:46
  Speaker 1: for every story. It's not fair. But sometimes, for some reporters,
• 35:52
  Speaker 1: it can feel like that scene in The Return of
• 35:54
  Speaker 1: the Jedi where the rebels are approaching Endor on a
• 35:57
  Speaker 1: secret mission and Luke Skywalker realizes that his mere presence
• 36:01
  Speaker 1: on board the shuttle is a liability.
• 36:03
  Speaker 7: I'm endangering the mission.
• 36:04
  Speaker 8: I shouldn't have come.
• 36:05
  Speaker 1: His connection to Darth Vader might be putting the whole
• 36:08
  Speaker 1: mission in danger. What should he do?
• 36:11
  Speaker 6: It's your imagination, kid.
• 36:12
  Speaker 2: Come on, let's keep a little optimism.
• 36:15
  Speaker 1: If you want to check out The Kopernik Affair, it's
• 36:17
  Speaker 1: six episodes. It's on podcast apps or at canadaland.com. It
• 36:21
  Speaker 1: was executive produced by Julie Shapiro and Jesse Brown. We
• 36:25
  Speaker 1: reached out to Hassan Diab for comment, by the way.
• 36:28
  Speaker 1: He didn't respond. Hey, so this is a little random,
• 36:33
  Speaker 1: but our editor, Neil Drumming, who has a bit of
• 36:35
  Speaker 1: a musical ear, you heard something especially rhythmic in this
• 36:39
  Speaker 1: line from Hamza's interview.
• 36:41
  Speaker 7: This guy is a biased activist, Birmingham, dangerous, brown guy, bearded, crazy.
• 36:50
  Speaker 1: Just putting it out there, if anyone wants to take
• 36:52
  Speaker 1: that line and remix it into something danceable, Hamza has
• 36:55
  Speaker 1: given us his blessing. We're going to send it out
• 36:57
  Speaker 1: in our newsletter as a file for anyone who wants
• 36:59
  Speaker 1: to download it and give it a go. Just make
• 37:02
  Speaker 1: sure you tag us at KCRW and at Placement Theory
• 37:05
  Speaker 1: on Instagram or whatever so we can hear it. Also,
• 37:09
  Speaker 1: we want to set up some conversations between you all
• 37:12
  Speaker 1: and me and the Question Everything staff. So if you
• 37:14
  Speaker 1: have things that you're curious about that the show has
• 37:16
  Speaker 1: covered or that we haven't covered, questions for us, feedback
• 37:20
  Speaker 1: for us, write us at hey at placementtheory.com, H-E-Y at placementtheory.com,
• 37:26
  Speaker 1: and a producer might reach out to set up a call.
• 37:29
  Speaker 1: Today's episode was produced by Sophie Kazis and edited by
• 37:32
  Speaker 1: Neil Drumming. Our show is executive produced by me and
• 37:35
  Speaker 1: Robin Simeon. It's also made by producer Zach St. Louis
• 37:38
  Speaker 1: and associate producer Emily Malterre. Jen Kinney is a contributing editor.
• 37:42
  Speaker 1: Fact-checking by Annika Robbins. Sound design by Brendan Baker. Matt
• 37:45
  Speaker 1: McGinley composed our music. Our partners at KCRW include Arnie Seipel,
• 37:50
  Speaker 1: Gina Delvac, Tejalaj Amera, Natalie Hill, and Jennifer Farrow. We'll
• 37:54
  Speaker 1: see you next time.