I Did A Line-By-Line Comparison of Transcripts of Two Dustin Duncan Interviews
It's everything you think it will be and so much more.
Cross-referencing Dustin Duncan being interviewed by Rawlco’s AM host John Gormley, against Dustin Duncan being interviewed by CBC Saskatchewan’s host Stefani Langenegger, was a fascinating exercise.
One is a study in democratically-sound, responsible and fact-based journalism.
The other is pure government propaganda, aimed at stupid people.
You decide which is which.
The pertinent details about these interviews are as follows:
Both interviews were conducted on Wednesday August 23, 2023;
the subject matter for both was the changes Duncan had announced the day before to education policy, specifically impacting sex education and transgender students;
Duncan appeared on Langenegger’s CBC radio show first that morning, live, at 7:40AM;
he then appeared live on John Gormley’s radio show at 8:35AM;
Langenegger’s interview ran seventeen minutes, Gormley’s fifteen minutes and thirty seconds.
These transcriptions are verbatim, edited lightly only for umms and ahs (Duncan is the worst for those).
Why?
It’s pretty basic stuff. The first question of any news-related interview is always “Why?”
You should know that during these interviews, Duncan is not flying by the seat of his pants. In front of him is a very carefully scripted set of talking points. This document would have been provided by Executive Council, aka Scott Moe’s office, where Nancy Heppner has apparently rolled back in as a communications consultant, for $11,000 a month in salary.
Nancy sure didn’t last long off the public payroll, did she.
But I digress.
First Question
I’ve broken down each interview into slides. For the first question of both interviews I’ve highlighted, in red, examples in each where Duncan essentially reads from a script.
In other words, the “talking points” he was provided:
You’ll note Duncan evoked “the Lumsden issue” within his first few moments with Gormley, but not with Langenegger. Otherwise the talking points Scott Moe and the Sask Party want him to make on this shitshow are these:
parents want to be “more involved in their children’s education”;
sex education and gender are “sensitive or controversial topics”;
the Sask Party wants to standardize education policies impacting those topics across all Saskatchewan school divisions;
15 of 27 school divisions already had a policy regarding informing parents when their child was about to be taught sex ed.
Duncan’s first answer was more robust with Gormley than Langenegger. As you see in the next slide, he was also comfortable introducing the gender and pronoun issue with Gormley unprompted, but does not do so with Langenegger, where he initially only addresses the policy regarding sex ed.
Second Question
The similarities between the two interviews end with the first question.
From here, you’re going to see the difference - and dangers - presented when a private media company like Rawlco Radio goes all-in on packaging government propaganda as news or entertainment.
In his second question, Gormley, not Duncan, introduces a concept.
We call that a “leading question”.
By asking leading questions, propaganda artists like Gormley are shaping the narrative in favor of political ideology. The man has zero interest in presenting objective facts to enable the Saskatchewan public to form their own opinions. Partisan media hacks who pull this shit do nothing but contribute to the erosion of public trust in the news and actual journalists, which Gormley is decidedly not.
Worse yet, they impair the public's ability to make informed decisions in democratic societies.
Duncan used the unique term “default position” in his news conference the day before, so it’s curious that Gormley is the one that brought that talking point out in the interview. Almost like he had the Sask Party’s talking points himself, right?
Or wrote them, which is what he used to do for Brad Wall and very likely still does for Scooter.
After getting his cue from daddy John, Duncan then goes on to repeat “default position” nine times throughout the Gormley interview.
For the rest of the slides I’ve provided the emphasis on portions of Duncan’s answers by way of bold and italics, because they’re eye-opening AF.
For example, as you’ll note in his answer to Gormley’s “default position” question, Duncan rambles about the so-called “support” that will be provided to a student who believes they are at risk of harm if they speak to their parents about their sexuality.
More on that in a minute.
Langenegger’s second question is how it’s done.
Yep, Lumsden. We’re all here because of one incident, one time, that occurred in a small rural classroom, impacting a handful of parents and students. Sure, maybe what happened with that class wasn’t ideal… but in what world does a sane politician feel compelled to meddle in our kids’ classrooms?
Educating children is a complex process that requires expertise and knowledge in various areas, such as curriculum development, instructional methods, and assessment. Educators, administrators, and experts in the field have dedicated their careers to understanding the best practices for effective teaching and learning. Dustin Duncan has dedicated his career to shilling for power and talking directly out of his unskilled politician’s ass.
Third Question
Again, a side-by-side comparison of the production of lazy government propaganda against real, fact-finding journalism.
It backfired, because Duncan’s answer to Gormley’s question is “No.”
According to Dustin Duncan, there have been no situations in Saskatchewan where parents were kept in the dark or deliberately misinformed about their child’s sex education curriculum or decision to be called by a different name or recognized as a different gender.
Meanwhile, Langenegger confirms that in 2023, the Saskatchewan government’s position is that human sexuality is “sensitive or controversial”.
Fourth Question
Here’s comes Gormley again with another loaded, leading question, rooted in a detailed premise for which he provides absolutely zero evidence… because he made it up.
Yes, somewhere in John Gormley’s twisted little head lives a group of fictional parents who are super-concerned about who’s teaching their kids about sex and gender but are rebuffed by imaginary teachers and public health nurses who just wanna be shown the money, honey.
I worked one-on-one with John Gormley for four years and heard a lot of f**ked up nonsense, but one thing that really stuck with me was how much he and his Sask Party besties hated teachers.
Hated them.
According to the likes of Gormley, Brad Wall et al, all Saskatchewan teachers are NDP hacks. So because there’s so many of them, teachers pose an existential threat, in their opinion, to the Sask Party’s grip on power.
That, I guarantee, is the sentiment that drove Duncan’s snide and derogatory “… we pay teachers to teach the curriculum” response, before uttering a thinly-veiled threat about replacing any teacher not comfortable with this direction.
Langenegger’s fourth question comes coupled with a professionally-exemplary follow-up question.
Follow-up questions help the interviewer dig beyond surface-level information in order to hold those in power accountable. By probing deeper and challenging potential inconsistencies or contradictions, the audience is presented a far more comprehensive and accurate representation of the interviewee's perspectives or intentions.
Gormley asks zero follow-up questions. Lol.
In her fourth question, by “that”, Langenegger is referring to a kid talking to their parents about their identity in relation to gender, name and/or pronouns.
Duncan’s answer to these questions has nothing to do with supporting a kid in feeling safe in both their identity and home environment.
First, he’s saying is that kids are stupid and don’t actually understand - even at 13 years old.
“You and I we were all once 13 years old. The perception and reality are sometimes isn’t always the same… their brains are still forming, they’re dealing with impulse control, in some cases already going through puberty…. we need to wrap support around that child to get them to a place, where if this is what they feel and this is what they desire, in terms of how they want to proceed, we need to get them to a place where they are comfortable telling their parents.” - Saskatchewan’s Education Minister Dustin Duncan, CBC Saskatchewan, August 23, 2023
Yes Dusty, we were all once 13 years old, how very astute of you. Fortunately, we weren’t all as dumb as you were, apparently.
At this point it’s also worth pointing out that Duncan’s own kids are not even close to being teenagers yet.
So yeah, please squash, if you hear it, any talk of “supports” provided by the Sask Party government for kids who can’t talk to their parents, because the only supports the Sask Party is providing will be connected to forcing those kids to talk to their parents.
Fifth Question
You laughing yet?
Governments and media outlets which participate in the dissemination of propaganda employ psychological tactics such as selective or biased presentation of facts, repetition of talking points, and the demonization of certain groups or individuals to manipulate public perception. Corrupt state actors limit freedom of speech by targeting other media, individuals (ahem) or organizations critical of their message, in an effort to control the information and maintain their narrative.
In his fourth question, Gormley evoked and demonized parents, teachers and public health nurses who exist only in his addled old man brain. Now in his fifth question, again, without a shred of evidence, he degrades his colleagues in the media.
I mean, how dare CBC accurately reflect reality, which was the overarching and undeniable public backlash against this bigoted policy decision?
Duncan’s answer on Gormley is actually quite chilling, when he references teachers and school boards “quietly” reaching out to him, again with no evidence that they actually exist. Just moments beforehand, Duncan and Gormley had created a picture of “tremendous” support for the new policy.
Now they’re implying that anyone who agrees with his decision will be vilified by outraged masses.
Who and where are all these people? Where does any of this bullshit exist outside of the fictional world being created through Sask Party propaganda?
Meanwhile, back on CBC, Duncan really starts to flounder.
One thing Duncan has been abundantly consistent on in both interviews is the fact this is about trans kids. A teeny, tiny fraction of the Saskatchewan K-12 student body, yet his government feels the need to overreach spectacularly.
In response to Langenegger’s question on safety and again with the inverted logic, he refuses to answer the question. Instead he implies that she’s suggesting whatever was happening in schools before his regressive policy announcement was safer and he doesn’t believe that’s true.
Or something. He doesn’t even come close to answering her question.
As you’re about to see, after Duncan’s capacity to meet Langenegger on an intellectual level has been stretched to its limits, it falls apart entirely.
Sixth Question
‘Okay, even though it’s totally stupid and I can’t believe anyone would even think this is political, I have to ask you anyway.’
John Gormley is incredibly manipulative, even just asking what should be simple questions.
Duncan answers obediently.
‘It’s not about the politics, John, it’s about me inflicting my opinions on parenting on families who don’t need it and didn’t ask for it, because I’m superior. I mean, have you been to the KFC buffet in Weyburn?’
Seriously though, could Duncan sound like more of a pompous ass?
“This is about ensuring that (parents) are involved, are aware of what's going on in their kids' lives, can fulfill their not only rights, but also their responsibilities to parent their children. We don't just, you know, it's certainly my view and the government's view that parents need to play that role in their children's lives. We can't just leave everything to the state.” - Saskatchewan’s Education Minister Dustin Duncan, 650 AM Radio, Saskatchewan, August 23, 2023
Yeah you lazy sacks - parent your children, would you?
So Dustin Duncan and the Sask Party believe that you “can’t just leave everything to the state” in respect to your children… therefore he and the state are going to directly intervene and force you to do it their way.
Makes total sense.
Despite the fact his interview is only 90 seconds shorter than Langenegger’s, that was the end of Gormley’s questions.
The Rest of the Langenegger Interview
So in other words, Dustin Duncan doesn’t read research or anything produced by actual academics, but he does read Twitter.
Once again, Dustin Duncan gives us a look into what is sounding like his rather f**ked up childhood, which he apparently spent hallucinating, mostly.
And there we are again with Duncan’s invention of “some people”, who he is far more concerned about than the children whose lives he’s screwing with.
Oh, and he hopes Saskatchewan’s Children Advocate will keep an “open mind” looking at a policy that’s already been deemed unconstitutional and discriminatory by the Children’s Advocate in that other rednecked backwater of New Brunswick.
Now Langenegger starts to drill down, while still only asking for facts without introducing new concepts or asking leading questions.
That last one is something else.
‘I’m Dustin Duncan and they will do what I tell them to do.’
Now we’re back to that research Duncan hasn’t done.
Duncan has now evoked his own kids, meaning they’re fair game for Langenegger to ask about, so she does.
“And so this is an area where we just believe as a government that parents should be involved more, to a greater extent not a lesser extent.” - Saskatchewan’s Education Minister Dustin Duncan, CBC Saskatchewan, August 23, 2023
So concluded Duncan’s interview with Langenegger - and how fitting.
Because that's what this is about, fundamentally: the Sask Party believes it is now the authority on how Saskatchewan parents should take care of their kids, including how they manage their education.
It's absolutely none of the government’s business if a parent is not immediately aware of an issue that exists between a teacher and a student. There's just simply no role here for a government other than authoritarian overreach.
You know how we joke about the Handmaid's Tale?
This is it.
This is the Sask Party government and their propaganda-pumping proxies telling parents that they will be involved in every aspect of their child's life, even aspects that historically the vast majority of Saskatchewan parents have been happy to leave to teachers.
There's just simply no need for this and the amount of government overreach here to score political is both frightening and breathtaking.
Education policies and decisions should primarily focus on the well-being and educational needs of students. By involving politicians directly in the delivery of K-12 education in Saskatchewan, we’re seeing the Sask Party’s political motivations and agendas may override evidence-based educational practices.
The notion that the Sask Party needs a province-wide “default position” on anything regarding K-12 education is horseshit.
Education is not a one-size-fits-all undertaking. In a province as big as Saskatchewan, different communities have different educational priorities and needs. By allowing professional educators and school divisions more autonomy in decision-making, they can adapt the curriculum and instructional methods to better suit the specific needs of their students and communities. Frequent changes in educational policies due to the Sask Party’s interference is disrupting the continuity of learning and create uncertainty for all of us: students, teachers, and parents.
While democratically elected politicians (which the corrupt Sask Party is absolutely not anymore) do play a role in shaping educational policies and providing resources and support to teachers and school divisions, they have no business meddling in the day-to-day delivery of K-12 education. What’s happening here is going to hurt our kids, our grandkids - generations of future Saskatchewanians.
Shameful.
Enjoy your weekend,
While subscriptions continue to grow, the only way I am currently able to continue doing this work, which is incredibly labour-intensive, has been through your private donations. If you’d like to further support my work, I accept e-transferred donations, gratefully, at tammyrobert0123@gmail.com