An Act of Bravery

Abstract

Amin Ghaziani interviews CBC journalist and producer Lien Yeung about maintaining local relevance and achieving global impact.

And… action! Lien Yeung is a television news anchor for CBC (the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation), covering topics from homelessness to housing booms, climate change to culinary arts. In 2021, Yeung co-hosted CBC’s trailblazing anti-racism virtual town hall which was nominated for a Canadian Screen Award and won a Radio Television Digital News (RTDNA) Award. In the lead-up, she broke ground with her extensive coverage of the spike in anti-Asian hate during the COVID-19 pandemic. A key member of Vancouver’s multimedia reporting team, Yeung’s coverage of B.C. wildfires earned her another RTDNA Award and a Webster nomination. Long a digital innovator, Yeung began her journalism career as one of CBC’s pioneering social media editors; she continues to pave the way for a digital future, most recently as the host of multiple pilot programs for CBC News Explore, the network’s streaming channel. As a journalist, woman of color, and new mom, Yeung brings her sense of empathy, curiosity, and humor to each of her unique roles. Amin Ghaziani caught up with Yeung to better understand what she says she loves most about her work as a journalist: “When a story comes together to serve the public interest.”

Lien Yeung

Courtesy CBC

AMIN GHAZIANI: What does it mean for you, personally, to serve the public interest?

LIEN YEUNG: Everybody’s interests are different—it’s hard picking out the “universal good”—but for me, it’s trying to shine a light on underrepresented voices, people who are vulnerable, people that you don’t often hear in mainstream media. I do a lot of anti-racism work. Fighting for equity, seeing the success of BIPOC people is part of my personal mantra. So, for me, it’s really making sure people who aren’t often heard get a platform, have their stories heard, and see themselves reflected in our public consciousness.

AG: Tell me about the work you do with BIPOC people.

LY: The issue of systemic racism has been something that I have felt my whole life. I’m a child of Chinese immigrants. Growing up as a kid, we would walk into a restaurant and see we’re the only people of color in that room. Everybody turns around to look at you. I still remember how out of place we felt. Then somebody else walks in behind you, and somehow, the host or hostess speaks to them first, like you’re not there. It leaves you wondering: What is it? Why is it that my mom is being ignored? As a person of color—I see you nodding your head knowingly —but I don’t know if a person who was White would understand. I can see them asking, Well, maybe your mom just didn’t make herself known.

AG: Yes.

LY: Right? Those types of microaggressions have added up. I’ve also experienced more aggressive racist incidents and I’ve witnessed it happening to my parents as well. It’s an issue I care deeply about. I’m proud of my heritage.

AG: How do researchers inform the work that you do as a reporter?

LY: The work that academics do is so important to our role as journalists. When I go out and do a story, I’m looking to speak with the people who are at the heart of it. Individuals who can tell us their personal tale, often they’re heartfelt, they’re emotional, and you want it to affect the audience to the point it moves them.

Then, we tackle the “so what” question, the bigger picture, and that’s where we need academics and researchers to bring their expertise. We rely on them to help us bring in context, history, to give us the facts on the broader issues at place. That research and knowledge matters when crafting the public’s understanding of a story. And our understanding—not just the public, our collective understanding.

What I often find with researchers who turn down media opportunities are feelings of self-doubt. They say, “Not me. I’m not the right person. I’m not the precise expert on this one issue you’re talking about.” And I’m trying to convince them: “No, trust me. You probably know on your worst day 100 times more than any other person on this issue!”

I remember a story I was trying to tell about businesses with Hong Kong roots. I had spoken to a number of business professors whose expertise was studying Hong Kong-Canadian relations, Chinese-Canadian relations. Nearly every researcher who responded to my requests turned me down saying they weren’t well-informed enough.

And here’s the other thing: any researcher who feels intimidated by the idea of talking to the press—you can say no to a question. If I asked you something, and you feel you don’t know the answer, you can say no. Very rarely are interviews live, which means you have the chance to say no, or you can correct yourself. It’s possible even during live interviews. We are human, and I think audiences are forgiving when you’re forthcoming. Don’t feel like you need to be an expert on all things in that one moment.

AG: That’s a great tip, thank you. What do you think are the unique advantages and challenges of serving the public as a television reporter?

LY: We are a visual medium. It’s cliche to say, but a picture says a thousand words. I can show you something without having to tell you about it which makes it a very powerful medium. We can take viewers to new places and give them experiences. But the flip side of that coin is that TV is challenging when you’re trying to do a story that doesn’t have, as we say in the business, “no pictures.” For example, stories that are data heavy. We can use graphics to illustrate a story, but it’s always more effective when there is something visually striking.

AG: What advice would you give to researchers who are interested in connecting with you or other television reporters?

LY: I think you tend to see this more on American television: they’re choosing to go to researchers who are dynamic on camera. But across media, we want to see and hear from someone who’s energetic, engaging, and isn’t afraid to “go there” when making their points. We want someone who’s unafraid of bringing their perspective.

“Across media, we want to see and hear from someone who’s energetic, engaging… [and] unafraid of bringing their perspective.”

AG: Dynamism, charisma, and working the camera!

LY: Yes, there is certainly a bit of that.

AG: Because you made a reference to American television, I’d like to learn about the challenges of being a reporter in Canada. How would you describe the media climate?

LY: It’s very different. A big function of that is our political climate. Politics in the United States are polarized. We know there are certain major media outlets in the United States that tend to lean to one side of the political spectrum versus the other. In Canada, we see much less of that overall. At CBC News, we strive to be balanced, fair, and accurate in all our storytelling.

The other thing I’ve noticed that is remarkably different is how Canadian authorities approach sharing information with media in the aftermath of an incident. U.S. authorities tend to be more open, even in the early stages of investigations.

In Canada, it feels as though when the authorities hold a press conference, they’re there to give you as little information as they possibly can. We get it: You don’t want to prejudice the system, and you don’t want to do anything that could hinder a case. But there are facts that you could answer that are of interest to the public. A lack of information often leads to more fear within communities. More often than not, we hear, “We can’t tell you that. It’s too early in the investigation,” or, “It’s before the courts, we can’t talk about that.” Those end up being common responses from authorities here on this side of the border, whereas in the United States, there seems to be more openness.

For example, when the Monterey Park mass shooting happened in California in January, before details were confirmed, we heard the Sheriff say things like, “Yes, there is a white van. It could be something. It’s a van of interest.” It would’ve been unusual to hear that from Canadian authorities that early into the investigation.

AG: The reason being?

LY: I think Canadians tend to shy away a little bit from the spotlight. We like to err on the side of caution, which isn’t a bad thing. We’re not quite as boisterous with our opinions. When we watch American authorities give press conferences, they aren’t afraid to put their emotions out there. They add color when describing events, whereas Canadians, we often just stick to the facts. Of course, not to paint all Canadians with a broad stroke because there are plenty of dynamic Canadian pundits and politicians.

AG: We’re so close to the United States, yet we also maintain an international position in our sense of national self. How do you think about local relevance and global impact in your work?

LY: Most of the coverage that I do is around local news and Vancouver: where we are located geographically, who makes up our demographics, and our connections to Asia Pacific.

For example, we’ve been talking a lot about foreign interference in our political system in Canada, looking at our elections. There was some use of the language “Chinese interference.” Well, many of us are Chinese people, and the Chinese people didn’t specifically interfere. What we’re concerned about is China as a government, as an institution, interfering.

There were a number of my colleagues who raised that as a concern to our newsroom. I don’t think many people thought about it in that way when the news was first emerging. Words matter. They matter to the community here. They matter to the community abroad. It says something about who we are if we’re not careful about how we’re choosing our words and who we’re blaming.

AG: Great advice, to maintain sensitivity about who we are and how we choose our words. It makes me think about something that sociologists call positionality, that who we are affects our work. Like you, I’m also a person of Asian descent. I imagine that your positionality, like mine, is salient in a context of alarming levels of anti-Asian hate. How do you handle the professional experience of reporting on anti-Asian hate for the CBC, a national news service, while navigating your personal experiences with it?

LY: It’s a delicate dance. The basis of journalism has traditionally been objectivity. But I have long believed that objectivity is a myth. We all come into everything with our own lens. Our life experiences affect how we view something. But to the CBC’s credit, what we’re seeing now is a movement into a more modern definition of what journalism can and, I feel, should be— that bringing our lived experiences actually informs our storytelling.

I think the last three years of racial reckoning have grabbed us and pulled us forward into what people’s realities are, that we can’t just take off our skin color, we can’t just take off our sexual orientation, when we do a story. As I was covering the rise of anti-Asian racism in 2020, I felt it—my community certainly felt it, I think, much quicker than everybody else had realized it was happening. Anytime a person of East Asian descent wore a mask, they feared for their safety, particularly women and seniors. There were people getting spat at, some getting yelled at, given dirty looks.

I started covering the incidents quite early. Because of who I am and my background, I found it made it easier for me to connect with the Chinese community—because I understood where they were coming from.

I remember a story I did with one young woman. She and her mother were out walking, and two men hurled racial taunts at them. They were wearing masks, doing absolutely nothing provocative, yet told to “go back to China.” The men revved their car at them. She went to the police, and she felt brushed off. This was right at the beginning of the rise in anti-Asian hate.

It took me days to convince this young woman to come on camera to speak about it…I explained to her, “If nobody talks about it, then everyone will think it’s not happening.” Finally, she agreed to it—and her story got an incredible response. She had relatives from Hong Kong messaging her and saying, “I saw your story in the media.” A week later, the RCMP apologized. They held a press conference and promised to take reports of racist incidents seriously moving forward.

Because of who I was, I was able to connect with her about the barriers and pressures she faced if she were to go public. Ultimately, she spoke up, and we made a change. So, yes, I think it’s important that we are able to bring who we are to our work every day.

AG: That’s powerful, thank you. Earlier, you mentioned the notion of journalism as “objective.” There are parallels here with sociology, where graduate students are often told that they should maintain a “value-neutral” position. I wonder if you might have some advice for our readers who encounter roadblocks to doing what they love simply because they wish to see themselves reflected in their work.

LY: We can still do our work in a way that brings who we are, brings that sensitivity, and our cultural lens while respecting the need for balance. With researchers, with journalists, that’s through facts, through bringing in a range of voices, through looking at data.

At its core, it’s about hanging on to your values. Understand who you are. Understand what your purpose is—and make sure you move forward with that in mind. At the end of the day, all anybody ever wants to feel is legitimized, seen, and valued. If you stick to your values and be yourself, it’s an act of bravery.

“At the end of the day, all anybody ever wants is to feel legitimized, seen, and valued. If you stick to your values and be yourself, it’s an act of bravery.”