One of the hosts, somewhat tongue in cheek, made a joke about the fact that next year many of the journalists in the room would be without a job. Sadly, this is an increasingly likely reality as younger generations in particular shift away from mainstream media and choose to get their news from platforms and content creators that do not adhere to the principles of transparency, critical thought, research, and fact.

This change in appetite for how and where we consume our news is leading us down a dangerous path.

There are several important elements of traditional media that separate it from online “news” generated for social media platforms. Of those, it is perhaps the fact that traditional media has a strong and clear set of ethical principles that guide its work that should resonate with us most.

During one of the many interesting discussions that I had with journalists recently, one recounted a conversation with journalism students about how they approach their studies. Several admitted they had never watched a traditional news broadcast, that they turn to TikTok as a primary news source and could not name a political leader beyond the prime minister.

This anecdote speaks to a large problem plaguing democracies around the world, with Canada being no exception.

We have become intellectually lazy. We want our information instantaneously, and we are too quick to move on before creating the time and space for reflection and deepened understanding that should be expected of us as citizens.

The challenges confronting the world are not straightforward. It is incumbent upon us as citizens to take time to understand the complexity of both domestic and global affairs.

We should not rely on one source of information to establish our worldview. We should not allow algorithms and echo chambers on social media platforms that confirm our bias to serve as our primary insight.

I am increasingly shocked and saddened by how willing some people are to disregard anything that does not conform to their point of view.

There is a difference between listening and hearing. When you listen, you contemplate, reflect, and challenge your own notions.

When you choose only to hear, cognitive dissonance — that is, the mental discomfort that results from holding two conflicting beliefs, values, or attitudes — is unachievable. Without it, we remain intellectually stunted.

As a timely example, it does not seem to matter how many times I criticize Benjamin Netanyahu for his recklessness and condemn his policies as obstacles to peace, voice support for the desperate calls for a ceasefire that places responsibility on both Israel and Hamas, or argue fiercely for more aid to flow into Gaza to save the lives of innocent children, I am still, regularly and aggressively threatened, and labelled a “child killer.” Stickers saying “pro genocide” are plastered across my face on bus benches around Winnipeg South Centre.

Despite pages upon pages of statements, quotes, and video interviews confirming my views on a range of issues that are easily discoverable and distributed to the public — including in this publication — those who scream and shout at me have no interest in engaging in any sort of meaningful discussion.

In the past few days, I have spoken to many of my Iranian friends who are seeing growing waves of apologists defend the regime in Iran online, with no understanding of the conflict, and seemingly no desire to broaden their consideration of the ways in which Canadian interests are directly threatened by them.

Where are they getting their news?

It is becoming more and more common for me to speak with a constituent who asks why I have not said something about a particular issue. Almost always, it turns out that I have, but it can’t be found on a TikTok feed or in the abyss of an X (formally Twitter) scroll, which is where they are looking.

Look no further than the comments on my social media account, letters to the editor, or TikTok videos to find proof of the dangers we face when dialogue and reasonable discussion are cast aside as inconvenient, while hurling demeaning insults from behind a keyboard suffice as quality democratic discourse.

At an early age in school, we are taught to ask ourselves a few key questions: who, what, why, where, when, and how? We need to recover our ability to ponder that simple line of questioning as we navigate a world fraught with lies and intentional disruption.

Who produced what I am reading and viewing? What do I already know and think? Why am I reacting the way that I am when I see this? Where else could I look for information to confirm or reject what I have just seen? When was this recorded or written? How can I learn more?

These basic questions should accompany every interaction we have with the information we consume.

We need moderates —those critical thinking, reasonable, thoughtful, and kind Canadians that we think of as the hallmark of our beautiful country — to counter the hate, misinformation, and ignorant viewpoints that are emerging beyond just the fringes in an increasingly unstable world.

We have entered a moment in time unlike any the world has seen before, but the lessons of the past, never far, should we choose to find them, can serve as our North Star.

Ben Carr is the member of Parliament for Winnipeg South Centre.

This op-ed originally appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press