Dr. Brad Clark teaches journalism at Mount Royal University in Calgary and his research focuses on media representations of marginalized groups. Brad got into teaching after years of experience as a journalist at newspapers and the CBC, where he covered major stories but wanted more variety. I was interested in why journalists ask academics for comments on scenarios in which they are not involved, and Brad provided some great insights.

In this episode we talk about:

You can find more information about Brad at his webpage here: https://www.mtroyal.ca/ProgramsCourses/FacultiesSchoolsCentres/Communications/FacultyStaff/Clark_Brad.htm

More information about some items mentioned in the interview can be found here:

Thank you to the Community Podcast Initiative at Mount Royal University for letting us use the space to record this episode!

****

Support the podcast and my research and Buy Me A Coffee. Your contributions will go toward my research, webhosting, and my time. Want to find out more about my research? Check out the Scavenging Study.

Contact me through [email protected] or through my contact form. Follow me on Facebook at The Reluctant Archaeologist, or through Instagram @yvonnekjorlien

Do you have a suggestion for a topic on the Scattered podcast?

Do you have a question about working with human remains?

Drop Yvonne a line at [email protected]

Transcript

Yvonne Kjorlien: All right, so tell us who you are and where you’re at. So I’m Brad Clark, I teach in the journalism in broadcast media studies programs at Mount Royal University here in Calgary. And

Brad Clark: My research and my interests in the field really focused around ethics and representations of equity deserving groups. And that’s, that’s what really, that’s really my jam, I, I really enjoy learning about how media can improve the way they do things. I like the way ethics are evolving and seeing how we’re becoming, I think, a little more sensitive to different aspects of our storytelling related to sources related to audience. And that’s, that’s what keeps me getting up every morning and coming into work. Wow.

Yvonne Kjorlien: That’s a ball of wax and a half. How did you get to where you are now? Because I understand you worked at the CBC for a while. Yeah. Yeah. So kind of take us on your, you know, your journey, sure to how you got from I don’t know, being a journalist out in the field. Yeah, doing that glamorous job, because obviously, you know, it is 

where you are now?

Brad Clark: Well, I can remember even being in a class and learning about journalism and thinking that this would be fun to teach someday. And, and that might have been like, around 1985, I got my first job as a as a journalist, as a reporter with The St. Albert Gazette, just north of Edmonton in 1986. And, and then, in 1980, and I went back to do a master’s I was I was always quite interested in in, I think, just just understanding journalism at a deeper level. And so going, going back and doing a master’s felt pretty natural. So I did that at the University of Cardiff in Wales. And that was a really interesting place to do that. I think the media then and now in Europe are a lot more outward looking, I find North American media quite inward looking. And there was there was, there’s lots of media there to take in. And so and then I came back, and I worked for CBC for a number of years, and I got to do a lot of really interesting work. I was a national reporter, I got to cover a lot of big stories, I got to do a fair bit of traveling. And, but I was starting to get to a place where I was always excited about telling stories, but more and more, it was just the big stories, not the you know, Brad, the Bank of Canada’s announcing a new interest rate today, we want you to cover the bond that is exciting.

Yvonne Kjorlien: If you hold a mortgage, that’s exciting news.

Brad Clark: Well, in those days, the Bank of Canada was holding interest rates pretty steady, there are a lot of a lot of on air live on air reports of nothing changed today. Which is never a great story arc for any kind of story, let alone a new story.

So I still kind of had this sideways glance at the corner of my eye for an opportunity to teach in and I saw a posting come up at Mount Royal. And, and so I applied in I got here and and I started teaching in right away, I became really keen and trying to find the vocabulary to talk about ethics and good journalism and good reporting. And part of that, for me, was starting to think more and more about accuracy. And who are we hearing from who whose voices are telling the stories? And it started to occur to me more and more that we were telling lots of stories about people from marginalized groups without a lot of input from them. And I can remember really kind of stumbling through trying to explain this to students and how, what strategies were to do it better. And eventually I, as Mount Royal just became a university decided to go back to school again, and do a doctorate. And so I made that my the focus of my doctoral research.

And so my dissertation was on national television news representations of racialized and indigenous peoples and, and that really kind of set me up for the work I’ve done in the last 10 years since then. So that’s kind of how I’ve, I’ve got to where I am now.

Yvonne Kjorlien:  Wow, fabulous. So, before we get any further, I wanted to explain why I’ve invited you onto a podcast about dead people. And, for me, it seems obvious, but you know, for a listener, maybe it’s not. So when I worked at the Pickton farm investigation, we had it was high profile, there was a lot of media attention. And, you know, a lot of us had journalists come up to us after we left the premises, and they wouldn’t even introduce themselves. And it was very abrupt, very direct, and I found it a little bit traumatic event. But on top of that, even though I wasn’t reading any of the media and either newspapers or watching the media on the investigation, I did hear that there were people, academics, that were commenting on the investigation that weren’t involved in the investigation. And I found that very interesting. And I didn’t quite understand why that happened. And so part of me inviting you, Brad, to the podcast is just to discuss some of that is why might an academic feel it’s okay to comment about something that they are not involved in. And, universities, academic institutions do promote that, they have it on their websites, that these are the experts that we have at our institutions that are available for comment, regardless of whether or not they’re involved in the situation. So I wanted to get some insight on that from you, but also because the dead can’t talk. And so representing them, I think is an interesting, I guess, population to fit within that the marginalized and the ethics of journalism. So that’s why I wanted you on the podcast.

Brad Clark: Sure.

Yvonne Kjorlien:  And I thought you would be fantastic considering your, your past experience and your research to talk about that. Yeah. So

Brad Clark: I think anytime anybody is asked to speak to the media on a subject, they have to be pretty upfront, they need to be transparent about what their background is, what they’re bringing to the interview, and what they can speak to, on a real level, what do they know about the situation to really offer something of value in the way of knowledge that that falls within their range of experience, and relates to whatever issues or themes or ideas that the interviewer is trying to pursue? And I think there has to be, maybe there isn’t enough of this. But I think there needs to be, I think people need to be a lot more upfront about what they aren’t able to answer to say no to questions. No, I can’t answer that. I have no insight. I don’t have any experience in that area.

Yvonne Kjorlien:  Well, can we just go back for a second? Sorry, um, because I, what is the purpose for a journalist to go and ask for a comment from somebody who isn’t involved? Sorry, I’m not getting the connection on that.

Brad Clark: So what I would guess is, using the example of the investigation into Robert Pickton, and that series of horrific crimes, that what journalists might be asking experts about, they may be asking about legal views of the legal process. How is the justice system work in this case? When the evidence might be hugely circumstantial, and, you know, what are the implications for the arguments that the prosecution in how to make how is the defense going to coach their case against the charges?

So it kind of depends on what aspect of the event that the journalist is trying to get a handle on. It could be, you know, you could talk to a forensic expert around how you’re how you try to, you know, sift through a site, like the farm to uncover evidence, what the approach is, those are those are things that academics have real background and information about.

If I can extend it to a different example, we can’t just talk to people who are facing end of life, to talk about assisted dying about the made legislation, for example, we need to we need people to interpret the law, the implications of the law. So we may go to professors at the UofC[algary] law school, for example, to make sense of the legislation. So lots of times what we’re doing, or what journalists are doing, when they reach out to experts is to get a handle on the deeper aspects related to the story, that are beyond the grasp of journalists, but also probably beyond the grasp of audiences as well.

Yvonne Kjorlien:  So, that kind of contextual, yeah, providing a context, but also that deeper, as well. Okay.

Brad Clark: That’s right. But in the example of assisted dying, I think you’d be doing an audience a real disservice, if you only talk to experts, if you don’t talk to people who are facing end of life in a way that is, can be, you know, very painful, can be very undignified in some ways, and some people may not want it to end that way. So to understand that, you know, you I think you need, you need voices, you need more than just expert voices, probably need more than voices of people who are affected by the legislation as well.

And, so now where I think where things can get ethical is, or unethical, is when people decide to weigh in, without really having the expertise to make the sorts of pronouncements that they make.

Yvonne Kjorlien:  Right. So I’m going to ask to take a step back, because journalism, I think, at least in my lifetime, has changed. And there’s now perhaps a view and it could just be my perspective, that I’m, I have trouble deciphering between the difference between journalism, and you know, people just spouting their opinions. You know, they say they’re from a media outlet of some sort. But what’s the difference between their opinion and actual journalism? So can you maybe give us a little bit of a history lesson or tell us what is the role of journalism? What do they teach you at journalism school that makes you a journalist?

Brad Clark:  Okay. I think there’s a lot to wait lots of ways to think of it. So journalism is a process of verification. Okay, so journalism is finding stuff out. So there’s, there’s an aspect of investigation, of exposing facts and truth. It’s a process of verification. Sometimes it’s a process of interpretation as well. Sometimes journalists are there to interpret the implications of government policy, for example, or they’re there to break down complex issues related to science, break them down in to a way that people can understand. You know how why does a vaccine work a certain way? How has carbon in the atmosphere contributed to the planet heating up? So some of that stuff can be very jargony, but it’s up to one of the things journalists do is find the common language that people use to understand that and, and express it in terms that, that that people can relate to and, and say, oh, okay, now I get it. So it’s almost like doing a public service for translating difficult concepts that would likely impact the public and the public. Probably should know about. Yes, yeah. So that’s, that’s, that’s that aspect of it. I mean, obviously, journalism plays a watchdog role in society, keeping an eye on people in power, holding power to account over the decisions they make, if they’re in government, or if they’re running corporations that have impacts on people. So there’s that aspect of it. Even the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, makes a lot of provisions for oversight of the judiciary and the justice system, so that we’re ensuring people are getting fair access to justice, whether as accused or whether as potential victims in crime or legal disputes. So journalism does a lot of different things. And, and so that’s, that’s what the intent is.

What’s happened in the last 20 years with the growth of the internet and digital media and social media is this incredible fracturing of sources of information. I heard an expression at this conference I was at recently, The Narrative Journalism Conference in Boston at Boston University. And the comment was from an expert in information, disinformation, and misinformation. And she pointed out that knowledge is expensive, information is cheap.

Yvonne Kjorlien:  Oh, nice.

Brad Clark:  Lots of times, when you’re dealing with stuff that you’re not sure about the source, it’s information, it’s cheap. It’s somebody posting something they’ve seen somewhere, heard somewhere, and just putting it up. Knowledge, whether it’s journalistic or academic or scientific, it costs. It has a cost associated with it. It’s taken effort. It’s involved people, verifying, investigating, and being thoughtful about how to frame it and how to write about it, so that people can see it and understand it.

And so, how do you how do you tell the difference between knowledge and information? I think a lot of it comes down to knowing the source. And, you quite rightly said, a lot of stuff comes from a source maybe you haven’t heard of before. That’s always a telltale sign, that’s always a good reason to start to be skeptical. It’s not to say that there may not be truth to what’s there. But it is sort of the first red flag that this may not be as rigorously curated as you’d like.

And then if it looks like it may be a reliable source, then who are the voices that you see in the content? What sources of information have they brought in to bring this account together? Are they talking to people with direct knowledge? Are they talking to people who have an axe to grind related to the issue? Are they only talking to people with an axe to grind? So, you can start to look for the perspectives that are included and excluded in in the account and you can start to think critically about the potential validity of the information and decide whether it’s something you want to put much stock in or not.

Yvonne Kjorlien:  Right. And I couldn’t help but notice that, what you just outlined, was what you outlined in regards to what journalism does.

Brad Clark: Sure

Yvonne Kjorlien:  They verify, they provide context, they do some knowledge translation, regarding jargon, and whatever. But yeah, if you do come across that piece of information that hasn’t kind of gone through the filter of a journalist, then you have to go and be the journalist yourself, and do that verification, the context, and figuring out how reliable is that information and is it actually knowledge?

Brad Clark: Exactly, yeah, that’s very much the process. And, you know, with, with information being so ubiquitous, like, not everything goes through the lens of, of journalism.

Pre digital media, pre internet, for better or for worse, we had gatekeepers in journalism, who really can control the tap on what made it into the public discourse. What was or wasn’t news was decided by usually powerful white men who were in positions of authority at news organizations all over the world. And, so that brought up kind of a particular perspective to the news.

But one of the things it also did was, it did involve pushing information through kind of an ethical and legal lens. So, things that were purely slanderous or libelous, they didn’t see a lot of light on pages of newspapers or in news broadcasts. Or things that were just straight opinion or that were BS. You know, there were ethical standards to verification to representations of truth that prevented some stuff from making it into the public discourse through the news media.

Yvonne Kjorlien:  they’ve provided the filters, but at the same time, they probably kept a lot of really good stuff out because they were, you know, the patriarchal white guy syndrome.

Brad Clark: Yeah, very much the patriarchal settler view of the world that and that’s been one of the beauties of social media is that it has allowed for underrepresented voices to circumvent the traditional gatekeepers. So you get movements that get traction like Idle No More like Black Lives Matter, that may not have got the same kind of traction in the past because of social media. Social media allowed them to sort of circumvent the gatekeepers. The other side of that is it also allows the far right nutcases to circumvent the gatekeepers too.

Yvonne Kjorlien:  So if you remove the filters on one, you remove the filters on it all.

Brad Clark: Exactly.

Yvonne Kjorlien:  Unfortunately, yeah. And what really brought, I guess, home for me the role of journalism, at least, how it used to be, was when I watched Spotlight, about the Boston Globe and exposing the sexual abuse and assaults in the 80s 90s in Boston in regards to the Catholic Church. And just watching the movie, and seeing how those journalists dug and investigated and brought that case to light. And I thought, oh, that’s what journalism is. That’s their role, versus something like Ancient Apocalypse.

And Graham Hancock says that he’s an investigative journalist. And I’m like, really? Because that’s not what I saw on Spotlight. Yeah, and I thought that was an interesting contrast.

Brad Clark: Yeah, the term investigative journalist is so overused, like it should really be licensed.

Yvonne Kjorlien:  Some sort of trademark you have to apply for.

Brad Clark: Exactly. Because, you know, the people who put out the 10,000 Mules documentary related to conspiracy theories around the stolen election in 2020, and the Trump conspiracy that ballots were stuffed, for example, those people would describe themselves as investigative journalists as well. And, work like that is really easy to fact check and verify, and people have. And people who actually could call themselves investigative journalists. So, that’s the problem.

Sometimes people are investigative journalists. And then sometimes people are “investigative journalists” with air quotes.

Yvonne Kjorlien:  But again, I think it goes back to kind of your checklist that you say, that provided before, about what journalism provides, that the verification the context, the diversity of voice, and ensuring that isn’t just information, it actually is knowledge. And but now we have to go through that check with, you know, the air quotes investigative journalists to actually ensure that they are actually investigative journalisy or not, and whether or not to believe them.

Brad Clark: Yeah. You know, another way to assess it, I guess I mentioned this earlier, but I’m thinking specifically of the air quote, investigative journalist, Netflix series Ancient Apocalypse. Like, I haven’t looked at that at all.

Yvonne Kjorlien: It’s a fun story. Sure, you know, if you want to blow eight hours and just be along for the ride, watch it. But in terms of actual archaeology and depth, not so much.

Brad Clark: Yeah, what I would look at critically, in watching that series is who are the voices? Who are we talking to? And what are the voices that are left out? And I think, I mean, I haven’t seen the series, but I bet if you do that, you come to understand the perspectives that aren’t there. It kind of reminds me a little bit when I was a kid, I was really, really fascinated by aliens. And, and there was, there was a writer who came out with a book and then it became a documentary. Something about the gods.

Yvonne Kjorlien: Oh, Chariots of the Gods.

Brad Clark: And then there was the sequel called Gold of the Gods and it was sort of looking, you know, taking things that seemed like they were difficult stories to explain, like the pyramids or the Nazca Lines in Peru. And so, you know, what’s the only conclusion you can come to? It must have been aliens. So, that’s kind of what comes to mind to me when I see that and it’s, you know, I don’t know what the logical terminology is, but the idea that sometimes the simplest argument is the right one. Like that really plays out a lot of times, and especially in a world where conspiracy theories are so prevalent these days.

Yvonne Kjorlien: Yeah, yeah. Yeah. It’d be interesting to get under the psychology of all that. I’m sure it’s there. Yeah, it was very interesting, because, you know, both programs were on Netflix. And so they’re demonstrating the continuum of accuracy of information. And even though Spotlight was a movie and it was fictionalized, I mean, they touted it, you know, fiction, whereas the Ancient Apocalypse was advertised as a docuseries, as truth. And I thought that was so interesting.

Brad Clark: Yeah. Yeah. You know, one of the troubles with the world today is the way people take the trappings of journalism, what Stuart Hall might call the professional code related to journalism and use that as a way to add credibility to the messaging that they’re putting out. So you call it, you know, kind of half-assed archaeological series a docuseries. You see it in branded content that is made to look like news articles. They come with headlines, they come with a little quote box with, they may include a little infographic in it to hit the key point.

I did some research for a book we did called The Blue Storm: The Rise and Fall of Jason Kenney. And I wrote about the Canadian energy center known as the Energy War Room. And if you go to their website, it has very much the trappings of journalism: headlines and subheads, and decks. They have a section called Matter of Fact where they fact check — and I’m using air quotes –usually media accounts related to the energy industry that they don’t agree with. And, we know that a lot of the messaging is very one-sided, the stories and articles that are put out by the Energy War Room, which was a campaign promise of the UCP to challenge what it referred to as the myths and untruths that people were saying about the oil and gas industry. But that’s a whole other side. But the point is, is that they try to give their views additional credence by taking on the trappings of journalism.

So there’s lots of stuff out there that’s made to look and sound like journalism. That actually isn’t. That’s just one more thing that you need media literacy to kind of address.

Yvonne Kjorlien: Yeah, that selective reporting, I think is very interesting, especially because I’m working my way through another one of your books, Journalism’s…

Brad Clark: Racial Reckoning.

Yvonne Kjorlien: yeah, that one. Journalism’s Racial Reckoning, and just how, especially marginalized voices have been excluded, and that is, you know, very selective about what information you choose to report on, choose to investigate, and could also be said about the dead because they can’t speak for themselves. So like you just illustrated with the assisted dying, you know, you can’t just talk with the experts, and you can’t just talk with the people that affects you need, the whole context, the whole picture. And it isn’t about being selective, and what makes the best story because it’s all about shock and awe, sex sells and what have you. You really do have to look at all sides. And I think it’s a matter of integrity that perhaps has been lost.

Brad Clark: Yeah, I think I think there’s that. I think also, if you look at in high profile stories, who the people are who constitute the dead they’re often people who have been invisible. They’re people who have not had the opportunity to be heard from and continue not to be heard from. Another clear example, and very much related to Pickton is missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. And, you know, other people are trying to tell their stories, and I think they’ve done a quite a remarkable job. But, that’s where journalism needs to be better, is to tell those stories before death, tell those stories, when something can be done to keep the people alive.

Yvonne Kjorlien: Right. Yeah. And I and I know this comes up a lot with investigations, officers after the fact, detectives after the fact, saying that, you know, what, if this had happened to somebody who was white, or in, you know, an upper class neighborhood, there would have been no question they would have got on the investigation, things would have been done right away, but because you know, is marginalized, indigenous, black, something, you know, woman they weren’t investigated or they weren’t investigated thoroughly, promptly. I hear that all the time. And that Murder in Boston podcast is exactly that.

Brad Clark: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, no. Another US example that I’ve shared with my students is when a young woman hiking a couple years ago, I think her name was Gabby Potito, went missing, I think it was in Arizona, or one of the western states, and it was just this flurry of media coverage. And it very much focused on her boyfriend very, very quickly. And people in the state, First Nations people in the state started saying, excuse me, like, you know, we’ve had dozens of women go missing. And you’ve, you’ve never reported on it. You know, young, pretty 18-year-old white girl goes missing and suddenly you focus all this attention on state efforts to find somebody. And so it’s very much the case. The double standard.

Yvonne Kjorlien: Yeah, yeah, it’s tragic. But I’m glad that we’re now it’s coming to awareness. For better or for worse, you know, it’s taken as long as it has to get here. But we’re gaining awareness, and it’s now: what are we going to do about that awareness? How can we move forward in a constructive and productive manner? Yeah, tough stuff all around. But it’s probably one of the reasons why I started this podcast is that talking about death as a taboo, and talking about the hard stuff is hard. But it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t talk about it. If anything, we should because it’s hard. We should talk about it. It’s probably hard for a reason. Yeah. And we’re just avoiding it. To no one’s benefit.

Brad Clark: Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Yeah.

Yvonne Kjorlien: So where are you going to go next in your research?

Brad Clark: Um, I’m working on a proposal with a colleague for a book that is going to look at disinformation, as it relates to marginalized groups and who often find themselves the focus of disinformation.

If we think about what we’ve seen with two LGBTQI+ in the last few years, even in Alberta, the issues around transgender youth, there’s been a lot of really significant misinformation about that. There was a time when people who wanted to take a run at queer people would brand them as pedophiles. And now they don’t use that language anymore for fear of being sued for libel. So now the term is groomer. And, this is some of some of the issues that we’re starting to see. And in the media don’t always do a terrific job of countering some of that narrative.

There’s a recent study that came out, just like in the last couple of weeks, looking at the New York Times coverage of transgender issues in the US. And some ridiculously low percentage of the stories included transgender voices in the article. It should be 100%. And I can’t remember what the proviso was, but in one instance, it was as low as like 16% included transgender voices. So you know, that’s just sort of one aspect of it. But that’s where I’m going next.

One of the things, personally, that I have such a tough time with, it’s the journalist in me, is when somebody says something that’s incorrect, that’s factually wrong, like, my body is wracked with energy to correct them. And that’s not always appropriate. But, the existence of either lies or falsehoods, or just information that’s invalid or incorrect, it just gets on my very last nerve in a way that, just it’s the very core of my existence. And so I think that’s kind of what got me on looking at EDI in media in the first place. And now, when we live in a world where misinformation and disinformation are so prominent, I want to kind of bring the two together.

Yvonne Kjorlien: Absolutely, yeah. Yeah, I don’t envy you at the moment, because you’re probably in a constant state of cringe. And because of all the misinformation and lies out there.

Brad Clark: Yeah. I’m prone to be listening to podcasts and start yelling as I’m running: That’s ridiculous. You can’t say that.

Yvonne Kjorlien: So let’s put on our positive thinking cap, if there was one, where do you see journalism in, maybe let’s just do 10 years. Is it gonna get better? Because you said you had some positive coming out of the conference in Boston. You weren’t expecting that?

Brad Clark: I guess I wasn’t expecting as much of it. But, yeah, I know, I felt like people were really celebrating journalism, in a way that I don’t feel happens very often. With journalism. You know, we’ve especially in Canada, we’ve been through so many layoffs. And it’s just seems like it’s been kind of a dark, ugly picture of the future of journalism. Lots of great students, students are really engaged and keen to make a difference coming into the program. So that part has always kind of given me some hope. But I think for me, what the conference did was just remind me of how important the role of journalism is, and the place for it, and the fact that people who are doing it are coming from the right place, they’re there. They’re trying to do good. They’re trying to address some of the issues that we’ve been talking about to correct the narrative to bring in more voices to tell better stories. And, and that’s the other thing, if we tell stories better if we can engage with audiences with important issues, maybe that can motivate more change as well.

Part of the conference was very much focused on narrative journalism. And narrative has been shown to be a really powerful tool in not just pushing out, misinformation and disinformation, but in combating it as well. So if we, if we can tell stories in a way that are fair and accurate, and engaging, maybe that’s a way forward to address some of the issues we’re facing with conspiracy theories, and, the rejection of science and expertise sometimes, as well.

So, I guess, 10 years out, I would love to see that kind of positivity gain some momentum and drive young journalists to continue to try and pursue the craft and get better at it. And I do see that.

There’s, a few years ago, I didn’t find journalism students necessarily looking to practice journalism. And I’m seeing that less and less. I’m seeing students come into the program because they want to be journalists, because they want to tell stories, because they want to hold power to account and make a difference. And so I hope that trajectory continues kind of an upward trend.

And the other part of it is, and we haven’t talked about this at all, it just related to the business model in sustainability. And I’m hoping that people start to recognize the importance of paying for journalism. You know, there was a time in the 1950s and 1960s when like 95% of Canadian households subscribe to at least one newspaper. So you’re paying for news every…all the time. And now and I’ve had people say this to me is why should I pay for subscription? Information is free. Well, remember, information is free, knowledge costs money. And, and so I’m hoping that more people will come to realize that. People pay for books. People pay to stream movies. Why should my work as a journalist not be paid for? Why does it not have value?

Yvonne Kjorlien: I think that’s just it. You know, what is the value? And that’s part of the reason why I wanted to come on and get you on here is to understand the value of journalism because it seems like, either, like we’ve lost the sense of the value, or it has been devalued, in some way, shape or form. And so I wanted to get your insights on that. And, you know, it sounds like journalism still very much does have value. We just don’t perhaps recognize that. In the slew of cheaper free information, what is the value of knowledge? And whoever provides that knowledge or cultivates it.

Brad Clark: Yeah, yeah, well, the other the other thing is journalism has been under attack, as a way to deflect from responsibility for a whole host of things. So, when any reporting is referred to as fake news by the leader of the free world, people start to listen to that as well. So we’ve we’ve been up against that.

Yvonne Kjorlien: Yeah. It’s hard to know who to believe anymore.

Brad Clark: Believe me.

Yvonne Kjorlien: I will, Brad. I will. All right. Well, I think we’re gonna end there because this was just, this was fabulous. Thank you very much. Thank you for your insights. And, yeah, if people want to reach out to you, I hope you’d be welcoming to them.

Brad Clark: Absolutely. Yeah. It’s been a total pleasure. Thanks so much. Fabulous.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai