Barbara Frum was my hero. I can't count the number of times I have yearned for her while listening to the superficial gabfests that now pass for interviews. I remember how one politician answered her question with an evasive word salad. She calmly said you didn't answer the question, and repeated it. He tried another series of evasions. So she calmy said "so you won't answer the question", and moved on. Today, in all of television, there is no longer a single journalist willing to do this, to simply call attention to what is actually being said.
Thank you for your research and insight regarding our national broadcaster, the CBC. The CBC has always been my “go to” for news but not anymore. I especially have difficulty with Rosemary Barton and her journalistic style. She seems to be always looking for a “gotcha” moment with the Liberal government and allows the Conservatives to say whatever they want whether it be lies or the truth with no fact checking. Needless to say, I will read the news online but do not watch the tv programming. Sad for me as my dad worked for the CBC and it was the only radio/tv station on in our home.
I am not a Canadian so no doubt what I am about to say is totally unfair as I do not know these people, but reading this (or anything about people I don't know) I like to be able to picture them as I read about them so I googled each of them. The Rosemary Barton photos told me everything I need to know (I told you I would be unfair) the publicity style (and styled) shots with that smug expression masquerading as seriousness but the obvious love of the limelight, I have seen these people before, I know it when I see it and I am very confident that if I moved to Canada then within a few weeks of watching CBC I would be very comfortable with my initial impressions of her being the correct ones.
I wanted to say something clever about how much I like the way you think — but before doing that, I went over to your page and saw your line: *“The block button is your friend, don’t let this place become Twitter.”*
Now I can say with complete sincerity: I like you, brother. Lol.
Thanks again for bringing that level of clarity into the conversation.
I have a friend who’s friends with David Frum so I sent this piece to him, he thanked me for sending it, saying he very much enjoyed it and had shared it with his sister
My philosophy is block early and block often, don't do background checks, don't research to see if its a one off annoying comment, don't check to see if they share your basic ideology, if they see something that irritates you then block them. Yeah there will be times you unfairly block someone, but basically always you will be right and it massively improves your experience when you eradicate annoying people from your life. We don't befriend people who annoy us in real life, so why we're expected to grant that courtesy online I will never know
Rosemary Barton has outlived her usefulness as a CBC talking head. Time to go. IMO, David Cochrane is the only journalist on CBC who challenges the interviewees any more, and it is apparent that higher ups are whispering directives into his earpiece, but at least he tries, and is hands down the most skilled at journalistic diplomacy.
Karina Roman, Jean-Paul Tasker, Barton, the former host Vassy Kapelos now on CTV, they all fall short of doing the job that they should should be doing as objective journalists.
Change up the names and you would have slightly different examples, but the general tenor and thesis of the piece could be, in fact should be, written about the BBC right now and the entire Shipman/Kussenberg generation of UK Political Journalists, know as The Lobby
Tim Shipman will deliver 5,000 words in The Times tomorrow and The Lobby will lap up every word as the agreed framing for what happened in Westminster this week. Nobody will stop to consider that in those 5,000 words less than 50 had a name attached to the quote, nobody will stop and wonder why it is that the same guy who never gives you the name next to any quote is the same guy who seems to constantly get almost Novelistically perfect quotes that hit so perfectly it often reads like literature not reporting.
After reading the Shipman piece they will all flick on Sunday with Kussenberg, here you will see every single flaw you highlight in this piece, only on steroids, the softball interview with Farage followed by 6 Lobby Journalists on a couch all agreeing that the politicians are all useless, the public are angry and that the journalists are all wonderful. At no point will actual policy be covered, at no point will there be any education of the public on the challenges facing Britain, they will talk about the publics anger with immigration but never ask who will pay the taxes to fund Pensions if the pensioners get their wish to end immigration of working age men. Finally and most crucially, one thing that will never ever be mentioned and bringing it up will cause excommunication, is Brexit. There will be the interview with Farage that lets him rant about all the things he hates but nobody will ask him what role Brexit has played in Britains paralysis and if he feels responsible, but I am getting off topic.
The problem is from Canada through the UK to Australia we have the same problem, a generation for political journalists who think their role is to generate clicks and increase engagement at all costs, that your framing, a very smart one of Level 4 and 5 discussion should never even be attempted as it may scare off a viewer or two, that to educate the public is to condescend to them, until this generation of political journalists are sent off to do something that better fits their skills, covering the Royals or Celebrity Gossip would be a good fit for many of them, then the challenges facing the Western democracies, especially in the anglosphere will not be resolved
FWIW: I am obviously older than you, and remember even CBC Radio in its glory days. I loved it. The decline there has been long and gradual. I remember great news journalism, and arts programming that enlarged my rural prairie world. There were weekly radio programs I wouldn't have missed "for anything", and will always be grateful for.
I also remember having an evening-long discussion with a CBC news manager; he was passionate about the work.
But ultimately, as that calibre of manager retired, it became pretty clear that new managers just didn't want to be bothered. They'd prefer just to 'manage'. A sure sign was a Sunday-morning radio program with a guy named Ian Brown who brought fresh thoughtful energy every week - he lasted a year, and was soon replaced with a sleepy guy who made no waves of any sort, and who they kept forever. I had given up television years before, and then gave up radio.
Finally (for me) and as recently as 20 or 25 years ago I attended a weeklong conference for Canadian journalists that was attended primarily by CBC types - and the workshops that were offered leaned heavily into teaching story-telling (!) techniques. Nobody there was talking about news or arts or journalism. At one point during that conference I learned there were over 50 journalists whose full-time job was covering Ottawa. Really, I thought? That is the best that 50 journalists can do?
Is CBC's current malaise a problem of management? The unions? Viewers/ listeners?
Surely it's not just the individual journalists who now think they're hot stuff but are actually pretty boring? CBC seems to have quite a few of those, though Rosemary Barton does seem to stand out. Somebody is encouraging those people to drink the koolaid.
Finally, I disagree with your comments on Peter Mansbridge. I think the podcast is a retirement project for him, and whatever you think his obligations are, I think he's entitled to be retired and he's entitled to keep doing some version of work he enjoyed. I think he's doing a good job for an old retired guy - journalism takes a lot of energy, possibly more than he is able to contribute at this point in his life and almost certainly more than he feels like contributing after having settled on a life balance that suits him now. (You too will get there, and it will be okay.)
So I'm grateful for the Mansbridge podcast. Like probably many people, I watch it only because of Chantal Hebert. Once out of curiosity I watched Chantal on one of those things hosted by Rosemary Barton. Chantal was more interesting on Mansbridge's program. I attribute that to the quality of the host's questions. Rosemary Barton managed to make Chantal Hebert a bit boring - surely an achievement of its own.
Funny you mention arts programming, here in Australia on our Public Broadcaster the ABC, the arts journalism is some of the best stuff they do. The other show that has real rolled gold brilliant journalism is Landline, the weekly rural affairs show. Now I neither really care about art and I am very much a city person, but I watch both these shows regularly just because they are 2 of the few remaining places where you can still watch real in-depth coverage of an issue with no bias and that genuinely makes me smarter every time I watch
I will just add even though I say I don't care about art and I have followed politics closely since I was 11, I do have a go to comment for arts lovers to use against people like me. If people try to dismiss art as unimportant compared to politics, just point out that there is basically nobody who without Google can tell you who was the Prime Minister of The Netherlands in the late 1800's but everybody has heard the name Vincent Van Gogh and can picture at least one of his paintings
Thank you for your reply and comment. Just a note, I looked forward to Good Talk every Friday, but now that I am Writing and Publishing for the Vertical Dispatch, I am learning why the Canadian public reads and comprehends at PIACC level 2 and level 3 is not that much better.
Excellent analysis but, i do think you missed a key dynamic: money to the CPC.
part of the authoritarian playbook is, when journalists push back, is to claim unfair bias to their supporters and hit them up for another $20 donation (so the political party can fight the injustice )
So this has been noticed in USA, Canada, and elsewhere: doing responsible journalism either gets the network sued OR simply raises another $1 million for the political party
And of course, the authoritarian playbook weaponizes this:
Push back, and i can raise more money from my flock, or score propaganda points to eventually defeat society/news/etc.
Don't push back, and i don't get the money, but you give me ammunition to point out to people why i should defund you (because you are adding no value )
I haven't heard any good solution to this, other than “so you should just do good journalism” and hope that by shining the light, good people will notice (and not get sucked in for their votes)
I hope the powers of CBC read this and give it great thought. Many are commenting along the same lines. I hope they return to real journalism rather than chase the National Inquirer glitter…sad to say the least.
This piece offers a useful starting point for a more thorough analysis, and the five portraits are genuinely illuminating as a chronicle of how CBC journalism has evolved over time.
That chronological dimension is worth pausing on, because it points to a variable the analysis does not fully account for: the media environment itself has been transformed almost beyond recognition across the span these journalists represent. Clarkson and Frum operated in a world of limited channels, captive audiences, and stable advertising-supported newsrooms. Nash anchored during the last years of that world. Mansbridge straddled the digital disruption. Barton has worked her entire career inside it. Any fair comparison of journalistic quality across that timeline needs to hold the environmental variable constant, or at least visible, before drawing conclusions about institutional or individual failure.
A second foundational element worth adding to the frame: CBC is a public broadcaster, not a news organization. The funding cited here supports an entire ecosystem — news, drama, documentary, regional programming, Indigenous-language content, and more. Measured against peer nations, that funding is not generous — it is austere. Per-capita public broadcasting support averages roughly twice Canada's level across comparable countries. The BBC operates at nearly three times the rate.
A complete analysis would want to bring all of this together: what structural and environmental forces are shaping current quality levels; whether what CBC produces genuinely meets Canadians' expectations and the broadcaster's statutory mandate; and what it would actually take - in funding, governance, and editorial standards - to close any gap that exists. That is the examination worth doing, and this piece provides some valuable material from which to begin.
Thank you for your comments. We live in a complex environment. The writing of Marshall, McClellan, Neil, postman, George Orwell, Ray, Bradbury, Aldous Huxley and Margaret Atwood to name a few warned us that society prefers the horizontal, quantity and the Propane over the vertical quality and the sacred. Yes the environment changed, but who’s the blame?
"Blame" implies a few things - I think. First, that there is a consensus on a single net negative outcome. "Cause" might be less loaded and perhaps something that coud help better define a problem worth exploring - especially if there is an intent to define a preferred future state and how we can use our understanding of the causes to develop solutions.
Glad to see you concluded with the role of the corporation and management in this decline. That is the root cause of the deterioration as former CBC staffers have noted. As for the Mansbridge podcast, I am not a viewer of political podcasts, but am wondering about: 1. The stated purpose of the podcast and 2. Is Mansbridge being held to a higher standard than other podcast hosts because of his CBC background? For me, these two need to be considered together before I would pass judgement on the podcast format.
Thank you for your comment. My judgment is based on what I know and what I experience when I listen to the broadcast. The only person anyone actually listens to is Chantal Hébert. I am interested in what you have to think on the last copy the vertical dispatch just posted
The responsibility of the CBC is to hold politicians accountable.
There is so much proof of corruption in our politics today and I do not see that brought to the forefront and questioned by reporters from the CBC.
In Saskatchewan, Tammy Robert tirelessly works to expose the corruption of the Moe government.
That is journalism.
That should be the work of the CBC reporters.
And as the opposition leader, Carla Beck constantly focusses on the tired obvious issues but ignores the work of Tammy who provides all the facts necessary for the NDP to educate the electorate and hold Scott’s feet to the fire.
Yes, and… Arsenault, Chan you skipped over. I noticed Barton was replaced with Arsenault for a recent interview of Carney. Friendly tone but still decent questions and followups. She is a pro. Chan’s “About That” segment is also good, rivalling Al Jezeera English analysis and explainer shows. Usually quite timely too.
I am always suspicious of nostalgia and cherry picked facts. For example, Rex Murphy was a train wreck. What started as clever wordsmithery and cutting folksy critique devolved into rabid pandering to extremists. There were numerous others who, if you put them on a pedestal might topple off.
Barbara Frum was my hero. I can't count the number of times I have yearned for her while listening to the superficial gabfests that now pass for interviews. I remember how one politician answered her question with an evasive word salad. She calmly said you didn't answer the question, and repeated it. He tried another series of evasions. So she calmy said "so you won't answer the question", and moved on. Today, in all of television, there is no longer a single journalist willing to do this, to simply call attention to what is actually being said.
AMEN
Thank you for your research and insight regarding our national broadcaster, the CBC. The CBC has always been my “go to” for news but not anymore. I especially have difficulty with Rosemary Barton and her journalistic style. She seems to be always looking for a “gotcha” moment with the Liberal government and allows the Conservatives to say whatever they want whether it be lies or the truth with no fact checking. Needless to say, I will read the news online but do not watch the tv programming. Sad for me as my dad worked for the CBC and it was the only radio/tv station on in our home.
Let’s hope the CBC is listening
I am not a Canadian so no doubt what I am about to say is totally unfair as I do not know these people, but reading this (or anything about people I don't know) I like to be able to picture them as I read about them so I googled each of them. The Rosemary Barton photos told me everything I need to know (I told you I would be unfair) the publicity style (and styled) shots with that smug expression masquerading as seriousness but the obvious love of the limelight, I have seen these people before, I know it when I see it and I am very confident that if I moved to Canada then within a few weeks of watching CBC I would be very comfortable with my initial impressions of her being the correct ones.
I wanted to say something clever about how much I like the way you think — but before doing that, I went over to your page and saw your line: *“The block button is your friend, don’t let this place become Twitter.”*
Now I can say with complete sincerity: I like you, brother. Lol.
Thanks again for bringing that level of clarity into the conversation.
I have a friend who’s friends with David Frum so I sent this piece to him, he thanked me for sending it, saying he very much enjoyed it and had shared it with his sister
Thank you for getting it to David. I want to post it on his Substack, but he seems not to be posting anymore Namaste
My philosophy is block early and block often, don't do background checks, don't research to see if its a one off annoying comment, don't check to see if they share your basic ideology, if they see something that irritates you then block them. Yeah there will be times you unfairly block someone, but basically always you will be right and it massively improves your experience when you eradicate annoying people from your life. We don't befriend people who annoy us in real life, so why we're expected to grant that courtesy online I will never know
Glad to know I seem to be right about Miss Barton
i was kick off f x for good for this post https://glenroberts911399.substack.com/p/the-ccp-making-america-great-again?r=1pgr4n&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
Rosemary Barton has outlived her usefulness as a CBC talking head. Time to go. IMO, David Cochrane is the only journalist on CBC who challenges the interviewees any more, and it is apparent that higher ups are whispering directives into his earpiece, but at least he tries, and is hands down the most skilled at journalistic diplomacy.
Karina Roman, Jean-Paul Tasker, Barton, the former host Vassy Kapelos now on CTV, they all fall short of doing the job that they should should be doing as objective journalists.
Thank you for your comment
Change up the names and you would have slightly different examples, but the general tenor and thesis of the piece could be, in fact should be, written about the BBC right now and the entire Shipman/Kussenberg generation of UK Political Journalists, know as The Lobby
Tim Shipman will deliver 5,000 words in The Times tomorrow and The Lobby will lap up every word as the agreed framing for what happened in Westminster this week. Nobody will stop to consider that in those 5,000 words less than 50 had a name attached to the quote, nobody will stop and wonder why it is that the same guy who never gives you the name next to any quote is the same guy who seems to constantly get almost Novelistically perfect quotes that hit so perfectly it often reads like literature not reporting.
After reading the Shipman piece they will all flick on Sunday with Kussenberg, here you will see every single flaw you highlight in this piece, only on steroids, the softball interview with Farage followed by 6 Lobby Journalists on a couch all agreeing that the politicians are all useless, the public are angry and that the journalists are all wonderful. At no point will actual policy be covered, at no point will there be any education of the public on the challenges facing Britain, they will talk about the publics anger with immigration but never ask who will pay the taxes to fund Pensions if the pensioners get their wish to end immigration of working age men. Finally and most crucially, one thing that will never ever be mentioned and bringing it up will cause excommunication, is Brexit. There will be the interview with Farage that lets him rant about all the things he hates but nobody will ask him what role Brexit has played in Britains paralysis and if he feels responsible, but I am getting off topic.
The problem is from Canada through the UK to Australia we have the same problem, a generation for political journalists who think their role is to generate clicks and increase engagement at all costs, that your framing, a very smart one of Level 4 and 5 discussion should never even be attempted as it may scare off a viewer or two, that to educate the public is to condescend to them, until this generation of political journalists are sent off to do something that better fits their skills, covering the Royals or Celebrity Gossip would be a good fit for many of them, then the challenges facing the Western democracies, especially in the anglosphere will not be resolved
FWIW: I am obviously older than you, and remember even CBC Radio in its glory days. I loved it. The decline there has been long and gradual. I remember great news journalism, and arts programming that enlarged my rural prairie world. There were weekly radio programs I wouldn't have missed "for anything", and will always be grateful for.
I also remember having an evening-long discussion with a CBC news manager; he was passionate about the work.
But ultimately, as that calibre of manager retired, it became pretty clear that new managers just didn't want to be bothered. They'd prefer just to 'manage'. A sure sign was a Sunday-morning radio program with a guy named Ian Brown who brought fresh thoughtful energy every week - he lasted a year, and was soon replaced with a sleepy guy who made no waves of any sort, and who they kept forever. I had given up television years before, and then gave up radio.
Finally (for me) and as recently as 20 or 25 years ago I attended a weeklong conference for Canadian journalists that was attended primarily by CBC types - and the workshops that were offered leaned heavily into teaching story-telling (!) techniques. Nobody there was talking about news or arts or journalism. At one point during that conference I learned there were over 50 journalists whose full-time job was covering Ottawa. Really, I thought? That is the best that 50 journalists can do?
Is CBC's current malaise a problem of management? The unions? Viewers/ listeners?
Surely it's not just the individual journalists who now think they're hot stuff but are actually pretty boring? CBC seems to have quite a few of those, though Rosemary Barton does seem to stand out. Somebody is encouraging those people to drink the koolaid.
Finally, I disagree with your comments on Peter Mansbridge. I think the podcast is a retirement project for him, and whatever you think his obligations are, I think he's entitled to be retired and he's entitled to keep doing some version of work he enjoyed. I think he's doing a good job for an old retired guy - journalism takes a lot of energy, possibly more than he is able to contribute at this point in his life and almost certainly more than he feels like contributing after having settled on a life balance that suits him now. (You too will get there, and it will be okay.)
So I'm grateful for the Mansbridge podcast. Like probably many people, I watch it only because of Chantal Hebert. Once out of curiosity I watched Chantal on one of those things hosted by Rosemary Barton. Chantal was more interesting on Mansbridge's program. I attribute that to the quality of the host's questions. Rosemary Barton managed to make Chantal Hebert a bit boring - surely an achievement of its own.
Funny you mention arts programming, here in Australia on our Public Broadcaster the ABC, the arts journalism is some of the best stuff they do. The other show that has real rolled gold brilliant journalism is Landline, the weekly rural affairs show. Now I neither really care about art and I am very much a city person, but I watch both these shows regularly just because they are 2 of the few remaining places where you can still watch real in-depth coverage of an issue with no bias and that genuinely makes me smarter every time I watch
I will just add even though I say I don't care about art and I have followed politics closely since I was 11, I do have a go to comment for arts lovers to use against people like me. If people try to dismiss art as unimportant compared to politics, just point out that there is basically nobody who without Google can tell you who was the Prime Minister of The Netherlands in the late 1800's but everybody has heard the name Vincent Van Gogh and can picture at least one of his paintings
Thank you for your reply and comment. Just a note, I looked forward to Good Talk every Friday, but now that I am Writing and Publishing for the Vertical Dispatch, I am learning why the Canadian public reads and comprehends at PIACC level 2 and level 3 is not that much better.
wow. thanks whoever wrote this
Thank you if you remember you what we had and what we lost
I agree with everything you have written but I have say that I appreciate the work that Andrew Chang does in his program About That.
He is solid I agree
Excellent analysis but, i do think you missed a key dynamic: money to the CPC.
part of the authoritarian playbook is, when journalists push back, is to claim unfair bias to their supporters and hit them up for another $20 donation (so the political party can fight the injustice )
So this has been noticed in USA, Canada, and elsewhere: doing responsible journalism either gets the network sued OR simply raises another $1 million for the political party
Thank you for your reply, and yes, SHOW ME THE MONEY https://www.sophiainitiative.ai/p/where-is-the-money-danielle?r=1pgr4n&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
And of course, the authoritarian playbook weaponizes this:
Push back, and i can raise more money from my flock, or score propaganda points to eventually defeat society/news/etc.
Don't push back, and i don't get the money, but you give me ammunition to point out to people why i should defund you (because you are adding no value )
I haven't heard any good solution to this, other than “so you should just do good journalism” and hope that by shining the light, good people will notice (and not get sucked in for their votes)
I appreciate your thoughtful writing!
I hope the powers of CBC read this and give it great thought. Many are commenting along the same lines. I hope they return to real journalism rather than chase the National Inquirer glitter…sad to say the least.
This piece offers a useful starting point for a more thorough analysis, and the five portraits are genuinely illuminating as a chronicle of how CBC journalism has evolved over time.
That chronological dimension is worth pausing on, because it points to a variable the analysis does not fully account for: the media environment itself has been transformed almost beyond recognition across the span these journalists represent. Clarkson and Frum operated in a world of limited channels, captive audiences, and stable advertising-supported newsrooms. Nash anchored during the last years of that world. Mansbridge straddled the digital disruption. Barton has worked her entire career inside it. Any fair comparison of journalistic quality across that timeline needs to hold the environmental variable constant, or at least visible, before drawing conclusions about institutional or individual failure.
A second foundational element worth adding to the frame: CBC is a public broadcaster, not a news organization. The funding cited here supports an entire ecosystem — news, drama, documentary, regional programming, Indigenous-language content, and more. Measured against peer nations, that funding is not generous — it is austere. Per-capita public broadcasting support averages roughly twice Canada's level across comparable countries. The BBC operates at nearly three times the rate.
A complete analysis would want to bring all of this together: what structural and environmental forces are shaping current quality levels; whether what CBC produces genuinely meets Canadians' expectations and the broadcaster's statutory mandate; and what it would actually take - in funding, governance, and editorial standards - to close any gap that exists. That is the examination worth doing, and this piece provides some valuable material from which to begin.
Thank you for your comments. We live in a complex environment. The writing of Marshall, McClellan, Neil, postman, George Orwell, Ray, Bradbury, Aldous Huxley and Margaret Atwood to name a few warned us that society prefers the horizontal, quantity and the Propane over the vertical quality and the sacred. Yes the environment changed, but who’s the blame?
"Blame" implies a few things - I think. First, that there is a consensus on a single net negative outcome. "Cause" might be less loaded and perhaps something that coud help better define a problem worth exploring - especially if there is an intent to define a preferred future state and how we can use our understanding of the causes to develop solutions.
You caught me in a word i do not use or try not to use lime the word belief.I do not use the word belief because what i know when I attempt to communicate an concept or idea is i point to the referent. I do not believe in God I know God that being said I invite you to the solution https://substack.com/@theverticaldispatch/note/p-197905290?r=1pgr4n&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
Glad to see you concluded with the role of the corporation and management in this decline. That is the root cause of the deterioration as former CBC staffers have noted. As for the Mansbridge podcast, I am not a viewer of political podcasts, but am wondering about: 1. The stated purpose of the podcast and 2. Is Mansbridge being held to a higher standard than other podcast hosts because of his CBC background? For me, these two need to be considered together before I would pass judgement on the podcast format.
Thank you for your comment. My judgment is based on what I know and what I experience when I listen to the broadcast. The only person anyone actually listens to is Chantal Hébert. I am interested in what you have to think on the last copy the vertical dispatch just posted
Yes, Chantal has been the most credible of panel guests consistently.
This is an excellent article.
The responsibility of the CBC is to hold politicians accountable.
There is so much proof of corruption in our politics today and I do not see that brought to the forefront and questioned by reporters from the CBC.
In Saskatchewan, Tammy Robert tirelessly works to expose the corruption of the Moe government.
That is journalism.
That should be the work of the CBC reporters.
And as the opposition leader, Carla Beck constantly focusses on the tired obvious issues but ignores the work of Tammy who provides all the facts necessary for the NDP to educate the electorate and hold Scott’s feet to the fire.
Yes, and… Arsenault, Chan you skipped over. I noticed Barton was replaced with Arsenault for a recent interview of Carney. Friendly tone but still decent questions and followups. She is a pro. Chan’s “About That” segment is also good, rivalling Al Jezeera English analysis and explainer shows. Usually quite timely too.
I am always suspicious of nostalgia and cherry picked facts. For example, Rex Murphy was a train wreck. What started as clever wordsmithery and cutting folksy critique devolved into rabid pandering to extremists. There were numerous others who, if you put them on a pedestal might topple off.