09:07
people there’s only a small small group
09:11
of people who can travel every day for
09:13
weeks and weeks and weeks and months and
09:14
months on end so it’s only that specific
09:17
small subset of sort of corporate funded
09:22
media that’s on on the plane of those
09:26
people the schedule for reporters has
09:30
gotten drastically different in the last
09:32
twelve to sixteen years back in the 70s
09:36
and 80s newspaper reporters who traveled
09:39
on the plane the toughest schedule they
09:41
usually had was to file maybe at most
09:44
once a day you had to write one article
09:45
a day if you’re on the plane when the
09:48
internet came along that changed people
09:52
who work for the major dailies suddenly
09:55
had to not only write stories for the
09:58
print edition but they had to do two
10:01
three four five website updates a day
10:04
and the people who worked for the cable
10:07
news stations instead of doing one
10:09
report for the 6 o’clock news broadcast
10:11
or the 11 o’clock broadcast they were
10:13
doing 5 6 7 8 9 hits a day and they were
10:18
constantly constantly working and if
10:20
anybody’s ever read about cults like
10:21
ouch in Rico or anything like that one
10:24
of the things that they tell you is that
10:26
the working people constantly and
10:29
keeping them sleep-deprived is a way of
10:32
sapping their will and and reducing
10:35
their ability to think critically and
10:37
this is something that happens
10:38
absolutely on the campaign trail a
10:40
typical schedule for a reporter and also
10:45
for the politicians interestingly enough
10:46
especially when you get into the second
10:48
half of a presidential campaign is you
10:52
leave a hotel at 5:30 or 6:00 in the
10:54
morning you will follow the candidate
10:57
you’ll be writing constantly as soon as
11:00
the candidates
11:00
as anything you start writing your story
11:02
at the end of every event they heard you
11:05
into a little room called the filing
11:07
room you do your work you go from you go
11:10
back to a bus you go onto a plane you
11:13
repeat the process three or four times
11:14
and you don’t get to your hotel until 11
11:19
or 12 o’clock that night and then you
11:20
repeat it all over again and for most
11:22
people their writing or reporting pretty
11:26
much constantly from the time they wake
11:27
up in the morning till the time they go
11:29
to sleep and then they’re waking up
11:31
again the next day at 6 o’clock and that
11:34
was pretty much everybody in the plane
11:36
who covers who covered presidential
11:39
elections except me because as a
11:42
magazine writer and there are very few
11:44
magazine writers who regularly cover
11:46
presidential campaigns my deadline was
11:49
once every six weeks every two months
11:52
and so they would heard all the
11:56
reporters into these filing rooms and
11:58
while everybody else sitting there
11:59
furiously clacking away I would be doing
12:03
nothing in fact the first time I went on
12:06
the on these trips I actually got in
12:08
trouble with some of the other reporters
12:11
because I was too loudly flipping the
12:12
pages of a Sports Illustrated at another
12:17
stop in Houston they busted me for using
12:20
or having a Rubik’s Cube which they
12:23
found annoying so for actually two or
12:28
three election cycles
26:32
and years um I noticed that the campaign
26:37
marketing process is a very strange
26:38
thing it’s it’s extremely sophisticated
26:42
in some ways and extremely simple-minded
26:45
in other ways if you listen to the
26:47
speeches in the in the pre Trump era
26:50
they were basically just strings of
26:53
meaningless cliches piled on top of one
26:55
another and it didn’t almost didn’t
26:58
matter which candidate was speaking if
27:01
you took out certain words from each
27:03
speech you wouldn’t be able to tell
27:05
which party the person represented or
27:07
what of what policies he or she
27:10
supported they just they were just sort
27:12
of anodyne meaningless phrases strung
27:15
together one after the other and just to
27:17
give you a couple of examples of actual
27:19
campaign rhetoric that was very common
27:22
here’s one for millions and millions of
27:24
American the-dream millions and millions
27:26
of Americans the dream with which I grew
27:28
up has been shattered the choice is
27:31
between the right change in the wrong
27:32
change between going forward and going
27:34
backward this is totally meaningless of
27:37
course but within these meaningless
27:41
phrases there was actually you know as
27:43
we found as I found out an incredibly
27:46
sophisticated marketing phenomenon and
27:48
what we now know and in fact they
27:51
actually introduced this to to consumers
27:55
that they were they were using
27:57
incredibly sophisticated technology to
27:59
find out which words people liked more
28:01
than other words I’m sure everybody
28:04
who’s watched debates now and they
28:05
you’ll sometimes see there’s a crawl on
28:07
the bottom with a little graph and when
28:10
a candidate is talking you’ll see it go
28:12
up or down and this is what they call
28:15
dial survey technology and basically
28:18
what they’ll do is they’ll get a group a
28:21
control group into a room and they’ll
28:23
have a bunch of people sit there and
28:25
you’ll have a candidate read off a
28:26
speech and if the people like the word
28:29
they’re supposed to turn the dial
28:30
this way and if they don’t like the word
28:31
they turn they turn it that way and what
28:34
people the people who are running these
28:36
campaigns found out is that certain
28:39
kinds of voters just like it they like
28:41
hearing certain kinds of words and what
28:43
they would do is they would write these
28:45
speeches which were essentially
28:46
collections of words that had
28:48
meaningless sentences connecting them
28:50
together and so for progressive voters
28:54
if you listen to speeches that are
28:57
directed towards that kind of voter
28:58
you’ll find that they are very often
29:00
contain words like futuresmart and
29:03
compassion but for a right-wing voter
29:07
you’ll often see words like family tough
29:10
work obligation and so what these
29:15
candidates were doing they were using
29:17
this very very advanced technology to
29:19
basically lay this incredibly idiotic
29:22
kind of politics on millions and
29:24
millions of people and the way I like to
29:26
think of it is they were building like
29:29
the most advanced rocket in history to
29:31
deliver the world’s worst cheeseburger
29:33
to the moon basically it’s just it was
29:36
very very sophisticated marketing very
29:38
very dumb politics and so why is one
29:41
part of the process done in one part of
29:43
its smart well the politics part when
29:45
you think about it doesn’t need to be
29:46
smart really most people only have one
29:51
of three choices when it comes to
29:53
politics they can either vote Democratic
29:56
they can vote Republican or they can not
29:58
vote at all of course interestingly not
30:01
voting at all it continues to be the
30:03
overwhelmingly most popular choice among
30:06
the three but the level of marketing
30:11
sophistication that you need to get
30:13
people to make one of three choices is
30:16
relatively simpler than it is to get
30:20
people to watch a political show at all
30:23
compared to everything else that’s on
30:25
television right so in other words it’s
30:27
easier to get somebody to vote
30:29
Democratic or republican than it is to
30:33
get a person to watch a political speech
30:35
instead of Monday Night Football or
30:36
Keeping Up with the Kardashians or or
30:39
porn or whatever it is they’re you they
30:41
watch
30:42
so as time went on the sort of reality
30:47
show aspects of campaigning this all the
30:51
trappings of campaigns the the lighting
30:55
the the production values the the back
31:00
the backdrops the scenery all of that
31:03
became more and more sophisticated over
31:04
time while the actual politics became
31:09
more and more simplistic over time so
31:11
what you ended up getting was an
31:14
incredibly sophisticated television show
31:17
about very very unsophisticated politics
31:20
and Donald Trump’s insight and a lot of
31:24
this had to do with the fact that he was
31:26
a reality television star was that not
31:30
only had our politics devolved into a TV
31:34
show but it was basically a bad TV show
31:38
any TV show that planned to have its
31:42
leading characters be people like Jeb
31:44
Bush Scott Walker and Lindsey Graham you
31:48
know probably needed new producers and
31:52
Donald Trump turned he took what was you
31:56
know a television show that was constant
31:59
had drama every single day something
32:02
happens in the campaign every day so
32:03
it’s great for reality TV format from
32:06
that’s perspective there’s always some
32:07
kind of thing going on there was a
32:09
back-and-forth between the candidates
32:11
but the content tended to be relatively
32:15
a non sensational compared to Survivor
32:21
or you know Tila Tequila show or a you
32:27
know whatever flava flav Flavor of Love
32:33
Donald Trump wasn’t competing with other
32:35
Republican candidates he was repeating
32:37
competing with Flavor Flav and Tila
32:40
Tequila and he turned the
32:43
the presidential campaign add to this
32:45
this crazy can’t-miss wild reality
32:51
television show and for the news media
32:55
that makes its money by getting people
32:57
to watch their program this was like
33:00
manna and heaven for them um so so
33:06
that’s one thing that he understood that
33:08
other candidates didn’t he also
33:11
understood how to how to make the
33:14
process more intimate and how to bring
33:15
people into the process one of the
33:18
things that have happened over the years
33:19
is that people actual people became
33:22
irrelevant to this television show that
33:23
we were making the way the campaign is
33:27
structured as you fly around with with
33:29
the with the press corps you don’t have
33:31
enough time when you’re in each city to
33:33
actually talk to people and the
33:35
campaign’s increasingly didn’t talk to
33:38
them either they just needed people as
33:39
sort of stylized backdrops they were
33:41
there to be props basically in a
33:44
television show they were there to you
33:46
know if he needed somebody to to show
33:49
that he was sort of down with
33:51
construction workers or with the working
33:53
person they would have a bunch of people
33:55
in hard hats up on stage or the you know
33:57
they wanted to appeal the farmers they
33:59
would visit a farming town and you know
34:01
be photographed you know hugging a
34:03
farmer but they didn’t actually talk to
34:04
these people and the people in the press
34:09
started to fall into the trap also of
34:12
just using people for quotes we would
34:14
descend on mass into these towns we
34:17
would not really spend a whole lot of
34:18
time with them and then we would just
34:22
hustle them for quotes do you like this
34:24
/ Canada do you like that candidate
34:25
oftentimes we were looking for the
34:28
people in the crowd to say a certain
34:30
thing and we would search people out and
34:34
until they actually said the quote that
34:36
they were looking for – another very bad
34:38
practice that journalists do and people
34:40
of course they resented it and what
34:45
ended up happening was is that both
34:47
politicians and the media started to
34:50
lose touch with actual people and they
34:53
increasingly relied upon each other
34:56
especially upon pollsters to sort of
34:58
take the temperature of the people out
35:00
there and if you’ve ever traveled in in
35:03
a campaign it’s actually like it’s
35:05
literally a prison once the Secret
35:07
Service gets involved you can’t leave
35:10
the group after the general election
35:13
campaign starts because security is so
35:16
tight I would bet back in my first
35:18
campaigns I was a pretty heavy smoker
35:20
back that I’m not anymore but you
35:22
actually had to get what they called
35:24
Sherpas to leave there were like people
35:27
who carried bags for the campaign’s they
35:29
would leave the group to go to stores
35:31
and get cigarettes and other supplies
35:33
for people because you’re so cut off
35:35
from the actual voters that you can’t
35:39
leave the group and so you lose touch
35:42
with what’s going on you and what
35:43
happened is over over in decades not
35:47
only do you do you lose touch with what
35:50
people are thinking but you lose touch
35:51
with the ability to talk to people and
35:53
to understand the cues that they’re
35:55
saying and to learn for instance people
36:00
would would start to rely on polls to
36:02
tell them whether or not
36:04
voters liked or disliked this or that
36:06
candidate what polls can’t tell you the
36:08
difference between say you know rage and
36:10
mere disapproval they’re they’re able to
36:14
tell you that people are drifting them
36:16
one way or the other but until you get
36:17
that qualitative experience of sitting
36:19
down with people and really
36:20
understanding what their frustrations
36:22
are you’re just going to miss what’s
36:24
actually going on um and so Trump he
36:28
took advantage of all this he took
36:30
advantage of the fact that we were out
36:31
of touch and he used that again to help
36:36
solve his own problems what he started
36:38
to do was he started to incorporate the
36:40
press into his act I remember being in
36:44
at Plymouth State University in New
36:46
Hampshire and Trump you as it usually
36:49
happens is there’s like a Arizer in the
36:52
middle of the hall and there’s a bunch
36:54
of reporters and camera people and we’re
36:57
stuck behind ropes like zoo animals in
37:00
the middle of the crowd and Trump he
37:03
started to experiment with mentioning us
37:05
in the middle of his speeches and he
37:07
would say things like look at these
37:08
people look at these
37:09
suckers they hate me they never thought
37:13
I would make it this far they’ve never
37:15
traveled so far for an event look at
37:17
them they hate you you know and what
37:20
would happen over time was his rhetoric
37:22
became more and more aggressive and
37:25
crowds would start to physically turn
37:27
towards the the media during his
37:30
presentations and it would hiss and Boo
37:33
and sometimes even throw stuff and you
37:34
know occasionally like you little
37:36
scuffles broke out and it got a little
37:39
bit dangerous in there and you know on
37:42
one level it was horrible and terrifying
37:44
because it evokes images of a lot of
37:46
sort of fascistic techniques from other
37:51
sort of strongman type politicians but
37:54
on the other hand he was also using a
37:57
sort of a WWE style method of turning
38:03
what had been a sort of supernaturally
38:05
boring phenomenon which is the
38:08
presidential stump speech to just you
38:10
know if anybody has ever been to one if
38:12
you can survive one that’s amazing but
38:15
you know for the press corps to be able
38:16
to listen to the same speech 50 or 60
38:19
times like we do I used to have a
38:22
numbered cliche system I heard one
38:26
candidate’s cliches so often that I knew
38:28
the top 20 by heart and instead of
38:32
writing down notes from his speeches I
38:34
would just have collections of numbers
38:36
it would be like 3 8 15 11 you know and
38:42
so Trump took this this terrible boring
38:45
format and he turned it into this
38:47
intimate menacing real physical
38:53
experience where the representative of
38:57
the hated establishment was literally in
38:59
the room and that was us and again a lot
39:04
of this this was this was years of the
39:08
press gradually losing its ability to
39:10
talk to ordinary people had turned
39:12
around and allowed this fatuous New York
39:15
billionaire to sell himself as closer to
39:18
the common man
39:19
and then reporters and and when I talked
39:23
to people who were at Trump crowds I
39:25
would ask them you know why do you what
39:29
do you feel this way or that way why do
39:30
you like this guy and they would say
39:32
well he’s real he’s not reading from a
39:34
script’ which was true you know unlike
39:36
the other you know the numbered cliches
39:38
Trump literally couldn’t keep it would
39:41
pass out his speeches but the text of
39:45
what was supposed to be his speech and
39:47
he would deviate from it in the second
39:49
word because he is the attention span
39:51
and so it’s so short that he couldn’t he
39:54
couldn’t read actual prepared remarks
39:56
people would say things to me like he’s
39:59
real and you people aren’t you know I
40:02
remember one guy in Washington Wisconsin
40:03
saying to me you know I’m going to clean
40:07
up his his speech here a little bit but
40:09
he says basically you jerks were always
40:12
trying to tell us how to live our lives
40:14
but you can’t change a goddamn oil
40:15
filter and you know he was right you’re
40:19
sort of right you know the the people
40:21
who represent the press corps tend to be
40:24
the suit of a feat again rich for the
40:27
most part because we’re you know the
40:29
people who are there they have to be in
40:31
order to in order to afford the trip
40:32
they have to come from a certain class
40:34
they’re almost all from New York
40:37
Washington and LA they went to the best
40:40
schools and they have a certain attitude
40:42
towards life and and Trump used that and
40:47
he used that to sort of bridge the gap
40:48
between himself and ordinary people and
40:51
so the last thing I want to talk about
40:52
is is sort of the appropriation of
40:56
bogeymen Trump did something that was
40:58
really strange but interesting the
41:01
traditional method of winning elections
41:02
in this country is you get up in front
41:05
of a group of people you say to them you
41:07
know I know you’ve had it hard in the
41:09
last four or five years and I’m going to
41:11
tell you who to blame and then X Y Z and
41:15
then a B and C they’re all there they’re
41:17
to blame for your troubles and you know
41:19
don’t don’t we hate them and that was
41:22
that’s sort of the traditional format of
41:24
a campaign speech the only difference is
41:26
that they’re a different bogeyman on the
41:29
Republican side and on the Democratic
41:30
side on the Republican side
41:33
the the villains tend to be immigrants
41:36
you know welfare moms liberal professors
41:39
terrorists they actually have a very
41:41
long list of villains on the other side
41:43
you know on the Democratic side it’s
41:46
it’s a little bit smarter and a little
41:48
bit more sophisticated it’s it’s
41:50
corporations it’s it’s health insurance
41:52
companies etc etc and what’s interesting
41:56
is that the traditional candidate never
41:57
crossed lines that you you know if you
42:00
were either used one group of villains
42:01
or another group of villains Trump just
42:03
gobbled up all of them he’s just he’s so
42:07
omnivorous in in his sort of the way he
42:12
approaches life in every way that he
42:15
used both lists you know he would go to
42:17
every crowd and he was all things to all
42:19
people at all times I’m against the
42:21
corporations I’m against Goldman Sachs
42:23
I’m against immigrants and against this
42:24
and that and the other and whatever you
42:27
hated Trump would eventually get around
42:30
to it in his speech and again the reason
42:33
that people didn’t do this in the past
42:34
traditionally is because the media would
42:36
say well look this is a contradiction
42:38
you can’t be this and that because those
42:41
two things don’t really go together but
42:43
Trump was tuned into the fact that the
42:48
people had tuned us out they had stopped
42:50
listening to us and that you know all of
42:52
us sort of News reporters who love to
42:56
correct people spelling on Twitter and
42:58
you know or just didn’t know how to fix
43:00
cars that what we thought about what we
43:03
know his his politics didn’t really
43:04
matter anymore
43:05
and his ability to sort of continue to
43:09
continually survive the negative
43:14
editorializing of the press and our
43:16
attempts to sort of bounce him out of
43:17
the race through this or seal of death
43:19
episodes which increased in frequency as
43:22
the campaign went along and as as
43:25
reporters became more and more aware of
43:27
their role their financial role in
43:29
helping Trump win but we we became more
43:31
cognizant of it you heard of things like
43:33
les Moonves with CBS everybody here this
43:36
you know these famously said Trump is
43:38
bad for America but good for business
43:41
you know as as that kind of spread in
43:45
press we became more and more aggressive
43:49
in our in our editorial stance towards
43:51
Trump and that just worked to his
43:54
advantage the the meaner we got Trump
43:57
has this uncanny ability to turn
43:59
everybody in his orbit into another
44:01
pro-wrestling character and when he gets
44:05
up there and he says that where we were
44:06
the opposition after a while it actually
44:09
turned out to be a little bit true we
44:11
you know he he cartoon eyes his own
44:13
opposition he eventually gets everybody
44:16
to sort of lower themselves you think
44:19
about you know Rubio making sort of dong
44:24
jokes during the middle of the debates
44:27
or you know people throwing water at
44:29
each other and Ted Ted Cruz started
44:32
acting like a ham during debate doing
44:35
impersonations from The Princess Bride
44:37
and and Ron Paul was chained selling
44:40
things in half and shooting the tax code
44:42
and everybody starts acting like a
44:45
reality star when they’re around Trump
44:47
long enough and and we were like that
44:50
too in the news media and what ends up
44:53
happening was that the symbiotic
44:57
relationship started occurring where we
45:01
paid more and more attention to them
45:02
even even though even though the things
45:05
we were saying about them were negative
45:06
we never took the cameras off of him
45:07
fret for a second and we still haven’t
45:09
and what is the end result of that
45:12
here’s some striking statistics sense
45:15
the since the election in November cable
45:21
news ratings are up 50% at CNN they’re
45:27
up 50% at Fox they’re up over 35% at
45:30
MSNBC and some programs are up higher
45:32
than that on that channel CNN expects to
45:36
make over a billion dollars this year in
45:38
profits and again what what starts to
45:42
happen after a while is that
45:45
unconsciously this the fact that he’s
45:48
making everybody so much money and make
45:50
no mistake about it it’s the fact that
45:52
that politics has begun to eat into the
45:55
entertainment world
45:57
and the the profitability of
45:59
entertainment and we’re taking some of
46:01
Hollywood’s market share by creating
46:04
politics as this giant reality show
46:09
unconsciously the people who are
46:10
covering Donald Trump whether they know
46:12
it or not they legitimize it the whole
46:14
thing and that’s why you’ll see periodic
46:16
episodes like you know he gives that
46:18
speech after the joint speech to
46:20
Congress and and there’s a you know CNN
46:24
will say you know he became president in
46:26
the United States tonight or that
46:28
happens after he lobs missiles you know
46:30
Tomahawk missiles that Syria you know
46:33
Fareed Zakaria will get up and say
46:34
exactly the same thing you know Donald
46:36
Trump became President of the United
46:37
States tonight and this is a company
46:39
that’s making a billion dollars this
46:41
year because of Donald Trump and so it’s
46:43
just a symbiotic relationship this had
46:49
been going on for a long time
46:50
it with this sort of synthesis of all
46:53
these different things the the the
46:55
collapse and Trust in news media the
46:56
declining profitability of news media
46:58
which was suddenly turned around by this
47:01
candidate who suddenly made money for
47:03
everybody nobody could make money for
47:05
for a longest time and then suddenly
47:07
everybody’s making money you have to
47:09
think about this when you think about
47:11
how politics is covered in this country
47:12
and it’s not just Trump that’s that’s
47:17
you know so my final word of caution
47:20
would be that the network’s have learned
47:23
and a lot of us in the business started
47:26
to talk about this last year that that
47:29
you know what Trump does his total
47:32
indifference to whether a thing is true
47:34
or not and the fact that he knows that
47:37
his his core supporters don’t really
47:39
care all that much the network’s have
47:41
also learned that lesson two in the last
47:44
year or so they knows we sort of by
47:48
custom and because of the libel laws
47:50
which don’t you know are incredibly weak
47:52
in this country and and really don’t
47:54
apply all that much the public figures
47:57
you know by custom we we we we try very
48:01
very hard to get things right and to not
48:03
be careless about citing sources that
48:05
aren’t reliable
48:05
that sort of thing but in the age of
48:07
Trump that’s really it’s starting to go
48:09
out the window everywhere and you know
48:13
it just as a sort of general warning I
48:14
would say again this whole phenomenon of
48:19
Trump and how he sort of unlocked he’s
48:23
converted politics into a show that has
48:28
implications that go beyond Donald Trump
48:30
as well I think everybody should just be
48:31
aware that this is a phenomenon that has
48:34
negatively impacted the entire business
48:37
and everything that was bad about
48:40
for-profit media in the past has gotten
48:44
exponentially worse in the last year and
48:47
you can expect you know going forward
48:51
that we’ll see we’ll see less and less
48:52
coverage of you know actual things that
48:55
matter you know environmental issues you
48:58
know if corruption and contracting in
49:01
the military disasters like flint you
49:06
know those things will get less and less
49:07
airtime and what will we get instead is
49:09
a very heavily polarized media landscape
49:15
where there’s one set of viewers that
49:17
hates this politician and one set of
49:19
viewers that hates another politician
49:20
and they’re all going to they’re all
49:22
going to tune in and watch and the
49:24
standards are going to go out the window
49:26
so it’s just in some I would just say
49:28
just be careful you know not without
49:31
commenting on any particular story that
49:34
the arc of the sort of failure of our
49:37
business has has really steepen in the
49:40
last year or so and I think as news
49:42
consumers people should pay more and
49:44
more attention to independent media and
49:46
alternative media and worry more and
49:49
more about the commercial media going
49:50
forward and thank you very much and I
49:52
would love to talk
49:53
[Music]
49:59
[Applause]
49:59
[Music]
50:02
[Applause]
50:07
so if you have questions please come
50:11
this way and we’ll do a line back that
50:13
way thank you I mean amazing talk I was
50:16
wondering if you could talk about some
50:18
of the unseen kind of new levels of
50:22
thought control such as Cambridge
50:26
analytical and how Trump used data
50:29
mining how that’s even a bigger climate
50:33
that were it right now and how that’s
50:35
affecting us jump using data might mean
50:37
all the candidates use data mining I
50:38
mean I I think that’s you know without
50:43
knowing exactly that exact thing but I
50:48
know that that was a phenomenon that
50:50
dated back to the Kerry the first Kerry
50:54
Bush campaign that was when that first
50:55
really started and I think it’s
51:00
worrisome I think the whole idea of
51:04
targeting shaping a candidate’s policies
51:09
based on the on your on the research
51:12
that you do into people searching habits
51:14
I think that’s going to be something
51:14
that’s more and more true going forward
51:16
they’re going to be able to target
51:17
political advertising the people based
51:19
on what they search for and on the web
51:22
and all that’s incredibly disturbing I
51:25
you know in the same way that they’re
51:27
they’re selling that data to to
51:30
prospective employers so they get
51:31
they’re going to be able to tell what
51:32
you what websites you look at the idea
51:36
of politicians being able to look at is
51:37
just horrifying
51:39
and I think yeah that’s definitely
51:41
something to worry about
51:46
so I was just going to see if you agree
51:48
at this opinion and I think it presents
51:50
a problem and I’m wondering if you know
51:52
of a possible solution to it
51:55
but I like that you compared it to him
51:58
not competing with the other politicians
51:59
but the reality stars because when he
52:02
got primary to actually said that the
52:03
only way that Clinton could win is if
52:05
she changed her name to Hillary booboo
52:06
right and but the problem is I feel like
52:11
because it is so entertainment
52:13
centric that’s almost kind of like a lot
52:16
people like to compare like the Empire
52:18
of America
52:19
Rome but then it’s kind of glad it’s
52:20
gladiator kind of asked where I feel
52:23
like it’s it’s good that you we do have
52:26
these critiques and that you are
52:27
addressing this and I love it is
52:29
actually directed at the press even
52:30
though it says president on your book
52:32
but I think a lot people hook get on
52:34
Trump and try to analyze him as a person
52:36
instead of looking at the system that
52:38
created them because I feel like for him
52:39
it’s self-fulfilling he doesn’t have a
52:41
clue like he’s not right and essentially
52:43
doing this but as long as we’re giving
52:45
attention to it it’s like a growing
52:47
beast and and where’s where’s it going
52:49
to end like how do you stop that how do
52:51
you it’s a great question there’s a
52:52
couple things that are really
52:53
interesting you know that I’d love to
52:55
talk about here first though is that one
52:58
of the things that one of the huge
52:59
weaknesses of the political press in
53:01
this country is that we we always think
53:04
when we see a political phenomenon we
53:06
always imagine that it originates with
53:10
the politician right like just to give
53:12
you a classic example the Bernie Sanders
53:15
phenomenon wasn’t was all about Bernie
53:18
Sanders to Washington reporters right it
53:20
wasn’t it wasn’t 13 million people
53:22
expressing themselves and being upset
53:24
about you know the their feelings about
53:27
the Democratic Party it wasn’t this
53:29
organic thing that rose up from the
53:31
population it was because some you know
53:34
independent socialist backbencher jumped
53:38
the line and got you know and so they
53:40
that’s the way they like they always
53:41
look at the Washington character first
53:42
and they don’t look outward at the at
53:46
the actual people and then the larger
53:48
thing that’s going on
53:50
Trump is is horrible for for that
53:54
instinct because he he concentrates so
53:57
much attention on him and his person and
54:02
he deflects so much attention not only
54:04
from the system but from the larger
54:06
forces that are going on in the
54:08
population that everybody imagines that
54:10
Donald Trump is the only problem and not
54:12
that there have been you know growing
54:15
trend towards nativism and racism in
54:18
this in the population cetera et cetera
54:20
et cetera so the what the solution is I
54:24
think we just have to focus out more as
54:27
in the media we got to focus on systemic
54:29
problems more we got to talk to people
54:32
more and and make it less about the the
54:35
fairy tale soap opera which is the easy
54:39
way to do the story you know that and
54:41
that’s that’s why we do it because
54:42
that’s easy you know and so yeah I think
54:46
the what the solution is we just got to
54:48
do our jobs better and I don’t know how
54:50
that’s going to happen so if we assume
54:56
that the Trump’s the nominee in 2020
54:58
which he most likely will be barring
55:00
something serious like impeachment or
55:04
something like that if he is the nominee
55:05
and based on your experience what you’ve
55:08
seen
55:09
if this dynamic is still present where
55:11
he’s he’s he he is who he is he’s
55:14
gladiatorial what will be the formula
55:16
for the Democrats the counter that
55:17
should they have someone who’s also like
55:19
him or should they have someone who’s
55:22
who’s somehow a foil to him I mean based
55:25
on what you’ve seen what’s the answer
55:26
for the left in 2020
55:32
it’s a great question um see how what I
55:38
worry about is that is the I already
55:41
hear people in Washington talking about
55:43
this and saying that we have to get our
55:45
own version of Trump all right and we
55:48
have to get a media figure we got to get
55:51
you know whether it’s Dwayne the rock
55:54
Johnson or Mark Zuckerberg or whoever it
55:57
is right like we we need to go that
55:59
route and what’s interesting to me is
56:01
that they’ve already forgotten the
56:03
lessons I think of Barack Obama Barack
56:05
Obama is a diametrically opposite
56:07
character to Donald Trump he is someone
56:10
who prefers you know he’s reserved
56:13
polite he doesn’t act like a real
56:15
reality star he comports him even though
56:18
you know for me personally politically I
56:20
don’t agree with Obama life he’s been a
56:22
disappointment to me a lot of ways
56:23
style-wise he won by appealing I think
56:29
to people’s better imagination right and
56:33
what I see in Washington is a lot of
56:36
pessimism they don’t believe that that
56:39
you know finding a better way to
56:42
communicate with people that get it you
56:44
know telling people that they understand
56:47
what their problems are making a sincere
56:48
effort to find out why people are
56:50
disaffected I think that’s the easiest
56:52
route to winning you know is going out
56:54
and actually finding out what’s wrong
56:58
and coming up with solutions that people
56:59
can connect with you know and but you
57:03
won’t they won’t do that you know I
57:05
think they what they’re going to do is
57:07
they’re going to look at a lot of polls
57:08
and they’re going to they’re going to
57:09
look at the media media centric version
57:13
of how to win elections and they’re
57:15
going to try to do their own version I
57:16
think
57:22
hi so I started thinking about this a
57:25
couple days ago in terms of you know the
57:29
backlash if Trump continues to try and
57:32
dig his own grave and put his foot in
57:36
his mouth and all that other stuff
57:37
eventually things will start to roll
57:40
against him but there’s going to be a
57:43
backlash from that in terms of all the
57:45
people who support him and it’ll be like
57:46
you know why are you taking away my toy
57:48
and you know the that could be the media
57:52
that could be the Democratic Party that
57:53
could be the Republican Party and so you
57:55
might have a phenomenon where
57:56
everybody’s trying to be like no you and
57:59
Peacham I don’t want to impeach um you
58:00
impeach him you know so that they don’t
58:02
deal with that backlash and I’m
58:03
wondering if you see any signs of that
58:05
and how that would play out yeah I think
58:11
actually I would say that there’s not a
58:14
lot of hesitation about taking on Donald
58:17
Trump in Washington now anything I would
58:20
say that there’s sort of an opposite
58:21
problem which is that being against
58:24
Trump has become whatever the only thing
58:27
that a lot of politicians are about now
58:29
and I I think that the key to succeeding
58:34
going forward is they have to have some
58:35
other kind of messages in addition to
58:37
that politically going after Donald
58:39
Trump doesn’t seem to be anybody’s
58:40
problem and they’re the the knives are
58:42
out in full force right now for for
58:44
Trump and they’re gunning for
58:47
impeachment there’s no question about
58:48
that except for people like Mitch
58:49
McConnell well he’s a Republican first
58:51
well he is but but but in terms of like
58:54
I was kind of surprised about uh not
58:56
completely but you know cuz he’s trying
58:58
to control this thing
58:59
you know whoa look impeachment is a it’s
59:06
a very extreme step and and think think
59:11
about approving it for a member of your
59:13
own party and think about think about
59:16
doing it in this situation you know um
59:20
there’s a lot of political will to try
59:23
to end Donald Trump’s presidency right
59:24
now and it’s far harder than it’s been
59:26
for anybody since since Bill Clinton so
59:29
I wouldn’t say that that’s a problem I
59:31
think there going to be plenty of
59:32
candidates we’re going to want to play
59:33
that role of the person who took on
59:35
Donald Trump I mean they’re practically
59:37
stepping over each other to do it Warner
59:40
Schiff all these people that these
59:42
committee chairs are anxious to be that
59:45
person in front of the cameras oh
59:46
there’s political opportunity there the
59:49
the problem the problem that I see you
59:54
know I just I just worry that the palace
59:57
intrigue aspect of it is has occupied so
60:00
much of the Democrats time that they’re
60:02
they’re not paying attention to other
60:03
things Thanks hi thanks for great talk
60:11
the thing that I noticed about the two
60:15
sides of the bus the politicians in the
60:18
front and the reporters in back is that
60:21
there is a kind of underlying logic
60:23
which is a profit incentive in both
60:25
cases and to me that bespeaks the fact
60:30
that capitalism is something that feeds
60:32
off the systemic pathologies of
60:34
societies and right now it seems like
60:37
it’s gotten the point where it’s just
60:39
reached a level of death Drive and like
60:41
there something about the Trump
60:43
phenomenon that feels like it could
60:45
really just unleash some really
60:47
pathological forces in our society to
60:50
the point where the situation you’re
60:52
describing with the media is just one
60:53
component of a kind of embrace of sheer
60:55
irrationality and I feel or my question
60:59
for you is that whether you think some
61:01
kind of like deep and systemic
61:04
paradigmatic changes is called for as
61:07
part of what were yeah no I totally
61:10
agree I I I think one of the things that
61:15
I believe that one of the reasons that
61:18
Trump happened is because people are on
61:22
some level they’re screaming out for
61:24
something drastically different you know
61:26
and it’s it’s for a lot of people it’s
61:29
an inarticulate longing you know for a
61:32
new way to experience life and and I
61:34
think the sort of this is relentless
61:37
heartlessness of modern American you
61:40
know industrial capitalism and it’s it’s
61:43
a sort of really casual immorality and
61:47
and I think it’s tough for people you
61:49
know even if they don’t understand it
61:50
you know it and we need I think we need
61:54
something we need to at least have
61:55
somebody who’s capable of opening a
61:58
discussion of can we live another way in
62:01
this country you know and that question
62:04
has been suppressed at the at the
62:06
presidential level you know it’s not
62:08
really it hasn’t really been possible to
62:10
have that dialogue because words like
62:13
you know socialism is of course a taboo
62:15
bernie has made it less so but even you
62:17
know other ideas you know like you know
62:20
there’s a European you know guaranteed
62:22
income movement you know like these
62:24
really interesting thoughts they’re not
62:26
did we can entertain them because our
62:29
politics are so narrow and yeah I agree
62:32
with you and and and just to talk about
62:35
one thing about the media in terms of
62:37
capitalism for ages we insulated
62:41
ourselves from the profit motive problem
62:44
in media by having this sort of unspoken
62:48
understanding you know the FCC they
62:50
licensed out the airwaves to the PUC to
62:51
these private companies and there was a
62:54
there was an understanding that that
62:56
they would get to make all this money by
62:59
having these TV stations and radio
63:01
stations but in return they would have
63:03
to do something in the public interest
63:04
in terms of news so traditionally news
63:08
was a lost leader for four television
63:11
stations radio stations and they made
63:13
their money covering sports and
63:14
entertainment other stuff and they
63:16
didn’t worry about making money off the
63:17
news well that changed started changing
63:19
in the 80s and now you know this is what
63:23
you get when one news is all about
63:25
profits it just becomes insane you know
63:28
unfactual unobjective and you know it’s
63:31
I think it’s really disturbing Thanks
63:35
[Applause]
63:39
hi Matt I’m today on Netflix the
63:43
Rogerses movie debuted and up until
63:47
Trump who are justö was more or less a
63:50
husband how influential was he in the
63:54
2016 election sorry who the one
63:58
Rajasthan Rajasthan how influential is
64:01
he um my understanding of Roger stone is
64:07
that he’s a big talker who uh who has
64:13
less access to powerful people than he
64:16
has always claimed so I don’t know you
64:19
know Roger stone he was an advisor to
64:22
the Trump campaign he’s um
64:26
really not in position to really answer
64:29
that question very well you know
64:30
obviously he figures a lot in this this
64:32
Russia drama depending on who you talk
64:35
to but that’s just you know I I couldn’t
64:39
speak to it because I never haven’t
64:41
uncovered that story okay I have a part
64:43
to it this question if the media did not
64:48
cover Trump like they did because they
64:52
would concern with the ratings do you
64:55
think he would have gotten as far as you
64:57
did so that’s a great question but I
65:01
think it goes hand in hand with a couple
65:03
of things so if if we as had as a habit
65:07
did not have a for-profit media we would
65:11
have a different kind of audience
65:13
leading into 2016 we would have a more
65:15
thinking audience we would have a more
65:17
discerning audience you know Trump isn’t
65:20
something that happens overnight it
65:21
happens after decades of watching the
65:24
dumbest possible television and lowering
65:28
your attention span to half a second
65:34
and I think you know the fact that
65:37
nobody reads anymore and I mean the
65:41
ability to think critically about what
65:43
people are looking at is a phenomenon
65:45
that’s been that’s been degraded for
65:47
decades and if we if we had a different
65:50
kind of media dating back decades
65:52
there’s no way Donald Trump would win
65:54
because he was so plainly unsuited for
65:57
the job but he was perfectly suited for
66:00
what this actually was which is a
66:03
television show I mean and and and so if
66:06
we didn’t have that format he would
66:08
never have been successful thank you hi
66:16
hi so um what the person said earlier
66:20
about uh the Democrats opening their own
66:22
Trump I was thinking that too like he
66:25
maybe he’s gonna open his own franchises
66:26
like his University or something so
66:29
we’ll teach you
66:29
political hacking but um you were saying
66:34
stuff about being in the bullpen and
66:36
that he got the crowd to turn on you and
66:39
like all this up for the press in
66:40
general but despite all that I’ve
66:43
noticed you’re really objective about
66:46
this guy still like you’re able to look
66:48
at it from many sites like you don’t I
66:49
get the sense you don’t like Trump but
66:51
you know you can you can like kinda you
66:55
can kind of see through like his tactics
66:57
and like oh he’s like he’s like flipped
66:59
it around he’s like he figured out a
67:00
deal for these politics so if Paul if
67:04
politicians are actors is a Donald Trump
67:07
the greatest actor and can you respect
67:08
his hustle as an actor well that’s a
67:13
tough question I mean I find Trump
67:15
fascinating on a lot of levels and um
67:17
and and there’s a huge question
67:22
philosophical question with Trump which
67:24
is is it did you do this on purpose did
67:27
he did he intend to have all these
67:29
tactics work this way
67:31
or was it just a total accident of his
67:33
insane narcissistic personality that
67:35
just happened to fit like a glove into
67:38
the equally insane format of our
67:40
presidential system when and that’s the
67:43
form that’s the thing I leaned toward
67:44
but
67:46
you know I remember another New
67:48
Hampshire incident you probably all
67:51
remember it in Manchester when Trump
67:55
said there was a woman who stood up in
67:58
the crowd and said can I swear here she
68:02
sees he says Ted Cruz is a right
68:05
and and Trump looked at the woman and he
68:09
said oh that’s terrible what she said
68:10
that’s terrible and you shouldn’t you
68:12
shouldn’t have said that say it again
68:13
all right so so she says it again and
68:17
you know all of us in the media we’re
68:20
watching him and you could see him
68:21
thinking he’s he’s thinking if she says
68:25
it’s a six-hour story if I say it it’s a
68:27
four days story you know what I mean and
68:29
he he paused and he thought and then he
68:33
goes she just said Ted Cruz ooh
68:35
right and now there’s video right and it
68:39
Rockets around the internet and
68:40
obliterates everything else you know the
68:42
involved with the New Hampshire election
68:44
so Trump I think on some level he just
68:47
he can’t help himself like you know he
68:49
watches his tweeting habits and
68:50
everything there’s no way that this guy
68:52
is sitting there and calculating it’s a
68:54
good idea to tweet about Meryl Streep
68:56
and stuff like you know like no way but
68:58
he part of it you know he does have some
69:02
instincts that some of it is conscious
69:03
so I think it’s a mix of things like you
69:06
know you know as a reporter you have to
69:08
resist the easy interpretation that X Y
69:11
or Z I think it can be all things you
69:13
know I think he’s crazy and an actor and
69:15
you know and a manipulator and all that
69:17
stuff so the bypassing disgusts you
69:19
or as fascinates you well it’s
69:23
disgusting clearly I mean no the the
69:25
it’s everything you wouldn’t want in a
69:28
politician but the you know on some
69:30
level if you read the book clearly early
69:34
in the campaign when I I thought I saw
69:36
Trump I thought his historical role was
69:40
going to be that he was going to destroy
69:41
the Republican Party because it seemed
69:44
pretty clear early and early on that he
69:47
was he was sort of steam rolling through
69:49
the whole process almost like a like a
69:52
classic farcical parody of everything
69:55
right and he made everybody who was on
69:56
stage with him
69:58
look more ridiculous than he was and on
70:01
some of them on a literary level it was
70:03
kind of perfect right it was a perfect
70:06
story and the fact that it was people
70:07
like Rubio and Jeb Bush and all those
70:11
people who were the victims of it kind
70:13
of didn’t make you feel so bad about it
70:14
I mean to me it made it a much funnier
70:17
story and then and then after the
70:19
nomination it took this incredibly dark
70:22
turn where it’s like this is actually
70:24
going to happen and he’s going to get
70:26
elected and when that started to happen
70:30
you know that it stopped being funny and
70:32
then it started to be like insane and
70:34
crazy and terrifying and and you know I
70:37
think that’s where we are right now so I
70:40
had I had different feelings about it
70:43
the whole way through I thought I would
70:45
imagine everybody did great did you uh
70:48
I thought the longer he was in the race
70:50
more likely he was going to win and that
70:53
was even when he was with Hillary right
70:56
so it’s like okay it’s like one week so
70:59
he’s probably gonna win right at this
71:00
point right right excellent
71:02
excellent well you it was a good good
71:04
job thanks Matt I really thought I was
71:10
excellent I might take a different kind
71:12
of direction on this uh when I hear you
71:14
discussing this issue first of all the
71:17
idea of focusing not on the incident but
71:18
the context but I guess the context of
71:21
your profession in particular like the
71:22
fact that you’re a magazine writer and
71:24
at a news writer enables you to engage
71:28
more of your critical thinking
71:29
facilities than other people might be
71:31
able to I think we all have recognized
71:33
that we make poor decisions when we’re
71:34
rushed but given that like I mean like
71:37
right now I’m a professor and I have
71:38
many students who want their papers
71:41
immediately more they’d rather their
71:44
papers be done quickly than accurately
71:46
right given that we’re all rushed for
71:48
time what is the hope for your
71:50
profession is there hope because it
71:52
seemed like there’s a positive feedback
71:53
loop that you point to being a problem
71:55
is there a point where that just the
71:57
human body cannot take any longer or do
72:00
we you know stand in the ruins of
72:01
democracy before then
72:03
Wow that’s a great question and a scary
72:07
one no I I’m really worried about it
72:10
because um you know it’s this is this
72:13
has been a problem going back in our
72:15
business for decades and it started off
72:18
really I would say in the mid 80s and
72:21
early 90s and what started off with
72:24
seemingly small problems like the
72:26
appearance of free alternative
72:29
newspapers right and we started to give
72:32
give gift papers away then the internet
72:35
came along and people got their ads from
72:38
you know they didn’t have to go to buy
72:40
the Village Voice anymore to find to get
72:43
an apartment or put up a want ad they
72:45
could just go on the internet so that
72:46
depleted massively depleted the income
72:50
streams of alternative media and what
72:53
was the first thing that newspapers cut
72:55
when they stopped making a lot of money
72:57
they stopped they cut the people who
72:59
only spent who worked five or six weeks
73:03
on one story right the first thing they
73:05
cut was investigative reporting the
73:07
second thing they cut was fact-checking
73:09
right and so you know in the old days
73:13
you would have things like the
73:14
Cincinnati Enquirer doing a ten-part
73:16
series on the Chiquita banana company
73:18
right and they would send these two
73:19
reporters down to South America and they
73:22
would they would you know they would be
73:24
very well funded to do these long
73:26
investigations and and people were were
73:30
psyched for that kind of stuff they had
73:31
an app but the public had an appetite
73:32
for that kind of reporting well now you
73:35
two things would happen number one the
73:37
audience’s don’t have the attention span
73:38
to devour four and five thousand more
73:41
piece articles about things they’re
73:44
consuming tweets right and the other
73:47
thing is that the companies have found
73:49
out that they don’t need to do that to
73:50
make money you know so they they’re
73:52
they’ve invested all their money in
73:54
graphics and presentation and and the
73:58
content gets smaller and smaller and and
74:01
less weighty all the time and so there’s
74:04
no investigations there’s no critical
74:06
thinking there’s no reflection
74:08
it’s just reactive and it’s become like
74:10
this animalistic thing almost right and
74:13
I really worry about that because not
74:15
not only are you not getting good
74:16
reporting but you’re also training your
74:18
audience right to be rushed like that
74:22
right and and and you sure you see it
74:25
kids come up now they just they just
74:28
don’t have the the stomach to read
74:31
through long things anymore and I think
74:34
it’s a serious problem and I don’t know
74:36
how to fix it do you have an idea I mean
74:38
I you know I I mean I guess in general
74:40
it just seems like like speed is kind of
74:42
the enemy of democracy although we seem
74:44
to love speed so much I don’t know
74:46
myself except I just refuse to acquiesce
74:48
sometimes and right right throw sand in
74:51
the gears I think is a common popular
74:53
way to scribe it yeah no I mean I I wish
74:56
there was some way to do it but yeah I
74:59
think it’s you’re absolutely right speed
75:00
is a huge problem with us in Trump with
75:02
Trump again Trump was perfect for this
75:04
because you had to check Twitter every
75:06
ten seconds to see what he was up to he
75:09
was that he’s the perfect futuristic
75:11
speed candidate right like you know you
75:13
could be high on something at 4:00 in
75:14
the morning and he’d be changing doing
75:16
something you know he’s yeah it’s it’s
75:20
it’s very bad thank you good evening
75:26
Matt thanks for the talk tonight a
75:29
couple of observations maybe from you
75:32
can we agree that probably we don’t this
75:36
des gentleman before me the only one who
75:38
use the word all night but a democracy
75:42
and can we agree that we it’s a myth
75:45
probably in the United States it
75:47
probably more closer we live in a
75:48
corporate fascist state the way you win
75:52
elections also it seems to me is whether
75:54
it’s Republican or Democrat you want the
75:56
fewest people to turn out right and in
75:59
the end result was that maybe there was
76:00
52 or 54 percent of people that voted
76:03
for president which means that the man
76:05
at one got probably 25% of the total
76:08
vote yeah no it’s it’s ridiculous
76:12
yeah I know I agree with the quite
76:14
otally agree the wait the way we elect
76:17
presidents in this country has nothing
76:18
to do with democracy it has nothing to
76:20
do with it’s you know it’s a very
76:23
strange process then and
76:28
in the degree to which people are not
76:31
concerned with the lack of turnout you
76:34
know and and aren’t horrified that that
76:38
that neither you know beats both of the
76:41
candidates you know by factor of two to
76:43
one other than Russia for a long time
76:46
and they used to use to be able to vote
76:47
for none of the above in elections and
76:50
in a couple of races that it actually
76:52
won and and you know that it’s this is
76:58
really the crazy thing is the Trump what
77:02
what Trump did last year was almost more
77:05
democratic than the other system which
77:06
is just we’re going to give two sort of
77:08
preordained sort of corporate-funded
77:10
parties the ability to choose between
77:14
you know to spend a billion dollars
77:16
apiece on on a couple of marketing
77:19
campaigns and people will get to choose
77:20
between one of those two things you know
77:22
that’s not terribly democratic either
77:24
and and yeah I worry about it sure hi my
77:30
question is that you said that Trump
77:32
brought out the polarization that’s been
77:35
happening do we have time to unify or is
77:40
it too far for that and Trump being
77:44
someone that I don’t I didn’t vote for
77:46
but if he were baby impeached behind him
77:49
is pence and then behind him is Ryan so
77:52
and I’m hard pressed to find a
77:54
politician that I can really believe in
77:56
regardless right right I mean it’s a
77:59
great question the one thing I would
78:03
worry about with the whole idea of
78:05
unifying is that these the campaigns in
78:07
general have just become so become so
78:10
aggressive that the idea of you know
78:15
Democrats and Republicans ever coming
78:18
together again on any you know or people
78:20
or the whole country feeling good about
78:22
anyone who could be President I just
78:24
don’t I don’t see that happening going
78:26
forward I think you’re going to have one
78:27
half of the country that’s just furious
78:28
and you know that the template of you
78:32
know started with Obama you know the
78:34
people were hysterical on the other side
78:36
and now and now we have this with Trump
78:38
and um you know
78:40
both both sides are in this militaristic
78:43
mode and hate each other hating each
78:45
other mode and I don’t know I don’t
78:46
think that’s good either
78:47
first I’ve just been asked to announce
78:49
that there’s there’s a couple people in
78:50
line but that’s the last couple
78:51
questions and then my question is that
78:53
as a big believer that government and
78:57
policy should be deeply engaging to the
78:58
broader public is there any opportunity
79:00
to pivot here when we have sort of what
79:02
seems like unprecedented public
79:04
attention to is there a way to keep that
79:06
without continuing to appeal to the
79:08
basest interest it’s a great question um
79:11
I
79:14
I thought the Sanders movement was
79:16
really amazing in a lot of ways because
79:19
Sanders also you know he was again kind
79:23
of opposite to all the things I was
79:24
talking about he he’s exactly what
79:28
reporters mean when they talk about
79:29
someone being unelectable right
79:31
he doesn’t look good on TV he’s got a
79:35
funny speaking style he’s a socialist
79:38
right and yet there was an outpouring of
79:43
support for him and when you when he
79:45
gave speeches he what did he talk about
79:47
he talked about inequality and you know
79:50
all these actual problems it was a you
79:52
know it was amazing to see America
79:55
actually tuned into this for a while um
79:58
and I thought that that was proof that
80:02
you know there there is the ability of
80:04
politicians to engage people on
80:05
something other than stupidity in this
80:08
country but you know you right now you
80:13
know it’s it’s hard to say I hope people
80:16
get the lessons from the Sanders thing
80:19
and say that you know being just sort of
80:23
an honest politician who makes an effort
80:26
to try to reach out to people that that
80:28
can be successful to you know is there
80:30
an opportunity for the media in
80:31
particular there to entertain more of
80:36
those discussions well if you look at
80:37
what happened with Bernie Sanders you’ll
80:38
see that even though you he and Trump
80:41
were very equivalent stories actually in
80:44
a lot of ways they were they were both
80:46
rebels within their own party who were
80:48
taking on the
80:49
or at their own party structure but
80:51
Trump got 23 times the amount of
80:53
television coverage of Bernie Sanders
80:55
you had phenomena like you know an empty
80:58
mic stand whoop you know cable even
81:01
MSNBC publishing you know showing people
81:06
waiting for Trump to speak whereas when
81:08
Sanders spoke he would they wouldn’t
81:10
keep the cameras on it for very long and
81:12
I think you know he was still considered
81:18
taboo in a lot of ways and I don’t think
81:20
they’re really past that yet so you know
81:23
I mm-hmm yeah yeah yeah exactly yeah
81:28
Trump’s I met you had some negative any
81:34
deservedly negative comments about the
81:37
mainstream media I’m most concerned
81:38
about the control of information what
81:41
people can get now I’m retired I’m kind
81:44
of in the position that you were in when
81:45
you were writing and you had weeks and
81:46
weeks and weeks to do I’m I can spend
81:48
hours right looking for things and I
81:51
know how to sift through things I’m a
81:53
scientist to begin with but I’m most
81:55
concerned huh what kind of science
81:57
environmental science excellent
82:05
so I’ve come across things on the
82:08
internet that like for instance not not
82:11
that I agree with everything he says
82:12
Lord Monckton
82:13
is a tremendous speaker it’s got
82:16
completely contrary information to what
82:19
everybody gets on the mainstream media
82:21
about climate change hmm and you don’t
82:24
get any debate about that you don’t see
82:26
any of that how do you what’s your
82:27
advice on the people on how to sift
82:30
through what’s on the Internet and to
82:33
find the good stuff so it’s really
82:35
really hard these days because because
82:39
the standards really aren’t good
82:41
anywhere anymore again as the business
82:45
because because we’ve had this huge
82:48
decline in profitability and then in the
82:49
news media for years fact-checking you
82:53
know have
82:54
it used to be in order to get anything
82:56
into print you had to go through this
82:58
whole very long process now that’s
83:00
completely gone for daily Daily News
83:03
writing for magazine writing it’s mostly
83:06
all gone you know it still exists in a
83:08
few places our magazine still has a
83:10
little bit of it but nowadays when
83:13
you’re trying to decide whether
83:15
somebody’s reputable news source or not
83:16
you’re mostly relying on whether or not
83:19
that person has a track record of caring
83:23
about whether or not they’re factual you
83:26
know the institutions themselves don’t
83:27
really have time anymore to try to catch
83:31
everything and they don’t they don’t
83:32
worry about it anymore as much as they
83:34
used to so um you know I I don’t I don’t
83:37
know what to advise you except to say
83:39
that academic journals are tend to be
83:42
more respectable people who will link to
83:46
a primary source you know that that’s
83:49
always a good sign but even things like
83:52
can be you know it’s I was talking about
83:54
this with the reporter the other day in
83:55
the old days when when a member of
83:59
Congress would cite something a fact in
84:01
a prepared remark we always felt good
84:03
about using that as a fact in a story
84:06
nowadays even even members of Congress
84:09
have no problem using unsourced material
84:11
when they when they give speeches and
84:13
and so there’s this epidemic of kind of
84:16
unverified stuff flying around and it’s
84:19
just become really really hard so that I
84:22
think the main piece of advice is just
84:23
to read a lot on every subject and just
84:26
try to see what the most common story is
84:28
you know just one more thing on on the
84:31
published books are the publishers still
84:34
doing the fact-checking publishers do do
84:37
fact-checking but um it’s not it’s not
84:42
it depends on the project let’s put it
84:44
that way there’s there’s a legal vet for
84:48
pretty much every book but the kind of
84:51
line by line thing that used to be
84:53
standard in this business and it like
84:58
you know I used to write these six and
84:59
seven thousand word features for Rolling
85:00
Stone and literally every line you know
85:03
the sky was blue this day they would
85:05
check you know was it blue that day
85:07
that doesn’t happen anymore in books
85:09
they’re mostly concerned about what can
85:10
we be sued for and you know what are the
85:15
major factual issues in this book and
85:17
let’s just check those out but they
85:18
don’t you know the little things you
85:20
know really depends on the publisher and
85:23
you know you can’t you can’t depend on
85:25
somebody being everything being vetted
85:28
anymore I really appreciate your
85:37
analysis of the corporate media and also
85:40
how it’s not actually just about Trump
85:43
about their these systemic problems of
85:45
anti-immigration
85:46
anti-immigrant and nationalism and so
85:50
I’m wondering is there a practical way
85:52
to look at is our profitability to
85:58
talking about immigrants and say Middle
86:00
Easterners who have had traditionally in
86:03
the media kind of like a one-dimensional
86:05
perspective is there a way to reap or
86:08
tray them in part because it can help
86:10
maybe go against that tie that has been
86:13
actually set by the media historically
86:15
that and is there a way to do that in a
86:19
profitable way to entice the corporate
86:22
corporate entities to be interested in
86:24
that um it’s a great question
86:27
unfortunately I would say that you know
86:30
clearly the model is hate sells and you
86:35
know discernment doesn’t and if you look
86:38
back at our recent history advertisers
86:42
are terrified of being seen as for
86:46
instance you know back in 2003 2004
86:50
the cable networks made enormous
86:51
enormous sums of money promoting the
86:54
Iraq war and there was literally zero
86:58
incentive for those companies to put a
87:01
halt to the you know Islamophobia to any
87:04
any of that that’s that’s never going to
87:07
be a moneymaker for the network’s you
87:09
know being being discerning you know I
87:12
would even say right now there’s a thing
87:15
about being anti Russian that that
87:18
you know you’re not going to find
87:20
anybody who is going to be willing to
87:24
kind of stand up and say hey you know
87:25
I’m pro-russian like that that’s that
87:27
there’s not going to be an incentive for
87:28
that I think some of the networks have
87:31
tried to do a better job of that in
87:34
their news coverage but that you know in
87:36
terms of a financial incentive you just
87:37
won’t find it unfortunately so a few
87:43
final words please support us this is
87:46
this place is dedicated independent
87:48
media and it is really fulfilling to us
87:51
to see all of you in this room and we
87:53
have sanctuary resist t-shirts everyone
87:56
needs one and we just really want to
87:58
thank Matt because you’re really a hero
88:00
in the movement right now and it’s so
88:02
important that you’re here
88:12
thank you soon