Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2020

The Current Transcript for February 19, 2020

Host: Matt Galloway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: I have been supportive, I have friends that are teachers, but I want my child to have an education.

MATT GALLOWAY: More than two million students in Ontario will be out of class on Friday. It's the latest disruption in ongoing labour disputes affecting the largest school boards in the country. As pressures mount over class sizes and the quality of education, we'll look at why some parents are now choosing private over public schools and whether public education itself is under threat. That's coming up in 30 minutes. And after that.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: I mean, it's one thing if you have a secular organization that's doing that type of thing, but you have an organization that's doing that in the name of God. This is so wrong and needed to be stopped.

MG: Gospel for Asia is one of the largest religious charities in Canada. It now finds itself in hot water, accused of diverting donations meant for the poor. You'll hear our feature documentary, The Believers, coming up in an hour. But we begin with a roadblock for reconciliation, frustration growing across this country and a government wondering how to diffuse an increasingly tense situation. Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway and this is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

As rail blockades continue, pressure mounts for PM to show “leadership” – but what that means depends on who you ask

Guests: Niigaan Sinclair, Susan Delacourt, John Ivison

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Anger around Wet'suwet'en territories is about the failed policies that have led Indigenous peoples down. The RCMP needs to stand down and the prime minister needs to get involved and meet with hereditary chiefs.

VOICE 2: And the prime minister this morning spoke of dialogue with the people who are breaking the law. Dialogue is not going to pay the bills for people who are facing layoffs because of people breaking the law who have no connection.

VOICE 3: The Conservative Party of Canada continues to demonstrate that it does not understand that the path forward is concrete actions in reconciliation. The heckling is getting a little out of hand and name calling, it's not something that's parliamentary and I don't think we want to see it during our question period.

MG: Things got hot in the House of Commons yesterday as Justin Trudeau faced criticism for how he is handling protests across this country. Expect that criticism to grow today as Canada's premiers hold a conference call to address what one calls a lack of federal leadership. Meanwhile, CN Rail announced 450 temporary layoffs in eastern Canada as supporters of the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs continued to block rail lines. The chiefs oppose construction of a liquid natural gas pipeline on their territory. Our national affairs panel is back to talk about this key test for the prime minister. Niigaan Sinclair is a columnist with the Winnipeg Free Press. Susan Delacourt, national columnist for The Toronto Star. And John Ivison, political columnist for The National Post and the author of Trudeau: The Education of a Prime Minister. Good morning to you all.

SUSAN DELACOURT: Good morning Matt.

NIIGAAN SINCLAIR: Good morning.

MG: Susan, Andrew Scheer called Justin Trudeau statement in the House of Commons yesterday, a word salad. What did you hear from the prime minister?

SUSAN DELACOURT: I heard a prime minister who is having a hard time persuading Canadians on both sides of this issue that dialogue, talking, conversation is going to address some very practical realities right now. It is, it remains to be seen what prime ministers or any politicians can do beyond talking. But I think, I actually think Scheer got a lot of flak for that, but I think he was speaking for the frustration out there on all sides of this dispute that we all know this in in our lives anyway too, is is when we are faced with sort of a practical problem, somebody saying let's talk feels inadequate and sounds inadequate. I think the prime minister had to say what he said. I don't want to get on one side of this the other, but I think it is, this is a definitely a case of the practical versus the conversational.

MG: One thing he didn't say was that he would get on a plane and meet personally with the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs. Why do you think this prime minister, who has said since he came to office, before he came to office, that that relationship with Indigenous peoples is the most important relationship you can have? Why isn't he handling this personally?

SUSAN DELACOURT: You know, I have asked that myself. And especially when you saw the prime minister so personally involved with the first two crises we've had this year, this uneventful news year, the prime minister was very front and centre when there was the plane crash in Tehran. He was very front and centre with the coronavirus. On this one I am told and I'm sure John has been told the same thing, that the prime minister being involved in this would escalate things, could possibly inflame things. That while those other two crises were about the prime minister involvement to convey the seriousness of this, what is needed right now is de-escalation.

MG: John Ivison, did you hear anything concrete in Justin Trudeau's remarks that would give you a sense as to where this is going to go and how this is going to end?

JOHN IVISON: No, I didn't. I mean I think this is a government that is bewilded, running out of options. I mean, this is a government that had, you know, three really big priorities, reconciliation agenda with First Nations, the economy and the environment. This crisis is a perfect storm of all of them. The reconciliation agenda is somewhat in tatters right now. The economy is clearly being hurt. I mean, the hereditary chiefs want this pipeline to go away. If you remember back when the government announced it, it's this $40 billion project, which was, you know, one of the big successes of the first mandate at a time when it was announced more or less the same time as GM was closing in Oshawa. And as far as the environment is concerned, you know, this plays into that argument and then he's got a big decision on tech resources by the end of this week. Are they going to approve this giant oilsands project, which is unpopular in caucus, apparently in cabinet, and will play into, obviously play into Indigenous angst if it gets waived through. So it's not much fun being the king at the moment.

MG: Niigaan Sinclair, is the reconciliation agenda in tatters?

NIIGAAN SINCLAIR: Well, I think John's pointing out that it was a perfect storm here of three major issues is repay. And I think there a real concern, I think, is that this isn't, Susan, pointing out that this is an escalation issue if the prime minister goes out there, it's already an escalation issue. It's already a situation involving Indigenous peoples being painted one way or another. There is an Ipsos poll came out yesterday that said Canadians, 61 percent of Canadians opposed the blockades, but 75 percent of them support Indigenous peoples, which says to me there's a general confusion around the issue. And part of the confusion of the issue is not only manifested in the Conservative leadership, which frankly, if anyone who calls the Wet'suwet'en peoples performing illegal actions, simply doesn't understand the issue. Simply just has no idea and saying things like paid protesters and there's thugs in there and just simply doesn't understand who's actually there and who's participating in the nationwide issues involving Indigenous land title.

MG: You were at a protest yesterday in Winnipeg.

NIIGAAN SINCLAIR: Yeah, absolutely.

MG: What did you hear yesterday, particularly in terms of maybe what the prime minister said, but also just what people are looking for?

NIIGAAN SINCLAIR: Well, the thing that I, you know, the thing that's really important to point out about the march that was held yesterday was about 60 percent of the crowd was non-indigenous. Of the hundreds of people that were walking through the streets of Winnipeg. And most peoples are fully aware of the issue at large when they're participating. But I would say that there is a general misunderstanding of what this issue of indigenous land title is and what the difference between the hereditary chiefs and the Indian act chiefs are and how all of this situation has been provoked by Canada in the first place. I mean, what was happening was there was a general negotiation starting in February 2019 with the Wet'suwet'en people are all going all the way up to the present time and it was only the insertion of the RCMP and the removal along the carrot, the gas pipeline route that began to escalate everything that brought us to this kind of national crisis. And now as announces layoffs, which they were already announcing months ago, it has nothing to do with this real disruption, it's an ongoing confusion within the country. And I think if anything, there needs to be a leadership shown at the federal level in order to deal with this issue. Justin Trudeau has avoided this issue almost unilaterally up to this point and has said it's a B.C. issue and now needs to insert himself in this moment.

MG: Susan Delacourt, is leadership being shown by the prime minister inviting opposition leaders to meet with him, but saying Andrew Scheer was not invited?

SUSAN DELACOURT: I think that was a mistake. I think as we've been discussing the Scheer like it or not, it speaks to a certain frustration that is out there in the country among non-indigenous people and that the prime minister finished making, whether you want to call it a word salad or a word souffle or pick your culinary metaphor. The prime minister was talking about, well, let's keep it going, a recipe with many ingredients.

MG: Nicely done.

SUSAN DELACOURT: Talking about the the idea that we needed to have all sides and everybody had to listen to all sides and then to not include Andrew Scheer in the conversation, I think said that the prime minister sees this through one lens. I think it was an opportunity for the prime minister to to explain to Mr. Scheer and then maybe to Canadians how hard this is and why the prime minister can't just go and ordere the police to do things.

MG: John, what did you make of the meeting minus Andrew Scheer?

JOHN IVISON: Well, I think it was rather ironic. The government, the prime minister had been standing up talking about dialogue and listening to all sides and then obviously didn't want to listen to a side he didn't agree with. But, you know, that's politics. If he invited Scheer, would Scheer have gone? Probably not. So, you know, I mean, we're in a minority parliament and for any legislative initiative all you need is the support of well two parties, if it's the NDP and the Greens, but you know, you work alongside people who you can get along with.

MG: The other part of the dialogue is Scott Mo from Saskatchewan saying that he's organized this conference call of premiers to talk about what he says is a lack of federal leadership. What could come out of that, John?

JOHN IVISON: Well, it's hard to see. I mean, I do think that the federal government has to get involved here. I'm somewhat sympathetic. I think the federal government needs to have a dual strategy here, one of which is to sort out in the short term these blockades. That's going to be tough to do if the precondition for the hereditary chiefs is that the RCMP comes off the land in Wet'suwet'en nation, you know, can the prime minister turn around to the RCMP and say, here operationally is what I want you to do. That's kind of awkward. But I think there's a bigger issue behind here and this is the whole idea of indigenous laws and indigenous justice and land claims. And only the federal government can really control this and initiate it and negotiate it. And this was a government that two years ago was sort of stood up in the House of Commons and said, we're going to introduce rights recognition framework. Wasn't quite clear what that meant, but it was being pushed by Jody Wilson-Raybould. The whole idea was that at some point somehow First Nations would become self-governing and there would be this kind a grand bargain with the federal government, which would probably involve a transfer of land, power, cash probably in return for recognition, reconciliation and crucially, stability. And I think that that whole process, which was stalled after Wilson-Raybould left government doesn't seem to have gone anywhere at all. That needs to be revived. And that's really the conversation that needs to be having, that we need to be having because if you look at what was said by all First Nations, the Mohawks yesterday included, it's about respect and land and indigenous justice.

MG: Niigaan Sinclair, is that the conversation we need to have? It is interesting. This picks up in some ways and what you and I were speaking about last week in this conversation.

NIIGAAN SINCLAIR: Well, you know, and the same time this massive situation is involved in B.C., we had an announcement yesterday that there was a $4.7 billion development deal between the James Bay Cree and the Quebec government. And what that tells you is that within certain segments, ball not perfect, there is a longstanding relationship of respect in which there's, you know, if not found in the easiest of paths, particular with the James Bay Cree, but a situation involving indigenous peoples working with provinces together. And so there are models in which this is a possibility. There's also a situation that's I think brewing in terms of a massive problem with governance in this country. It's already been here. I think Canadians are waking up to it and what they're recognizing is that you can't just continue to have an Indian Act that imposes rules, imposes governance and then you even have a Supreme Court which says you have to deal with the hereditary chiefs, in the decision in 1987. And then Canada simply ignoring that and acting a business as usual, letting B.C. approve a process that was faulty from the beginning involving only the Indian Act chiefs. And it's a real big issue involving the situation of governance and that's what John's talking about when he's talking about the rights legislation. The real problem this country is that governance continues to be imposed upon First Nations and First Nations want to have govern their own affairs.

MG: Susan, do you think that the government has the stomach to address a big issue like that? That's a big gut check issue and it's more than just trying to resolve these blockades and some of the protests.

SUSAN DELACOURT: Well, I'm not sure how much it takes guts. I've been in Ottawa for better or for worse, for a long time and since I've been here, governments have been promising to get rid of the Indian Act and it is not easy. Again, as John and Niigaan have alluded to, this was at work in this federal cabinet Indigenous rights framework, but it was it wasn't easy. If it was easy, it would have been done by now. I am worried, I think, I was actually struck by how polarized that the House of Commons was yesterday.

MG: Even with the heckling.

SUSAN DELACOURT: Yeah, I did not expect the heckling. Again, I think that it's not going to take guts, it's going to take some kind of bridge building and this is where the prime minister gets accused of platitudes and and merely speaking. But it is, it's a tough one and that, the the mood in the House of Commons yesterday, I think was very striking and maybe as representative democracies work, pretty representative of what is out there right now too.

MG: One of the things you're hearing is that people are being inconvenienced by these blockades. Have a listen to the president and chief operating officer from Maple Leaf Foods. His name is Curtis Frank.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: Over $1 billion of Maple Leaf's annual revenue is subject to the timely movement of perishable product through Canada's rail network in some way. You might be left wondering how many people rely on the movement of these goods? The answer is thousands. Thousands of jobs and over a billion in sales. And the taxes that we pay to our government are impacted by this rail disruption.

MG: John Ivison, how long can this go on?

JOHN IVISON: Well, clearly, you know, at the moment, for most people, it's a notional inconvenience, but very soon maybe, by the middle of next week, we're going to start to see concrete impacts. You know, chlorine for water treatment centres, propane isn't moving, de-icing fluid for airplanes isn't moving. So many flights will be grounded. Maybe it'll be water advisories in our largest cities. So, you know, something has to give here and I think the First Nations leaders know this because, you know what we're talking about, does the government have the stomach to do this? At some point some government is going to have to, Canada is at a crossroads, I think. And, you know, one path is greater self-government for First Nations. They start to pay their own way. I mean, a lot of these self-governing First Nations actually pay income tax. So that's one route. And fortunately, I think that's the route we're going to end up going. Currently a poll last year of indigenous youth that showed that three quarters of them are confident that mutual accommodation will happen and reconciliation will happen. The other route though is almost unthinkable. There was an Oxford University study into civil conflict. It suggested that motivation was not the decisive factor, feasibility was the decisive factor. A Canadian academic, Douglas Bland, looked at the feasibility hypotheses and applied it to Canada and it turns out Canada is extremely feasible when it comes to unrest. You've got a young native population, you've got a Canadian economy dependent on moving resources over long hard to defend transportation routes. You've got security forces that are limited by capacity and the will of its leaders. So this is a, we talked about perfect storm, there's a perfect feasibility storm if we get it wrong. And I think this government promised to get it right and it has to start acting like that.

MG: Perry Bellegarde, the Assembly of First Nations National Chiefs, spoke about this yesterday in a way in talking about the long game and saying that Canada can't get distracted by this. That reconciliation is difficult, to Susan's point, hard things are hard and this is going to take time. Niigaan, go back to that issue of reconciliation. Again, this is something we talked about last week. What's changed in that discussion in the weeks since you and I spoke?

NIIGAAN SINCLAIR: Well, I think Susan's right to say that the rancour in the the Canada's parliament is exactly indicative of the not just the feelings around indigenous peoples in the country, but also the general ignorance and the absolute misunderstanding of what this issue is truly all about. You know, in 1885, Canada builds the train line. Indigenous peoples say, no, you have to negotiate, you have to engage with us on issues involving our land and then Canada just trampled all over, sent gatling guns, Sir John A Macdonald gatling guns into indigenous communities all across Saskatchewan. Yet here we are in 2020 and we're going to be facing that issue around Canadians being inconvenienced involving the challenges to their ways of life, you know, welcome to indigenous reality and then the economy yet is going to trample over indigenous rights yet again. And so is the issue of reconciliation really such that it is always going to be might, Canada's might over what is indigenous rights or is it going to be an issue involving withdrawing the RCMP, engaging in what is Canada's rule of law, which is to follow the decision in 1987, which is to negotiate a treaty and also do adequate consultation involving actual First Nations governance and to really embody what is the right of this country, which is if it's going to talk about equality and justice and fairness, then actually embody it instead of simply just trampling on Indigenous rights whenever the economy, questions of the economy come up.

MG: I have a feeling we will talk again because this does not seem to be going anywhere. Certainly the big story, if not what's happening right now on roads and rail lines across this country. Great to talk to you all. Thank you.

NIIGAAN SINCLAIR: Thank you.

SUSAN DELACOURT: Thanks Matt.

JOHN IVISON: Thank you.

MG: Niigaan Sinclair is a columnist with the Winnipeg Free Press. Susan Delacourt, national columnist for The Toronto Star. John Ivison, political columnist for The National Post and the author of Trudeau: The Education of a Prime Minister. Well the CBC News is next and then in about 30 minutes, we will have a discussion about the protests from the perspective of people who are actually out involved in the protests. We'll hear from Indigenous people who think that solidarity protesters might be doing more harm than good. Talk about that coming up in about half an hour. But first, right after the news.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: You might be reading a news story, texting a child, watching pornography, checking social media and all within a minute or two.

MG: We are all doing a million things at once on our phones. Well, maybe not a million things, but a lot on our phones all at the same time. How glued are we to our devices and what impact is that having? It's not entirely clear. And that in part is because the way that screen time is measured has been all wrong. We'll tell you more about that coming up in about six minutes after the break. I'm Matt Galloway. This is The Current on CBC Radio One.

[Music]

Clarification, Feb. 21, 2020: One of our panellists suggested that 450 temporary layoffs announced by CN this week were previously planned, and not related to the rail blockades. Both the union and the company say that's not the case.

The Human Screenome Project

Guests: Byron Reeves

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

[Music: Theme]

MG: Still to come, the flight started off OK for Wendi Williams, but when she reclined her seat, the banging from behind began. We will debate the ethics and etiquette of reclining on planes, but first, measuring up the time we spend staring down.

[Music: Theme]

MG: Just give me a second, I need to put my phone away. I was sneaking in what, another 30 seconds or so of screen time. You got to get it when you can get it. It's not always easy to keep that tally of how much time we're actually spending on our devices.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Ooh, on the daily? Depends. On days I work, probably maybe an hour. On days where I don't, probably a lot more.

VOICE 2: Actually, my phone has a way of tracking that and I disabled it because I didn't want to know.

VOICE 3: Well, it's broken down throughout the day. So like probably an hour here, an hour there, but it equals up to about six hours.

VOICE 4: My boyfriend spends a lot of time on the phone. You know Facebook, I don't care because then I can do what the hell I want.

VOICE 5: I feel like it'd be shocking for me how much time I am spending on it.

MG: Shocking or not, researchers have been trying to figure out what impact all that screentime has on us, and it's still not entirely clear, but that might be because we're not measuring the screentime properly. Byron Reeves is a professor of communication at Stanford University. He and two colleagues have launched something they're calling the Human Screenome Project to try to track our screentime more effectively. Byron Reeves, good morning.

BYRON REEVES: Good morning.

MG: What did you make of what you heard from those folks in the streets of Halifax, some of whom don't actually want to know how much time they're spending on their screens and have disabled the app that would conveniently tell them otherwise.

BYRON REEVES: Yeah, a great range of responses. That's one thing to notice from an hour to six hours or no information. You know, one of the things that I make of that, based on the work that we and a lot of other people are doing, is it's really hard to remember and to know exactly what you've done on your screen, even if you're asking me about today. So people overestimate and underestimate what happens on their screens, the time they spend with their screens.

MG: Tell me more about that. What is wrong with the ways that we have been measuring screen time up to now? Is it just that that our memory is not to be trusted?

BYRON REEVES: Well, that's one thing. It's just hard. It's not that we're, I think, trying to hide things from researchers, but it's just very hard to know what's going on. And what's important is it's increasingly hard and maybe even harder in the last couple of years than ever before with respect to media technology. I mean, you think about your smartphone. If you're an average user in our research, you're turning on and off that smartphone hundreds of times per day. Some people, even three, four or five hundred times per day to do things like check time or see if there's a new post or something. So there's a great range of session lengths, an incredible diversity of content, just fragmentation all over the place and it's just really hard to catalogue in one's brain.

MG: Is there software that exists or has there been software that has existed that would allow you to track what people are doing?

BYRON REEVES: So that's what we're working on. So people are are getting tuned in to or researchers are getting tuned into this problem of fragmentation and so we're doing various kinds of logging. One of the favourite things that people, this is the minority of research, by the way, almost all of the research says yesterday was Tuesday, how many hours did you spend on Facebook? You know, they're estimates of the dose of screentime you've got. But people are starting to log what's what what is going on. They log the Web addresses of the websites that you visit. They count the time that you enter and exit the different apps on your phone. But our our conclusion after looking at a lot of of that logging data is that you really need to go to the specific screenshots, the screens that are in front of people and look at how they change moment by moment.

MG: If you have the faulty data., I want to get to how you're doing this in a moment., but if you have the faulty data, what does that mean for the research that's based on that data?

BYRON REEVES: That's the most important question. So media and technology are blamed for and and hoped for with respect to solutions. Just any number of problems, you know, from psychological well-being to fake news, the future of democracy, deteriorating social relationships, just about everything you can think. And to understand what's going on in any of those areas, we need to get a lot better at figuring out what people are actually seeing and doing on these screens in relation to each one of those areas, because it's probably, well research has shown that it's not the number of hours you spend per week or day that relates to whether or not you're more likely to believe fake news or whether you're more likely to feel anxious or depressed, it's the particular things that you do. It's the moment by moment changes that happen and how you encounter the content that you deal with. That's the most important stuff and that's the stuff that's really hard to get. So if we want to understand what the role of technology is and all those problems, we've got to get a better microscope. We've got to figure out what people are actually doing, what's in front of their eyes.

MG: But to your point, I mean, there is all this research that comes out. There are headlines, articles, stories, people anecdotally will talk about this. Pediatricians will talk about this when it comes to your kids, that the amount of time that you're spending on the screens is doing this and this and this to your brain. It's affecting your child's development. Is any of that based in sound research?

BYRON REEVES: Well, some of it is. So there are many examples that research areas where the public concern, the concern from pediatricians and parents and teachers and is just really a little bit overstated with respect to the research. An example area is psychological well-being, people are just totally afraid and concerned that spending a lot of time in social media is going to make us anxious or depressed or feel less well about ourselves because we're comparing ourselves to others. But the research that that people have done, a couple hundred studies over the last 10 years show that the empirical relationship, the actual statistics are that it's pretty much a zero relationship.

MG: Why would all that research be out there then and why would we believe it it's, if the empirical evidence doesn't show that relationship?

BYRON REEVES: Well, a lot of the people that are talking about the smartphone, apocalyptic influences or existential threats of technology, which I think are really going a lot by their own experiences, these are genuine conclusions, but their own experiences, anecdotes. This must be important. I'm watching my kids. I'm on the bus or the train. I can see what's happening. But the researchers haven't really been able to find evidence that is consistent with the experiences that people have. And we think that reason is because total screen time is not the metric that we need to be looking at. We really need to zoom in on what people are doing on their screen. I can give you some examples from research that's looking at at logs of people of screen by screen. So this is every five seconds. We record a screen on your smartphone. Send it back to our university computers and we start analyzing. So we've got a series of screens that represent five, 10, even hours of the day that you spend on these screens. You might be reading a news story. Texting a child, watching pornography, going on a video work conference, checking social media and all within a minute or two. So this is just so fragmented and you're creating your own little thread through all of this content, but there are some really interesting ways in which that thread that I create might be quite influential in my life.

MG: How are you doing this? You said every five seconds, you're taking a screenshot of somebody's phone every five seconds?

BYRON REEVES: Yes. So what we do is put software onyour laptop and on your smartphone, and every five seconds we capture and encrypt and compress and transmit that screenshot to our research computers. So this is going on in the background, you volunteered to be in the project, in the research. You load a little bit of software and you're on your way and for the next two months, we're going to grab all these screens. You know, you're compensated for your participation and you're told exactly what we're going to do with the data, which is nothing but look at it ourselves. We're not sharing the data or talking about anything that identifies particular individuals, but we have a really almost perfect record of what, in fact, was available on that screen.

MG: How much data have you collected already?

BYRON REEVES: So we have 30 or 40 million screenshots from hundreds of people to start our project. This is not millions of people and a couple different estimates of their screentime, but it's we know a lot about a smaller number of individuals. So this is maybe going on for two or three months. So we're really able to put a good get a good picture of the changes that happen. And then what we have to do, the work is just kind of starting then. So then we've got all these screenshots. We've got to find out what's in those screenshots. And hopefully we've got to get the computer to help us figure out what's on those screenshots without having to actually sit and have a bunch of students coding what's in these images.

MG: Let's talk about privacy. Why would I agree to be involved in something like this? I think of the things that I look at at my phone without incriminating myself. You know, it's bank records, it's email, it's texts, it's photos you send back and forth to your friends and to your loved ones. That's all very personal information. Why would I allow, I'm sure you're very trustworthy, you and your team to look at this kind of information?

BYRON REEVES: Well, the first thing to say is you're exactly right. It's the most sensitive, private, personal stuff you can imagine. Think of all the things that are on your front. So we've got a big job here to tell people about what we're up to. When you talk to possible participants in our project, tell them we're from a university. We're going to, with your consent, tell you exactly what we're doing here. We are never going to share this information with anybody. It has absolutely zero commercial use. No one's going to make any money off of it. It's going to be locked up. The best way that that. Technical folks know how to how to do it. They're actually very interested in helping us find out what's going on. They know that all the companies there whose software they're using are have this information or similar kinds of information and they know what they're doing with that information, namely running businesses. We're not doing that. We're trying to actually find out what people are doing so that those companies aren't the only ones that know.

MG: It's a bit of a side note, but I mean, the fact that it's called the Screenome is fascinating because like a genome, you could learn an awful lot through what somebody is doing on their phone, learn an awful lot about them.

BYRON REEVES: Absolutely and I think more, you can learn more every week about what they're doing and a little bit like the genome as well. I mean, the promise of the genome was that there's these chemicals that we need to figure out how they're arranged for each individual. And maybe if we do that, all the detail in that genome will allow us to eventually do good things like diagnosing diseases or preventing them or knowing a lot about in-front individuals that we couldn't know otherwise. And I think the screen home is like that in that the promises that the details of our use of media will eventually lead us to possible solutions, ways to intervene, things to tell you about how you use technologies so that you might do something differently and better things for policymakers too to ask about or think about when they're having anti-trust congressional hearings about breaking up large tech companies. It's just we all need to know this information.

MG: What have you started to find out already?

BYRON REEVES: Well, I think the most surprising thing to us when we started this, we started looking about two or three years ago. If there's a one word summary for what we're looking at, it's short. People are looking at our listening, looking at material in increasingly short segments that they get to decide how they're arranged and just mixing this stuff up. So it's fragmentation and of radically different kinds of content that's into short, short, short segments. So on average, on a laptop and a smartphone, the median segment length for doing something on these devices is between 10 and 20 seconds.

MG: 10 and 20 seconds? That's how I'm looking at something before I'm distracted by something else?

BYRON REEVES: On average, there are things that you do for two or three minutes, but there are a whole lot of things you do for two or three seconds. So on average, 10 to 20 seconds.

MG: Are we getting anything done? I mean, people believe that you can multitask, but research again, would suggest that you can't multitask. That when your brain is distracted by something else, you're not focussing on that one thing and therefore, you're not actually doing two or three different things. You're doing nothing well.

BYRON REEVES: Yeah, that's a great question. Can you get anything? Are we getting anything done? And I think the answer is sometimes yes and sometimes no. I don't think it's uniformly short, is terrible for society. And we're all developing these attention spans that will not allow us to be thoughtful people, doctors, lawyers and presidents. This is just a bad, bad thing. But what we're doing is able we're able to manage our own experiences. So, for example, we did this with university undergraduates initially and we were able to watch the screens that were related to them writing a paper for a class. So during the week, there are maybe 10 or 20 sessions that I'm going to actually put together a paper for a class. And these are students at a really good university who are probably going to do well in life. The average amount of time they worked on a paper before they did something else was about a minute and 20 seconds. So is that a bad thing? Is that a terrible thing? Sometimes that might be. But here's what the students were also doing when they came back to writing a paper. The segment for writing, they tend to write a little bit faster. They tend to do a little bit more editing so that the fragmentation, especially when it's not caused by interruptions that are imposed on me, then I'm I'm managing my level of interest and excitement or whatever. I'm I'm actually creating that thread that might make it, might make me perform a little bit better.

MG: I mean, the other side of that though and it's not to sound like a Luddite because I use the screens all the time too, but it's that we aren't able because of the short attention span that you have described or the inability to focus for a long period of time. We're not doing things that we used to do. We're not reading as many books as we might. We're not reading the long-form articles. We're consuming things in little bits and pieces and that it might be that we have control over that, but it's the device that is eroding our attention span in the first place. Is that a logical step to take?

BYRON REEVES: Yeah, I think partially, that's the case, but there's another angle to that. There's so much material on these screens that used to be done face to face or in the real world that it's hard to know that we're not really doing the same thing. So if you and I have a relationship and it was all based before, maybe even 10 years ago, before smartphones really took over, based pretty much on face to face interaction, we saw each other a lot. So now part of our relationship 10 years later is we've gravitated toward looking at pictures of each other or a text message box that I know. Well, we'll get to you. So we're doing it in different ways. So we're having that relationship. It's via technology, but it's the same kind of stuff that we were similar anyway, kind of stuff that we were doing when it was face to face.

MG: And not necessarily worse.

BYRON REEVES: Yeah, not necessarily worse.

MG: You talked earlier about how having the better microscope, the more powerful microscope to look at our online habits might actually be able to steer us towards some good, that we might learn something out of this that could be productive, that could be helpful in the research that is created from this data. What are you hoping this will do?

BYRON REEVES: Well, the first thing I hope it will give people information about how people are using technology in relation to the things that they're concerned about and and I don't think we have that right now. Take addiction to smartphones. I mean, I bet you could read that in Toronto ten times today.

MG: I probably read it already this morning.

BYRON REEVES: Yeah, probably read it already. S we're really concerned about that and that kind of maybe that's true or could it be true? Could it be just like a drug? Could it work like that? But we have no idea whether that's the case. But if you actually get that better microscope, I mean, if you look at the biology of addiction and what happens to neurochemistry and arousal responses in the moments after the onset of a drug, you know, maybe we could with the better microscope for for technology, maybe we could look at what happens during the first screens of a 10 second segment that you look at and maybe actually see whether they there are addictive properties, whether you're checking the same things, whether you're kind of in a loop looking for that rush. So you can just get a lot more intimate with respect to the links between what's going on in media and the things we worry about.

MG: What about for the things that we worry about? I mean, would we be able to have a better sense, you talked earlier about against some of the pieces that would suggest that the time you spend on social media, can lead to anxiety, can lead to depression. Will we have a better sense as to how to address those concerns through this research?

BYRON REEVES: Well, a couple of things on that. First, we'll have a better sense of what the effect is. So we'll have a sense of what of the magnitude of the problem. That's the first thing. The other thing and we can use that information and thinking about policies, whether you're a doctor or a teacher, congressman, whatever, that information will be useful. But we can also use that information or what's happening moment by moment to think about intervening moment by moment. And we'd have to be really good at this. But I think we could be if we know that somebody is kind of going down a rabbit hole with respect to some fake fake news piece that's being shared by friends they value. And you've kind of got this social, political newsy thing that's happening in a big, big mush. If you know that's happening, you could sign up maybe as a user, I won't say impose it as a government. And you could know that now might be the right time to actually interrupt and say, check this out. You know, there's a post on whether that's right or not or something like something like that. I mean, even kind of medical diagnostics, there are a lot of people that are interested in and looking at the screen home to know when they might want to ring a bell. Maybe you're exhibiting signs of going a little bit too fast and that might be indicative of some sort of a mania or an anxiety. And you know what we do and quite how we tailor those interventions. We need to think about really carefully. There are a lot of difficult issues with respect to that, but you at least have the prospect that you could know when the problem is occurring and maybe help out in some way right on top of that occurrence.

MG: Just two final things before I let you go. One is, do you worry about the other side? Whether it's government or business, getting their hands not on the data, but on the research that comes out of this and seeing commercial applications? Because I could imagine that the, you know, big companies that make billions of dollars from the data that they have already about us now would be delighted to know more about how we are using those pieces of technology and what's actually happening.

BYRON REEVES: Well, I do worry about that, but mostly the big five technology companies and lots of others right under them know a lot or they know the most anyway about what's happening. So in a sense, it's not really yet a fair fight here that if we could develop open access publicly available, published, peer reviewed, published information about what's happening, I think that could balance off a lot of the private information that that exists within the companies that are running businesses and need to have that private. So I don't worry about it in that sense. There may be things that we learn about how to analyze the data that would be useful to someone who is just doing this for business reasons. That might be the case, but I think they're going to know that anyway. There are far more A.I. scientists in in those companies than we could ever muster in a research lab at a university. So I think they kind of know that anyway and these are just powerful things. They're not good or bad, they are good and bad things. They could be used for good and bad, but they're very powerful and I think it's just important to have folks with a different sense of what's going on be part of that conversation.

MG: How has this research impacted your screen time?

BYRON REEVES: So it's made me much more aware of short of fragmentation of my own switching between radically different content. So that has been the case, but I don't think it's actually changed what I do. I think in some ways the knowledge that it's true has kind of given me permission to just keep doing it, but try to think about why it's happening. I mean, sometimes it's just happening because I'm a little bored. uou know, what's the next shiny thing I can look at? But also, it's these threads that I make are also kind of cool sometimes and very useful. So I don't think it's really changed that much.

MG: This is fascinating work and it will be and sound so familiar to so many people as they scroll through things second by second. Maybe they won't feel as bad about being distracted in some ways. Byron, thank you so much.

BYRON REEVES: OK. You're welcome, Matt. Good luck.

MG: Byron Reeves is a professor of communication at Stanford University. Coming up in our next half hour, "rage over reclining," "recline gate," "the right to recline." Headline writers and social media users are having a field day with the latest controversy in the skies. Take a seat. Fasten that belt snugly around your waist. We're back in 90 seconds. I'm Matt Galloway and this is The Current.

Rail blockade protesters 'dragging our name through the mud,' says Wet'suwet'en woman

Guests: Bonnie George, Marlene Hale

MG: Hello. I'm Matt Galloway, and you're listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: The significance of me being here is to support and be in solidarity with the Wet'suwet'en peoples who stand on the frontlines in BC currently.

VOICE 2: We need to change the collection of voices that lead the country and listen more to tradition and relationships that work with the Earth and are in connection with Earth and not just temporary solutions.

MG: More than a thousand people gathered on Monday in Toronto to show their support for the Wet'suwet'en opponents of the Coastal Gaslink pipeline. It was one of many solidarity protests held across the country in recent days. Demonstrators have marched in the streets. They've occupied buildings. They've blocked rail lines. And while some Wet'suwet'en people welcome the support, the community remains divided over the pipeline and the solidarity protests. Bonnie George is a Wet'suwet'en member and former Coastal Gaslink employee. Bonnie, good morning.

BONNIE GEORGE: Good morning.

MG: When you see protesters across this country marching, blocking railways, saying that they're in solidarity with your community, what do you think?

BONNIE GEORGE: What I think, there's two thoughts there because, you know, it's great to see everyone pull together in support, but there's two sides of the story. There's a number of Wet'suwet'en and elders and chiefs, hereditary chiefs that do support the projects because our people are in poverty, our people are not working and the industry that's been supporting our nation and our province has been declining over the years. And we need to build our communities back up together. When our people aren't working they you know, what else is there to do? And depression gets in, suicide rates go up, domestic violence grows and people resort to destructive ways in their lives. And that's not our Wet'suwet'en way. Our chiefs are very, our chiefs and elders are really hurt about what they see on how our name of Wet'suwet'en has been blasted all across Canada.

MG: Tell me more about that.

BONNIE GEORGE: They feel is that they're dragging our name through the mud. I do these talks and interviews by direction of them. They give me the, what they want to be heard because they're afraid to speak up. A lot of our people are afraid to speak up because of being ostracized, bullied and being called a sell-off, trade-off.

MG: Can I ask, when you say the Wet'suwet'en name is being dragged through the mud, what do you mean by that?

BONNIE GEORGE: The way the elders feel when they see all these roadblocks happening across Canada, people CN workers being laid off and, you know, and they claim to be living in solidarity. Our Wet'suwet'en way of our laws is not about, it's not about power and control, it's not about, you know, tearing people down. It's about building each other up. We build each other up through our clan system. We all have a role within the clan system, we're all connected one way or another. People on either side, they're all related through either same clan, cousins, crossed cousins, which means we're cousins, but we're in different clans, different house. So we're all responsible to each other and power and control, that's another thing that was brought to my attention by one of the elders. It looks like it's trying to enforce and push power and control, stopping people from, you know, blocking, they're blocking the railway and the highways and the bridges. And one elder brought it to my attention, said that's power and control. That's not Wet'suwet'en way. We need to sit down and work together collectively as a nation. And also, another individual had mentioned that and she's a hereditary chief as well when the news talks about saying the hereditary chiefs, be specific because not all hereditary chiefs have been consulted.

MG: Do you worry that these protests, I mean they're meant, they're solidarity protests, they're meant to support your community and meant to be behind your community, but that they will have some sort of impact on resolving what you're describing, a sort of disagreement within your community? Do you worry that this is going to affect how that disagreement could be resolved within the community?

BONNIE GEORGE: Yeah. Yes, we believe so. And we need to sort it out together as a nation. And the messaging that is being delivered that we see in the media and the news and that our elders see and interpret from the news that it's in a negative way because they're blocking like even coming to a point where they're lying on on the Premier Horgan's home. You know and blocking the people from going into legislation to do their work for our nation and that's shameful to use our name as Wet'suwet'en and they're really disheartened by that. Let's refocus that energy from that to positive energy and to support us, help us heal our nation together as one.

MG: There are a lot of these protests where people would say that it's positive energy. And you see people who are indigenous, who are involved in some of these protests. You see non-indigenous people as well. And you hear from some indigenous people who say that they welcome that support from non-indigenous folks to help protect the land and the water. Have a listen to this.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: It's important to come here because we are members of a First Nation Reserve, and what's happening in Wet'suwet'en territory is you know, a broader issue of indigenous rights. And I'm here to support and protect our rights and for the rights of my son.

VOICE 2: How do you feel about allies being here as well in support of the Wet'suwet'en?

VOICE 1: It's great because to be an ally, you have to be active. Right? So showing people here today is, you know, it's what you need to do to be an ally. It's the basic thing to do.

MG: That's a young father and a solidarity protester in Toronto on Monday. Bonnie George, what do you think when you hear that?

BONNIE GEORGE: That's amazing that he is there doing that. One thing I would like to say is reach out to our people, reach out to our elders, reach out to our hereditary chiefs that feel that they've been unheard and find out what they want and find out how they feel, because there's only one story that's been people have been focussing on. We have a huge, huge nation and a big part of our nation is unrepresented. When we dress our people, we say [Indigenous speech]. So when we address and we work with our people, we address and consult with everyone. Absolutely everyone. It's not a dictatorship society. We work together collectively and everyone is entitled and their word and their part of the conversation is just as important as each other.

MG: We're just about to speak with an old friend of yours, Marlene Hale, who is Wet'suwet'en, but finds herself kind of in some ways on the other side of this issue. And I just wonder what you'd say to her?

BONNIE GEORGE: Hi, Marlene. And I'm glad you're part of this and I would wish you well and reach out to some of the members of our nation, our elders and, you know, find out how they feel about all of this and how it's impacting them back home in our Wet'suwet'en Nation.

MG: Bonnie George, it's great to talk to you. I appreciate it. Thank you.

BONNIE GEORGE: Thank you.

MG: Bonnie George is Wet'suwet'en member and a former employee of Coastal GasLink. We reached her this morning in Smithers, B.C. Not everyone from Wet'suwet'en is opposed to those solidarity protests. Marlene Hale, as I mentioned, Wet'suwet'en chef-turned-activist now lives in Montreal, has been speaking at events in Quebec. Marlene, good morning to you.

MARLENE HALE: Good morning, how are you doing today?

MG: I'm well, thanks. You have spoken, as I mentioned at the Wet'suwet'en solidarity events in the province of Quebec. Why is that important to you to be there at those solidarity events?

MARLENE HALE: I have been doing this let's go way back to January the 7th, 2019 when this story first broke out. The very next day, January the 8th, there was a huge, big rally and at that rally was this team that came up together, Wet'suwet'en people. And ever since then, the outpouring amount of different variations of people and the solidarity have come and grown so much that has now gone worldwide.

MG: What do you make of what Bonnie George was saying in part that non-Wet'suwet'en people at the very least need to think more about what's going on within the community itself. And if they don't know exactly what's happening, that they might be dragging the name of the community through the mud.

MARLENE HALE: I don't really think that is what dragging us through the mud as a phrase that I would probably use. I feel that myself, I'm a very strong person and as far as my my teachings, my name is Marlene Hale and I'm from the Wet'suwet'en Nation. I'm very proud of where I am. And the people, the Wet'suwet'en nation right now need the world's help. They need the recognition and it is there. They have received it. And they are welcoming it because without allies out there taking action by walking out, young people, old people, every nation and from every multiple types of organizations that have reached out to me personally is just so overwhelming.

MG: I can imagine this must be tricky for you though. I mean, as I mentioned, Bonnie is an old friend. She finds herselfs and it's not to divide this, but she says that there are divides within the community on this.

MARLENE HALE: You know, the way I take it, bonnie George, I love her dearly. I have many friends in my nation. And with me living thousands of miles away, I'm just a chef by trade, I've turned activist. It was all, it was not meant that I always was, when this story broke out last year, this is where I started to turn this way. And I've never looked back ever since. I feel my nation is very, very in dire right now and the need to go out and have people doing what they are doing right now has finally reached the core problem where the prime minister has to turn and do something immediately.

MG: What role do you think and this came up yesterday when the prime minister spoke and then Andrew Scheer responded, talking about who's involved in these actions, who's involved in these protests? What role do you think that non-Indigenous people should play in this dispute?

MARLENE HALE: Well, I listened to what the prime minister was saying. I felt that many other ministers when they came up and spoke they had a lot more to say than what is, we need to work together. Who is we? He needs to work with the people, not with we. And I know what, I know Andrew Scheer, he's going to come out always the opposition of no matter what you're saying. And this enormous project is a top priority. And he is welcoming, you say A, he says B, and he will also always push it down to the police going in and taking care of, go down to take care of all of the railway blockings and do it with whatever force you have to do.. It's his way, but it's not the right way.

MG: You say it's about we. You say that there is a role for for non-indigenous people to be involved in this in those solidarity protests in that work, yeah.

MARLENE HALE: Yes, absolutely. The non-indigenous, we welcome everybody. You know, we are a solidarity. Solidarity mean all of us. We are all into you know, we're all one country and the country is falling apart. The country has stopped.

MG: And yet this has really touched a nerve across the country, whether people are in support of the protests or whether people might be in support, but they're frustrated that's the things that they need aren't getting to where they need to go. Why do you think just finally that this issue, this Coastal GasLink issue has touched such a nerve?

MARLENE HALE: Well, you always see it. You know, everyone is affected by it in many different ways. And everyone will well be affected by it even by turning on radio, TV, looking at a newspaper, it has reached the headlines worldwide. Some people are just fed up. They want this thing to go away. They want their normal lives back. I am totally for that. I feel that the focus right now that they have to do is just, you know, go on to the positive side of it that our positive side, I could just Prime Minister Trudeau just doing his diligence and duty like to deal with the hereditary chiefs has the nation to nation talks. That is a really well as needed right now. People want him to go where he said he was going to go. He was going to go up there and do talk with the hereditary chiefs. He has to do exactly that. I've been saying this for the last month on all my interviews.

MG: Marlene, it's great to talk to you.

MARLENE HALE: It's the only solution.

MG: I appreciate this. I mean you're dialled into this as well and clearly passionate about it. It's good to speak with you about it. Thank you.

MARLENE HALE: Thank you and have a good day.

MG: And you. Marlene Hale is Wet'suwet'en chef-turned-activist who now lives in Montreal.

[Music]

MG: This is The Current on CBC Radio One. My name is Matt Galloway. It is a video that has now been viewed millions and millions of times.

The Unfriendly Skies: A passenger refuses to take a backseat to a reclining airplane chair

Guests: Tom Nichols, Lisa Orr

SOUNDCLIP

[Clip of viral airplane video]

MG: So that sounds like a flight on an airplane. When you see the video, you realize something else is going on. The video shows a man repeatedly hitting the back of the seat in front of him. That seat is where Wendi Williams was sitting, filming the man. He's obviously not happy that her seat is reclined. And this is a video that has sparked a raging online debate over whether to recline or whether not to recline. And, of course, in the midst of any heated debate, Twitter has the answer.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Corporate America has us battling each other over reclining airplane seats rather than going after the airlines for packing us in so tightly that you can't recline your seat without being up in someone's nasal cavity.

VOICE 2: Twitter in a nutshell. Woman uses airplane seat as it was designed to be used. Man behind her throws massive tantrum and punches things. People on Twitter. Yeah, he overreacted, but she reclined her seat. What kind of monster is she?

VOICE 3: I pay full price for my airplane seat. What makes you think you can recline and steal the precious few inches of leg room that I paid for? That is spatial theft and if you recline, you're criminal in my book.

MG: Spacial theft. I've never heard that before. It isn't actually a crime to recline. That doesn't mean it's always okay either. Tom Nichols is a political commentator and the author of the Six Rules Everyone Should Follow When Flying. Lisa Orr runs Orr Etiquette in Toronto. Good morning to you both.

LISA ORR: Good morning.

TOM NICHOLS: Good morning.

MG: Tom, what did you make of everything is a "gate" now. So what did you make of "reclinegate?"

TOM NICHOLS: Well, I had a few reactions. One is that I think that man wouldn't have tried to keep punching that lady's seat if that had been a big fellow in the seat in front of him. I think he was having a bad day and he decided to throw a tantrum and there was a woman in the seat in front of him and she was the object of his anger. I think he has bigger issues than people reclining their seats, to be honest with you.

MG: How would you have handled that situation?

TOM NICHOLS: I would have called a flight attendant and had he not desist that, I would have asked law enforcement to meet the airplane. That's an assault. And, you know, that was especially if she had any kind of back problem or neck problem, I mean, that is a really uncomfortable thing. I think it could have been handled with something far less escalatory, but the flight attendants should have taken him to task immediately because he was in the wrong. That's all there is to it.

MG: Confession is good for the soul. I took flight across Canada at the end of last week, and, yes, I reclined to my seat a little bit on the way home. Am I a monster for doing that, Tom?

TOM NICHOLS: The seat has a recline button on it. That's like telling you not to use your tray because it bothers somebody. You paid for the seat, it reclines. Now you know, we can all be adults and if the person behind you is very tall or is having dinner, I mean, I don't think you have every right to simply jam your seat back and send things flying. Use your seat responsibly. But the fact of the matter is, you know, there are some airlines have seats that don't recline. And if you want people not to recline, fly on those airlines. At the bottom of all this is that people wanted cheap airline tickets and now they're complaining that cheap air travel is cheap in every way. And, you know, your seat reclines and you need an inch of pitch, I think for especially on a longer flight, that helps a lot of us. They wouldn't have put the button there otherwise if you weren't supposed to use it.

MG: Lisa Orr, what is the etiquette around pushing the button and reclining your seat, even an inch or two?

LISA ORR: Well, their best practice in terms of how you can put your seat back and reduce the risk of having this kind of thing happen. I mean, in my experience, I flew a few weeks ago and so when I'm reclining my seat, I look behind me. I sort of let the person behind me know that I'm planning to put my seat back. I'm not asking for permission, as one of the airline's CEO suggested we do.

MG: You're just telling them.

LISA ORR: I just let them know. And I check to see if they're, you know, if they've got a laptop or a coffee or something that I might spill or knock over. I let them know and I've never had an issue. I'll say I'm just putting my seat back. Just wanted to let you know. And I've never had an issue when I notify people.

MG: And if conflict were to arise, what would you do?

LISA ORR: So I'm a low conflict person. No surprise. So if I realized it was going to result in a massive air tantrum, I would likely not put my seat back, talk to a flight attendant and see if I can make another arrangement. But because I'm part of that's just me.

MG: What's the line between an air tantrum and a very loud sigh? When you put the seat back and somebody goes argh because they know that their space is small as it is, it's getting even smaller.

LISA ORR: So I think the sigh is tolerable. As long as, I mean the, I said I have a 14 year old son and he's very good at that sigh. So to full confession. So he does it very well. But the reality is the person front of them is well within the rights to put their seat back. But my issue fundamentally is around creating a system where people shouldn't have to be so polite. I always think great design reduces our risk of conflict and I think that's fundamentally our issue and airplanes right now, is that we're set up for failure. You shouldn't have to be on your very best manners at all times in order to be successful on a flight.

MG: You mentioned the CEO. Have a listen to the CEO of Delta Airlines, Ed Bastian.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: The proper thing to do is if you're going to recline into somebody that you ask if it's OK. If someone knows there's a tall person behind them and they want to recline their seat, I think the polite thing would be to make certain it was OK.

MG: Tom Nichols, do I need to ask permission before I recline my seat?

TOM NICHOLS: Absolutely not. I think Lisa's approach is much better, which is simply to say, look behind you, smile, you know, recline your seat gently. I think a lot of these problems come not because people recline, but because they just jam their seat back and because otherwise now you're putting the person behind you in a situation because they may not want you to, but they don't want to be a jerk and say no. By the way, my answer to the heavy sigh is noise cancelling headphones. That way I can't hear anybody sighing and being dramatic.

MG: I mean, it's a bit rich for the CEO of Delta Airlines to say to ask. In some ways, isn't it his fault, Lisa, that we're stuck in these small little seats because his company wants to squeeze more money out of everybody who's on the plane?

LISA ORR: I couldn't agree more. I really believe that it's up to the airlines to design systems that allow people to travel in a civil way. I mean, I always think if you take it to the extreme, you'd know how big of a problem it was. I mean, if we were sitting on each other's laps, that would be too close and we're almost there. And I think that's how I mean, I think the airlines do have a responsibility to create an environment that doesn't make people have these moments. The rate of kind of airline rage is going up every year at a dramatic rate and I think it's a reflection of creating an environment that makes us uncivil.

MG: Tom, you wrote these Six Rules for Flying and if you violate these rules, as you say, you're a monster. Rule number one is people who take their shoes and socks off on flights. Why does that drive you around the bend?

TOM NICHOLS: Because it's toddler behaviour. You don't need, if every, flying is difficult. I disagree with everyone here that I don't think this is the fault of the airlines. People wanted cheap tickets, they want to be able to fly at will.

MG: And flying is a great luxury. Most people around the world don't actually have the opportunity to fly and so there is great luxury in being able to get on an airplane.

TOM NICHOLS: Well, and before deregulation in America, only about 15 percent of adults had ever flown. Now it's well over 90. People fly at the drop of a hat just because they want to and so they react to this experience of involuntary confinement like children and they decide, well, I'm going to show that, you know, I don't care who else is on the plane. I'm going to take my shoes off, which again, if you take your shoes off during a long flight to be more comfortable and you're wearing socks or you stay at your seat and you keep your shoes with you, people who take their shoes and their socks off and then start walking about the cabin, putting their feet up on the seats. I was on a flight recently where the young lady next to me took her sneakers off and then her socks off and then stuck her feet into the seat pocket next to me. And I finally turned to her and said, you know, someone might actually want to use that. She sort of grumbled and put her feet back down. It is a very childlike, brattish approach to being confined on an airplane when in fact we used to fly under much more different. Anyone who's ever flown in a 707 back in the day, back in the 60s, early 70s, knows we used to fly in much more uncomfortable conditions than we have now.

MG: You have a disgusted look on your face, Lisa, as Tom is talking about taking your shoes and socks off?

LISA ORR: I fully agree with Tom on that socks and shoes should not come off. The way that people do that on planes, I completely agree. It's I think the challenges to me, these are unwritten rules, but maybe we need to write them down. Like Tom's book needs to be sort of announced at the beginning when they say this is how you put your seat belt on and this is where the exits are. And please do not take your dirty feet and put them up on the windows. What happened to me recently was I saw them come through the side. I was in a window seat and all of a sudden these feet came with no socks came, you know, the seats are quite close. So they came down the armrest of my seat, which was and I was like, I didn't I was very tempted to tickle toes, but I thought that might be a little inappropriate.

MG: Yeah, that might get you filmed as well.

LISA ORR: Exactly.

MG: Tom, why has this, just briefly, why has the story hit such a nerve for people, do you think?

TOM NICHOLS: Because I think it's part of if I can be overly, it's part of our civilizational decline. It's part of this whole problem that we do not treat each other with respect in public spaces. And when we become slovenly children in public, we immediately blame, we blame, you know, the size of the seat. We blame the warm cabin. We do everything but take the option of simply acting like responsible adults and with self-respect who respect other people. You know, even if we're going to complain about the jammed in seats and I fly a lot, every now and then, I kind of grumble and feel the same way, but there is no possible way in which an airline makes you take your shoes off and put your bare feet on an armrest next to an innocent person. That's just horrible.

MG: Is there a brighter day ahead, Lisa?

LISA ORR: I hope so. I feel like it seems quite fixable to me. I mean, I think.

MG: We have an entire series called The Fix. This could be part of it.

LISA ORR: Perfect.

MG: How to fix people's behaviour on planes.

LISA ORR: Oh, yes. Oh, that would be a wonderful. Oh, I would love that project. To me, I think Tom's point around how we don't with the sort of decline in civility, part of it is because we don't, we don't have agreed upon set of rules. So I think what I found on Twitter was some people were really angry at the woman who reclines who said, don't doesn't everyone know seats shouldn't be reclined? And then other people said, of course, you can recline. I think the challenge is we haven't agreed on the rules. And so if we could agree and just decide, then we could follow them.

MG: Lisa, thank you.

LISA ORR: Thank you.

MG: And Tom, thank you so much.

TOM NICHOLS: Thank you.

MG: Tom Nichols, the author of The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters. Lisa Orr is an etiquette and protocol consultant. Your thoughts welcome. You can e-mail us thecurrent@cbc.ca. Tweet us @TheCurrentCBC or go to cbc.ca/thecurrent and click on the Contact link. To recline or not to recline? Is that the answer. Maybe you have some horror stories as well of being on a plane. That's it for our program today. Stay tuned to CBC Radio One for Q. Tom Power is going to speak with William Gibson, science fiction writer who has a great pension for looking around the corner. Maybe he has seen the future of etiquette on planes. You'll hear that coming up. I'm Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening to The Current. We'll talk to you tomorrow.

Feb. 19, 2020 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode