0:10

Welcome to Mixed Signals from Semaphore

0:12

Media, where we're tracking the wild

0:14

changes in this new media age.

0:16

I'm Max Tani, media editor here

0:18

at Semaphore, and with me as

0:20

always is our editor-in-chief, Ben Smith.

0:22

How you doing Ben? I'm good,

0:25

I'm down in DC today, so

0:27

you know, couldn't be better. Well

0:29

this week, I'm here in New

0:31

York, and we're chatting with Jason

0:33

Y. Why Lee, who's the founder

0:35

and CEO of Jubilee Media. Jubilee

0:37

operates a just massive YouTube channel,

0:39

which has become the producer of

0:41

several hit debate in dating shows,

0:44

primarily on YouTube. And we're going

0:46

to ask him about mastering the

0:48

debate show format, whether he believes

0:51

Jubilee is actually bringing together a

0:53

divided America, and his attempts to

0:55

get the company a presidential debate

0:58

in 2028. Yeah, I'm excited about

1:00

this because in a very homogenous

1:02

media universe, they're doing something really

1:04

different. Well, we'll ask him what

1:07

he's doing different and get into

1:09

all of that after the break. There's

1:11

new content waiting for you on Think

1:13

with Google that you won't want to

1:15

miss. Think is the destination for

1:18

marketers to access things like first

1:20

of its kind research on AI

1:22

adoption with the Boston Consulting Group.

1:25

Insights on four key consumer behaviors.

1:27

Streaming, scrolling, searching, and shopping. And

1:29

deep dives on emerging technology and

1:32

strategies that drive real growth. Get

1:34

all of that and more by

1:36

heading to think with

1:38

google.com. So Ben, about a

1:41

month ago, I came to you

1:43

and I asked you if you'd

1:45

seen what to me was this

1:48

kind of mind-boggling video, which was

1:50

the political commentator Sam Sater debating,

1:52

surrounded by these 20 Gen Z.

1:54

conservatives. What's the problem with xenophobic

1:56

nationalism? Do you think that's better

1:58

for Americans in general? Like xenophobic

2:01

nationalism is better. We should have

2:03

a coherent culture. Everyone should be

2:05

a part of the same culture.

2:07

Which do you get to choose

2:09

what the culture is? We already

2:11

have a dominant culture. I mean

2:14

look I gotta be honest with

2:16

you like I you and I

2:18

have a fundamental disagreement we will

2:20

never see eye to eye on

2:22

this. Hi I'm Sam Cedar, host

2:24

of the majority report and today

2:27

I am surrounded by 20 conservatives.

2:29

This was a new format for me,

2:32

but I realized after watching the video

2:34

that I'd seen some clips of some

2:36

similar shows which turned out to all

2:38

have been made by the same company,

2:40

which is Jubilee, which is a totally

2:42

massive YouTube channel. They've got 10 million

2:45

subscribers and they've really built that off

2:47

the back of Some just insane viral

2:49

videos with crazy headlines and premises, you

2:51

know, we've got doctor Mike versus 20

2:53

anti-vaxers We've got one conservative versus 25

2:56

LGBT Q plus activists. We've got one

2:58

atheist versus 25 Christians on the show

3:00

middle ground. They've got leftists versus liberals

3:02

versus conservative versus magga We've got 60

3:04

Republicans versus Democrats versus Democrats are pretty

3:06

wild, but while it was unfamiliar to

3:09

me as someone who is increasingly washed

3:11

30-something who's kind of getting up there,

3:13

you actually had been more familiar with

3:15

these guys. Who are Jubilee? How did

3:17

you get to know them? And why

3:20

are we interested in them? Yeah, before

3:22

they were doing these interviews with Sader,

3:24

with Charlie Kirk, Pete Buttigieg, in this

3:26

wild format. I submit them first when

3:28

I was at Buzzfeed. And they were,

3:30

I submit them first when I was

3:33

at Buzzfeed, and they were sort of

3:35

felt vaguely similar, but that we're about

3:37

Israelis trying out Palestinian ideas and vice

3:39

versa of taking the hottest. button, socio-cultural

3:41

cultural issues, and political issues, and putting

3:44

them into goofy YouTube formats. And it

3:46

really struck me. And I got to

3:48

spend a little time with the founder,

3:50

Jason Lee, who had this kind of

3:52

interesting story, like a very classic, ambitious,

3:55

young, meritocratic resume, was an intern for

3:57

the Obama campaign, went to Wharton, became

3:59

a consultant at Bain, and then when

4:01

he was at Bain, did a kind

4:03

of a goofy stunt, make a video

4:05

to raise money for Haiti. and kind

4:08

of got the bug of like can

4:10

I do good works on the internet

4:12

with YouTube and get a lot of

4:14

attention. It feels like honestly very like

4:16

2010 impulse, but has built something that

4:19

I think is really totally unique and

4:21

has flown mostly under the radar of

4:23

like people over 25, but is remarkable.

4:25

Until now, right? It seems like they

4:27

with just within the last six months

4:29

as people started to pay attention to

4:32

the election, they turned out to be

4:34

one of the big kind of breakout

4:36

stars at least in terms of going

4:38

from something that your kids were maybe

4:40

familiar with and maybe some of their

4:43

friends to something that has reached the

4:45

realm of mainstream adults who weren't previously

4:47

getting their information from YouTube. And they've

4:49

had a tremendous amount of success. They're

4:51

booking bigger and bigger guests. They've got

4:53

a profile in the Atlantic. They're now

4:56

represented by UTA as of just a

4:58

few months ago. The Talent Agency, which

5:00

is going to try to kind of

5:02

blow them up. But one of the

5:04

reasons why I think Both of us

5:07

find them interesting. It is the idea,

5:09

the central idea that they've come up

5:11

with, the central thesis. They believe that

5:13

by reinventing political, ideological, kind of debate-style

5:15

formats, that they can actually improve understanding

5:17

and lead towards kind of better political

5:20

outcomes in a healthier political discourse in

5:22

this country, which maybe a little bit

5:24

strange when you're watching anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists

5:26

debate with a doctor, but that's That's

5:28

their premise and that's the thing that

5:31

they say that they are trying to

5:33

reach and obviously they've had at least

5:35

success in... in attracting eyeballs. Yeah, I

5:37

mean, I'm excited to talk to Jason

5:39

about, you know, whether what they're doing

5:41

is, is a solution to polarization or

5:44

if it's just another way to get

5:46

eyeballs off polarization? I think that's the

5:48

big question. So let's, let's bring him

5:50

on. Thanks so much for doing this.

5:52

It's nice to see you again. Absolutely.

5:55

Thanks for having you guys. And I

5:57

was actually thinking back to when we

5:59

first talked years ago, because I first

6:01

spotted Jubilee, you know, you know, you

6:03

know, you know, you know, you know,

6:05

when I was a buzz feed, Huh,

6:08

like here's something that's taking a lot

6:10

of what Buzzfeed is playing with, but

6:12

moving it into this kind of political,

6:14

social, cultural space. And actually when I

6:16

first thought, I thought, oh, this is

6:19

a Christian Buzzfeed. That's so funny you

6:21

say that. First off, I should say

6:23

that, Ben, you were one of the

6:25

first folks kind of from traditional or

6:27

what I would call legacy media to

6:30

reach out, so I would say you

6:32

were pretty oppression. Maybe that's obviously your

6:34

skill set your skill set. Flattery will

6:36

get you. But yes, I am Christian,

6:38

but yeah, Jubilee Media is not a

6:40

Christian entity, but it's funny because I

6:43

initially started something called Jubilee Project, which

6:45

was a nonprofit 501c3, which did have

6:47

some Christian kind of background and motivation.

6:49

So I think you can probably sense

6:51

some of that just from myself. But

6:54

there's something about the vibe of it.

6:56

Like what was I actually seeing? Tell

6:58

me what you were, like, what were

7:00

you trying to do? I think that

7:02

beneath all of it, there's this kind

7:04

of belief that... we want to create

7:07

content that will make the world a

7:09

better place. And as naive as that

7:11

may sound, I think in the midst

7:13

of what we feel like is some

7:15

of the most divisive times, that actually

7:18

human connection and really understanding folks and

7:20

having dialogue and empathy is quite a

7:22

good thing. And I think that's not

7:24

necessarily just a Christian value, it's just

7:26

like a human value that you're probably

7:28

sensing through all of our content. Now

7:31

as you believe we call it, our

7:33

acronym for it is puke, it's provoke

7:35

understanding, create human connection. It's just an

7:37

easy way for us to think about

7:39

it, but we say all the time

7:42

we have to puke every day. Jason,

7:44

I'm kind of curious, it does seem

7:46

like the election may be supercharged, you

7:48

know, your audience or brought a lot

7:50

of attention to it, but was there

7:52

a moment where you realized that this

7:55

was really starting to take off? Because

7:57

you guys have been doing it for

7:59

a while, obviously. Yeah, it's funny because

8:01

I started Jubilee Media in 2017, and

8:03

I think if you were to ask

8:06

most Gen Z or teenagers, even five

8:08

or six years ago, they'd be very,

8:10

very familiar with Jubilee. What was a

8:12

big early hit? Just assume that our

8:14

audience might not have heard of them

8:16

all. For example, we did a middle

8:19

ground between flat earthers and what I

8:21

would call round earthers, for example. That

8:23

was a... Is that what we call

8:25

them now? That was a big one,

8:27

for example. We did another one that

8:30

was one woman swiping 30 men in

8:32

real life. Right. And I think now

8:34

it's funny because now five or six

8:36

years later, I think you see a

8:38

lot of content like this on YouTube,

8:40

but a lot of it's originating from

8:43

like original formats that we created as

8:45

Jubilee. So. It's interesting because now I

8:47

think in the after the election in

8:49

the fall we've kind of make kind

8:51

of maybe broken into a little bit

8:54

more of like political and mainstream media

8:56

in a way that Has been cool

8:58

to see and to see a lot

9:00

of folks of different ages in different

9:02

kind of life stages really start to

9:04

be exposed to Jubilee You also ran

9:07

head-head first into a lot of the

9:09

like really ultra-polarizing topics that people in

9:11

like kind of the entertainment business widely

9:13

like nobody is like let's have Palestinians

9:15

and Israelis debate each other and what

9:18

what like I mean I want to

9:20

get to the flatter thing in a

9:22

minute but really how I'm curious where

9:24

that impulse came from and was there

9:26

one of those that you did where

9:29

you felt like oh wow this can

9:31

work? Yeah I think that there's like

9:33

we've come to a place where what

9:35

we've come to a place where we

9:37

were noticing in media was that You

9:39

know, if you're wearing a blue shirt

9:42

and I'm wearing a red shirt, like

9:44

we just will not engage. And that

9:46

I'm only gonna find folks with the

9:48

same color. Sure does myself and vice

9:50

versa, right? Like that's not a new

9:53

idea, but it's something that we just

9:55

have seen more and more over. time.

9:57

And what we also believe with young

9:59

people is that that's not necessarily what

10:01

they wanted nor was it good for

10:03

us just like as people. That actually

10:06

sometimes disagreement and interacting with folks who

10:08

have a different point of view is

10:10

actually quite good for us. And not

10:12

only that, but we can actually agree

10:14

to disagree or that we may actually

10:17

find middle ground or we may actually

10:19

find empathy in each other. Well we

10:21

have also seen is like when you

10:23

are face to face or up close

10:25

with someone who you might deem as

10:27

the other side or as the enemy

10:30

or as someone that you may never

10:32

agree with that some really special things

10:34

can happen actually in that space. When

10:36

you say that like it sounds so

10:38

great and like you know how warms

10:41

my heart but like do you think

10:43

that like there's a chance the earth

10:45

might be flat? You know just personally

10:47

right you do not. I do not.

10:49

No. I personally do not. But so

10:51

like, and I think that's to some

10:54

degree, like the critique of you guys,

10:56

which you've seen, is like, and that's

10:58

like the most extreme version. Like, are

11:00

you kidding me? You're putting a flat

11:02

Earther out there? Like, as though this

11:05

is a reasonable point of view? That's

11:07

almost a caricature of the thing. Yeah,

11:09

and I think that the flat Earther

11:11

one is the one that we had

11:13

to discuss quite a bit about, like,

11:15

like, even a conversation or discussion. But

11:18

one of the principles we talk about

11:20

a lot of Jubilee is what is

11:22

this idea of what we call radical

11:24

empathy. Somehow in 2025 it's empathetic, but

11:26

it's very radically empathetic to even listen

11:29

to someone with a different point of

11:31

view. But could we actually exercise the

11:33

muscle? And again, I don't think anyone

11:35

really is watching that flat earth or

11:37

video and coming out and saying I'm

11:39

a flat earthler now. In fact, we've

11:42

seen the opposite happen. But it is

11:44

like a really interesting thought exercise for

11:46

us of like. Can

11:48

you empathize with an individual who

11:50

actually does believe that the world is

11:53

flat? And when you actually hear some

11:55

of these stories, like some of these

11:57

stories are really interesting, really compelling,

11:59

really heartbreaking. None of them made me

12:02

believe that the earth is flat,

12:04

but I start. to understand why someone,

12:06

why some of these folks had this

12:08

kind of position. Okay, wait, why? Help.

12:11

I need help empathizing. You have

12:13

to watch some of these videos, but

12:15

for example, there's a woman who

12:17

was really incredible. She actually was a

12:19

widow. She lost her husband. and when

12:22

her husband was on his death that

12:24

he was actually going through this

12:26

kind of like a lot of soul

12:28

searching he was going to a

12:30

lot of like looking into videos and

12:33

became like a flat earther and I

12:35

think one of the ways for her

12:37

to best connect with him in

12:39

that time was actually to like watch

12:42

these videos with him and share

12:44

this kind of time and once he

12:46

had passed I think that she feels

12:48

like this is like part of her

12:51

way to connect with him. Right,

12:53

again, does that make me believe that

12:55

the earth is flat? Absolutely not.

12:57

But do I understand or have some

12:59

sort of empathy towards like that experience?

13:02

I'm like, yeah, I do. And ultimately,

13:04

I think the question came back

13:06

to, oh, is if all the content

13:08

or if all the positions that

13:10

we share on Jubilee were just to

13:13

mirror what Jason believed, would this actually

13:15

be beneficial to anyone in society? Or

13:17

would we just be doing the

13:19

same thing as everyone else? You guys

13:22

jumped into sort of really like

13:24

American electoral politics last fall with with

13:26

Charlie Kirk with Pete Buddha judge. Was

13:28

there anything about that that felt different

13:31

from the sort of social stuff

13:33

you'd been doing or surprising or all

13:35

these conflicts kind of the same?

13:37

You know with that we were really

13:39

interested in exploring what we would call

13:42

like this premise of the mighty versus

13:44

the many. And I think it's

13:46

very very normal for us to see

13:48

individuals who have kind of a

13:50

platform and have these talking points and

13:53

never really be a hold to account.

13:55

With anything but a vote for her

13:57

works out to being a vote

13:59

for her him right now. Yeah, because

14:02

this is a swing state, it

14:04

could come down to like a couple

14:06

votes for precinct and one of those

14:08

might be you. Everyone take a moment,

14:11

cast your vote. I wasn't going

14:13

to vote at all actually, but after

14:15

hear him, I'm pretty confident my

14:17

decision now. Before I was undecided, at

14:19

the conclusion of this event, I did

14:22

mark down, uh, I'm Pete Bodesidge and

14:24

today I'm surrounded by 25 undecided

14:26

voters. I don't know

14:28

if there was any new revelations. I

14:31

think what we saw was that there

14:33

are a lot of different examples of

14:35

discourse, some that I thought were really

14:37

great, some that I thought were not

14:39

productive, frankly, and I think that juxtaposition

14:41

of that is really, really interesting. Any

14:43

particular examples of either one? I won't

14:46

call it any specifics necessarily, but um...

14:48

I think what is interesting and really

14:50

revealing is almost at the end of

14:52

every episode of Surranda that we filmed,

14:54

what you would always find is that

14:56

if the hero had time to stick

14:58

around, they would stick around and there

15:01

would be like another hour of conversation.

15:03

Often people would like go grab a

15:05

meal, go to the bar. So there's

15:07

this kind of like interesting sentiment of

15:09

like, oh, actually this conversation is enriching

15:11

despite the fact that it is very

15:13

uncomfortable at time and difficult to have.

15:15

I can see over the course of

15:18

an hour or some of these go

15:20

like 90 minutes or something like that,

15:22

that they are relatively civil, but I

15:24

guess when you see some of the

15:26

clips of these that are really, really

15:28

short and kind of taken out of

15:30

context, you see the reactions to those

15:33

clips, which are people saying that these

15:35

people are idiots and, you know, they

15:37

are misinformed about one thing or the

15:39

other thing or watch this dude own

15:41

Charlie Kirk type of thing. And that

15:43

seems to me at least to have

15:45

kind of the opposite impact of, you

15:48

know, when you watch these full long

15:50

conversations. I'm curious, does that frustrate you

15:52

and what have you guys done to

15:54

try to try to make it? so

15:56

that the way that people consume most

15:58

of this content isn't through like the

16:00

owns. that are kind of these 30-second

16:03

clips or whatnot. You know Max that's

16:05

a great point and it's so fascinating

16:07

because what we've even seen is that

16:09

people will take the exact same clip

16:11

and two different sides will claim it

16:13

with different editorial text that says this

16:15

person's owning this person or look how

16:18

terrible this individual is and frankly I

16:20

think you all know like this is

16:22

just part of what it means to

16:24

be the man in the arena. We

16:26

live in a digital kind of internet

16:28

space and once you've put content out

16:30

there people will. clip it and we'll

16:33

kind of use it. You know, use

16:35

it with their voice in mind. I

16:37

think that's just like the reverse flowing

16:39

one way is very very difficult to

16:41

change the current. But the way I

16:43

think about it is, you know, really

16:45

I hope it's an invitation for people

16:48

to watch the actual content. As you've

16:50

kind of called that, like most of

16:52

this content is an hour and a

16:54

half, often up to two hours long,

16:56

and it's great because when people are

16:58

watching it, on average over 30 minutes.

17:00

And I'm really, really engaging. Yeah. And

17:03

for YouTube, you know, this is incredible.

17:05

Like there's this kind of myth that

17:07

young people, like short attention spans, like,

17:09

can't, like, sit, listen. And it's just

17:11

simply not true from what we're seeing.

17:13

So yeah, I hope it's an invitation,

17:15

but certainly it happens. So you guys

17:18

have talked about how you want to

17:20

host a presidential debate in the next

17:22

cycle. Part of my job has been,

17:24

after the election, has been talking to,

17:26

you know, a lot of people in

17:28

the Democratic side, you know, who are

17:31

trying to kind of find their way

17:33

in the wilderness, the digital wilderness, having

17:35

been kind of overshadowed by Republicans online

17:37

in the last cycle. So it seems

17:39

to me like talking to a lot

17:42

of those folks. I think you guys

17:44

probably have a pretty good shot, at

17:46

least maybe a Democratic primary debate. But

17:48

have you already started thinking about, There

17:50

has, yeah, you'd be surprised and I

17:52

think that people realize where the puck

17:55

is going and want to, want to

17:57

skate there. for their own benefit or

17:59

for their own political interests, but also

18:01

because there's such a recognition of what

18:03

a powerful role that digital played in

18:05

this past election. It's something I've spoken

18:08

to Neil about at YouTube and something

18:10

that we're really, really eager to do.

18:12

And the reason is because when you

18:14

watch the viewership or even like the

18:16

roles that the previous presidential debates played

18:19

in 2024, like frankly, like Gen Z

18:21

and young people were not watching and

18:23

participating. And really. digesting that content. And

18:25

the reason I would say that is

18:27

because it felt very rote. It felt

18:29

like there was nothing new necessarily being

18:32

presented. Sure, both sides are going to

18:34

get a chance to talk, but really

18:36

it felt like this is like a

18:38

script that's very, very carefully rehearsed. No

18:40

new information. We're going to go back

18:43

and forth. And even there's a bias

18:45

from whoever the producer is on how

18:47

they're going to moderate it, etc. etc.

18:49

etc. etc. And when we think about

18:51

what would like a great Jubilee or

18:53

digital first. debate look like, I think

18:56

there's a necessity that has to be

18:58

authentic. There's a necessity that we don't

19:00

actually know what individuals are going to

19:02

say, and that does offer a lot

19:04

of trepidation for a lot of political

19:07

figures, right? I think 2024 was really

19:09

interesting because, you know, we actually were

19:11

having conversations with both political parties about

19:13

having, whether it's their candidates or other

19:15

folks, representatives on our platform. And one

19:17

critique that we actually have heard a

19:20

lot about Jubilee is why are you

19:22

featuring so many Republican pundits or so

19:24

many big Republican voices, but that is

19:26

not as many Democratic voices. And it's

19:28

something that frustrates me because I agree.

19:30

And the reason was that when we

19:33

were going out into these spaces, we

19:35

found such an appetite from the right

19:37

to say absolutely, no questions asked, I'll

19:39

be there, when you want me to

19:41

be there, I'll travel to you, etc.

19:44

and then when we were speaking with

19:46

folks on the left there was a

19:48

huge hesitation and this is a generalization

19:50

but by and large there was a

19:52

hmm I don't know if we want

19:54

to do that can you give us

19:57

all the questions in advance can we

19:59

carefully edit it and it was such

20:01

a different initial kind of paradigm by

20:03

which we were talking with them. But

20:05

I think since the election we've seen

20:08

and we're starting to see a lot

20:10

of differences which I really welcome and

20:12

we're hoping that both sides will participate.

20:14

Any Democrats in particular you feel like

20:16

kind of get it? You know I

20:18

thought Pete did an outstanding job. Pete

20:21

was so lovely to work with his

20:23

team was so lovely to work with

20:25

and I think You know, unfortunately there

20:27

was a lot that was left on

20:29

the cutting room floor, and I think

20:32

part of that was not because of

20:34

his team, but because he was still

20:36

part of the administration at the time.

20:38

Wait, do you mean that he got

20:40

to, like part of the deal was

20:42

he could edit things out? No, that

20:45

we had to like, just from a

20:47

legal reason that we had to kind

20:49

of check out with his team, with

20:51

folks in the administration, actually. Do you

20:53

do that with all of them? No,

20:55

that's not the case for all of

20:58

them. Yeah. And actually in the future,

21:00

I don't think that we would do

21:02

that. We just found it to be

21:04

really... Just so hard to get these

21:06

people on, right? That's crazy. It was

21:09

very, very difficult. Yeah, but I think

21:11

the most ironic thing is the things

21:13

that folks are most interested in cutting,

21:15

typically, are the things that often would

21:17

do the best for them. Like what?

21:19

I mean these guys are out of

21:22

power you can tell us now. It's

21:24

actually all and also all those correspondence

21:26

with them are public documents. Sure. This

21:28

is what I say, what I'll say

21:30

is I think that Pete is really

21:33

really skilled and adept at encountering difficult

21:35

questions and facing adversity and responding with

21:37

empathy and kindness in a very very

21:39

jubilee way. But those very encounters that

21:41

often the folks hire up that would

21:43

say, oh we really can't. feature this

21:46

question or we can't feature this kind

21:48

of back and forth and I think

21:50

that's such a I think it's like

21:52

a lesson maybe for the next election

21:54

whereas we did not face very much

21:57

of that at all on the other

21:59

side. Yeah I have one follow-up to

22:01

something that you said earlier. You know,

22:03

you said that if it's going to

22:05

be in the digital realm that, you

22:07

know, any debate or, you know, major

22:10

political event that you guys might do,

22:12

has to be authentic, can you expand

22:14

on that a little bit? What do

22:16

you mean by that? Yeah, absolutely. I

22:18

think that viewers can really perceive when

22:21

something is real and raw and authentic

22:23

or not. And when we allow for

22:25

space opportunity to be surprised, by humans,

22:27

by what someone might say, by an

22:29

interaction, I think that that's really, really

22:31

special. I don't think that a lot

22:34

of legacy media creates environments like that,

22:36

or spaces like that, where people are,

22:38

one, willing to participate, or that they

22:40

actually see a glimpse of that. But

22:42

it's ironic, particularly in the political space,

22:44

because I think those are the very

22:47

moments that actually voters and young people

22:49

gravitate towards and want to see. Right.

22:51

This was like a common critique of

22:53

Hillary Clinton, for example. Brilliant, very very

22:55

smart, post-election, all these like really, really

22:58

humanizing moments with her. But why is

23:00

it during the election and during these

23:02

debates that we really didn't get a

23:04

sense for who she was? And you

23:06

can say that about a lot of

23:08

different politicians and individuals on both sides,

23:11

but I think it's a disservice to

23:13

us and our country, frankly, of like

23:15

us not being able to see real

23:17

authentic experiences with like these leaders. And

23:19

that's something that we really, really want

23:22

to welcome and we think we think

23:24

we'll do. will just help the country.

23:26

I'm curious where you draw the lines.

23:28

I think, you know, I wonder, you

23:30

know, are there big guess you've said

23:32

no to? There are obviously like big

23:35

Gen Z internet figures, like Andrew Tate

23:37

springs to mind, who I'm sure, you

23:39

know, you can have empathy for anybody

23:41

and I'm sure you could have him

23:43

on, have conversations about having empathy for

23:46

him, I suppose. Are there things beyond

23:48

the pale? Are there people you say

23:50

no to? Absolutely, yeah. We have what

23:52

we would call, like a harm clause.

23:54

Or if they're maybe the best metaphor

23:56

is we've got a table that's set

23:59

for everyone. Everyone has to see the

24:01

table. But if you're gonna be at

24:03

the table and you start to throw

24:05

forks at other individuals or you're gonna

24:07

flip over the... then you're no longer

24:09

welcome, right? So by harm clause, I

24:12

mean, if you're advocating for deliberate harm

24:14

towards other individuals, or there's like risk

24:16

of actual physical harm in person, like

24:18

that's something that just we won't kind

24:20

of entertain or even kind of discuss.

24:23

That's like the most Genzhi thing you've

24:25

said yet, but also kind of an

24:27

easy out, right? Like you had Israelis

24:29

in Palestinians, and I think probably each

24:31

believes that many of the policies that

24:33

they advocate would be incredibly dangerous, right.

24:36

That's in a way, like, I don't

24:38

know, I feel like that kind of,

24:40

that's a very hazy way to talk

24:42

about it. I mean, I just wonder

24:44

if you could be more specific. Are

24:47

there, do you have very anti-trans voices

24:49

on? Do you have very, you know,

24:51

we have had folks who are anti-trans,

24:53

something we talk about or think about

24:55

a lot is this idea of like,

24:57

what is safety really mean, and I

25:00

think There's this myth that ideas, debates,

25:02

discussions that make us uncomfortable or sometimes

25:04

challenge us are unsafe, right? And I'm

25:06

careful to say that because I know

25:08

that individuals can feel that way. And

25:11

we think it's really important and we

25:13

talk to everyone who's going to be

25:15

part of our videos that they understand

25:17

what we're going to do, right? And

25:19

that they know kind of eyes wide

25:21

open. But I think what we're trying

25:24

to welcome is this idea that actually

25:26

disagreement and discomfort can and should be

25:28

good for us. And actually, it's kind

25:30

of seen in the data, right? We're

25:32

actually seeing, I think Jonathan Hite writes

25:34

a lot about this, right? This idea

25:37

of an anxious generation. Now you're talking

25:39

like a boomer. All right, here we

25:41

go, Jonathan Hite. Yeah, linking a lot

25:43

of the current anxiety, depression, mental health

25:45

issues from young people from perhaps. a

25:48

fragility or like an overshot string. Yeah,

25:50

totally. And what about Andrew Tate, who

25:52

I brought up? Would you have him

25:54

on? I don't know. think we would

25:56

at this time and I think the

25:58

reason is because there still needs to

26:01

be what I would discuss like as

26:03

whereas like the productive land forward that

26:05

we're gonna move towards and I'm not

26:07

sure that we could find that. That

26:09

makes total sense. Well we're sort of

26:12

I think we're fascinated with you guys

26:14

as a cultural phenomenon and also as

26:16

a media business and when we come

26:18

back from the break we want to

26:20

talk a bit about that. This

26:33

week on our branded segment from Think

26:36

with Google, I spoke with Google's VP

26:38

of marketing, Josh Spanier, about how marketers

26:40

can work with creators. So one of

26:43

the trends that makes journalists genuinely uncomfortable

26:45

is this shift to a view of

26:47

the media world which is dominated by

26:50

influencers, and in which successful journalists basically

26:52

are themselves influencers, should think of ourselves

26:54

as influencers, makes us all a little

26:57

uncomfortable. Is it a good pitch? Well,

26:59

let's be careful here Ben. Are you

27:01

a creator or are you an influencer?

27:03

Oh God, I'm not sure I know

27:06

the difference. As a marketer I really

27:08

like creators. So the strength of YouTube

27:10

has been these incredible creators who follow

27:13

a topic and create content about that

27:15

topic, whether it's Gotham Chess, or Mark

27:17

Roper, around science experiments, but people engage

27:20

with those creators because of the content

27:22

they're producing. The contrast is with influencers

27:24

who... At its worst, travel the world

27:27

with a selfie stick, making themselves the

27:29

center of attention, but it's kind of

27:31

a hollow, vacuous, and empty relationship. As

27:34

a marketer, I want creators on my

27:36

side, and then you are absolutely a

27:38

creator. You're producing content that people value,

27:40

including this podcast. All right, I think

27:43

that term makes me like marginally less

27:45

uncomfortable, so I'll take it. So how

27:47

do you guys work with creators? I've

27:50

got four quick tips in terms of

27:52

working with creators. And I was a

27:54

marketer. The first is simply, you've got

27:57

a understand who the crater is, what

27:59

their passions are, what their topic is,

28:01

and why the audience engages with them.

28:04

You have to be true to that

28:06

crater's topic and community. Second, when you

28:08

actually do a deal with the creator,

28:10

you have to let the creator be

28:13

the creator. There is nothing more awkward

28:15

embarrassing than a brand trying to force

28:17

feed a creator to say things in

28:20

the tone and style of the brand

28:22

versus the actual tone and style of

28:24

the creator. So let the creator be

28:27

the creator. It's nice if you can

28:29

do a longer-term deal, both for the

28:31

creators but also just for authenticity. Having

28:34

a creator show up, make a bit

28:36

of money at one time and disappear,

28:38

is not a great transaction. It feels

28:41

icky, do a longer-term deal. And finally,

28:43

from a marketer's perspective, even though influencers

28:45

and creators are exciting to work with,

28:47

you still need KPIs, key performance indicators.

28:50

You still need measurement. You still need

28:52

to be able to prove that this

28:54

work is actually driving your business outcomes.

28:57

So those four things will help you

28:59

work with creators. Where do people find

29:01

out more about this? Head on over

29:04

to Think With google.com where you can

29:06

read a recent article called Three Reasons

29:08

YouTube Creators are the New Hollywood, but

29:11

Think With google.com. When

29:25

I think about what you got, like

29:27

the kind of innovations that you've had,

29:29

sort of how you've broken through, in

29:31

some sense what you guys did is

29:34

innovate with format. And we're in a

29:36

world where if you look at television,

29:38

it's like a screen with two boxes,

29:40

an idiot in each box, yelling at

29:43

each other, or having very, occasionally having

29:45

very thoughtful long-form conversations, but it's just

29:47

really often couple of people in boxes

29:49

talking to each other, as we are

29:51

doing right now. And there's actually very

29:54

little format innovation happening right now. And

29:56

I'm curious, I don't know how you

29:58

think about format. Totally Yeah, it was

30:00

something that I thought about quite a

30:03

bit when I was launching Jubilee Media

30:05

in 2017 because by and large, a

30:07

lot of folks, when you think about

30:09

creators or YouTubeers or even brands, so

30:12

much of it has a face, right?

30:14

This is gonna be, whatever, the Megan

30:16

Kelly show, or this is gonna be

30:18

the Pearson Cooper 360. And when you

30:21

look at the Jubilee platform, like no

30:23

one knows who I am. there's really

30:25

rarely one individual who is the face

30:27

and the voice of it. So at

30:29

the onset it actually makes starring a

30:32

media company way more difficult as you

30:34

probably know, right? I mean, Busfield was

30:36

all about formats but then got kind

30:38

of swallowed by stars in a way.

30:41

By stars and faces exactly. And the

30:43

reason why I wanted to build a

30:45

company this way was because I knew

30:47

that one if it was all independent

30:50

on me like there's a lot of

30:52

key man risk and there's a lot

30:54

of pressure and there's like very, the

30:56

point of view, even the empathy platform

30:59

that we want to have, because then

31:01

people would be much more interested in

31:03

what I believed versus what Jubilee stood

31:05

for, right? So that was like very,

31:08

very intentional, but yeah, I think actually

31:10

creating formats is quite a difficult endeavor,

31:12

because what we're trying to do is

31:14

out of thin air, and you know,

31:16

some of these are kind of iterations

31:19

of other things we've made, or like,

31:21

you know, no idea is original, but

31:23

out of thin air, how do you

31:25

create a show or format, that theoretically,

31:28

really the business that we're in and

31:30

every show you know has its own

31:32

kind of runway but we've got middle

31:34

ground we've got versus one we've got

31:37

spectrum we've got surrounded and these are

31:39

all things that we've kind of like

31:41

originally developed edgibly. Are all of them

31:43

about in some sense representing the internet

31:46

and physical space? You're onto like a

31:48

really important insight that we discuss a

31:50

lot is this idea of visual mechanic.

31:52

If you watch any of our shows

31:55

unlike a podcast or unlike maybe just

31:57

an interview, there should be a visual

31:59

mechanism that necessitates you to watch the

32:01

show. There's folks coming forward or backwards.

32:03

There's lines that people are... dispersing towards.

32:06

There's people in the circle, so much

32:08

so that if I were to listen

32:10

to it on mute or watch it

32:12

on mute, I understand. I don't know

32:15

exactly what's being said, but I understand

32:17

this premise, right? There's seven people in

32:19

the box and slowly people are being

32:21

eliminated. So this is like one of

32:24

like dozens of different ingredients that we

32:26

try to teach and often don't share,

32:28

but we're sharing with y'all, part of

32:30

how we create a format. Wait, but

32:33

that's crazy. So where did that, when

32:35

did you kind of come across that?

32:37

I mean, I haven't worked in television,

32:39

I imagine, some of this conceptually is,

32:42

you know, obviously comes from that, but

32:44

I'm curious, like, when did you start

32:46

to work on kind of like integrating

32:48

literal shapes that might help people understand

32:50

the kind of broader concepts into the

32:53

formatting? pockets and the ways that you

32:55

have to move in that space. And

32:57

it's really difficult for someone else who's

32:59

never been there, who hasn't been in

33:02

the water to understand it. But if

33:04

you spend enough time with us in

33:06

the water at Jubilee, you start to

33:08

like notice the things that we know.

33:11

Are you a surfer? Yeah, I'm a

33:13

casual surfer. I'm really, I'm really, I'm

33:15

really not good. So I shouldn't be

33:17

using these surfing. So how's business? Business

33:20

is... Great. What are your revenue be

33:22

this year? Yeah, we don't share specifics,

33:24

but we can share, like, we'll do

33:26

solid eight figure. It's interesting because I

33:29

think the content that we make, we

33:31

make a lot of different type of

33:33

content, right? We do, like, what we

33:35

would call more, like, entertaining, hide the

33:37

broccoli, and then we do some more,

33:40

like, overt, difficult conversation shows. Very very

33:42

different appetites from different brand partners. It's

33:44

quite difficult for us to get actually

33:46

strong brand partners for some of the

33:49

more political stuff because they say, hey,

33:51

we're really afraid of this. And we're

33:53

like, don't worry, the water is safe,

33:55

we know how to navigate it, but

33:58

still, there's a hesitation. But meanwhile, that

34:00

is what attracts a lot of audiences,

34:02

a lot of our investors are really

34:04

interested in this space, a lot of

34:07

people who want to, because this is

34:09

where we are like the forefront of

34:11

culture and dictating the way that people

34:13

think about things, the way that people

34:15

even like consume or even discuss. these

34:18

things with other people. So we think

34:20

it's really important. Right. I mean, honestly,

34:22

that lesson that you just said, like,

34:24

the New York Times is also increasingly

34:27

making its money from games, cooking, not

34:29

from hard news. I mean, the advertisers

34:31

being afraid of hard news is a,

34:33

it's a really difficult problem in something

34:36

that everybody in our business, you know,

34:38

obsess about all the time. But the

34:40

better business, though, then, is its brand

34:42

partnerships. It's not just YouTube advertising. Brand

34:45

partnerships is a huge part of our

34:47

business in addition to the platform like

34:49

that sense. But I've always been a

34:51

long believer that like media is great

34:54

and we can grow like a really

34:56

really great media business. But what gets

34:58

venture scale is what's down funnel from

35:00

that right? And that's not a new

35:02

or original idea. That was too many

35:05

words. What gets venture scale is what's

35:07

down funnel help? What do you mean?

35:09

Yeah. So for example. Similar in New

35:11

York Times, right? You've got the puzzles,

35:14

the games. My wife plays literally every

35:16

day. But for example, we're building technology,

35:18

now we're building a mobile app. And

35:20

I can make it pretty easier clear,

35:23

which is, we make content every week

35:25

for the dating space, we're getting tens

35:27

of millions, hundreds of millions of views,

35:29

a month in the dating space, so

35:32

we know that these people are like,

35:34

love dating, they're very, very captive. What

35:36

is down funnel from them? We're building

35:38

that experiential and also a dating app

35:41

where now they can participate. What is

35:43

it? I mean, it's funny because dating

35:45

apps, if you're sure, I don't know

35:47

if there's a chapter of Jonathan Hite's

35:49

book about dating apps, but when you

35:52

talk to people about the sort of

35:54

soulless digital life, dating apps are kind

35:56

of front of mind, how do you

35:58

jubilize that? Great question. When we talk

36:01

about the MBS score. for dating apps,

36:03

it's the worst of any industry in

36:05

the economy, meaning that people are the

36:07

most disgruntled with dating apps. And yet

36:10

it's still a billions of dollars, right?

36:12

And the reason is because the majority

36:14

of the dating apps are owned by

36:16

one entity and they're making good business

36:19

and there's no reason that change the

36:21

formula that makes money but doesn't necessarily

36:23

optimize for love or matching. There's also

36:25

a problem which is like there's a

36:28

huge cold start problem, right? No one

36:30

wants to go to a club that's

36:32

empty. No one wants to go to

36:34

a dating app and be the only

36:36

one there. So that sucks. And one

36:39

of the advantages that we have is

36:41

that we have millions of people who

36:43

are in the space already. And the

36:45

way that we want to tackle dating

36:48

differently is we've actually built, essentially it's

36:50

a self-assessment. It's like a Myers brig

36:52

or an aneogram, but we work with

36:54

a social scientist, So you'll take a

36:57

whole dating assessment, you get one of

36:59

16 different archetypes, and we can actually

37:01

use the data to then inform you,

37:03

hey Ben, we've got a great match

37:06

for you based on compatibility, all these

37:08

other things. So a little more introspective,

37:10

I call it like, you need the

37:12

self-gym on the first floor that you

37:15

kind of think about what kind of

37:17

partner you want before you go to

37:19

the second floor and you're going to

37:21

be sparring. So I think that's really,

37:23

really, really important in. you know the

37:26

political or the kind of ideological space

37:28

because it seems to me like you

37:30

know your audience obviously of you know

37:32

you have a pretty big audience when

37:35

it comes to you know producing the

37:37

kind of the dating content but you

37:39

have probably I would imagine a bigger

37:41

audience of people who are interested in

37:44

the political discussions and the debates about

37:46

big issues. What does the dating app

37:48

analog look like on that side? And

37:50

again, like our North Star is puke,

37:53

right? We want to provoke understand and

37:55

create human connection. So if we can

37:57

do that in every arena, that's where

37:59

we're aiming. But Max, imagine now, instead

38:02

of us thinking about political space, and

38:04

it's like we have. two different color

38:06

shirts and we can choose one or

38:08

the other. The truth is that if

38:10

we're both wearing blue shirts on a

38:13

thousand different issues we're not going to

38:15

agree, right? But like there's not that

38:17

many tools or ability for us to

38:19

really self-reflect on the political space or

38:22

a political compass. So now imagine one

38:24

day if we now only had a

38:26

dating app, but you had a jubilee

38:28

kind of universal profile where you can

38:31

actually do a political self-assessment. You can

38:33

say, hey, actually, Ben, I thought you

38:35

and I were both red shirters. What's

38:37

going on here on this topic? Oh,

38:40

interesting. I'm way more similar to Max

38:42

here. A lot more difficult of a

38:44

proposition, obviously, because people initially are very,

38:46

very averse to even getting into political

38:48

space, but that's why we started with

38:51

love. But I think across all the

38:53

content we do. Again, that's what I

38:55

say at top of the funnel. It's

38:57

really viewership. kind of think about what

39:00

would they say in that scenario? How

39:02

do I think, oh wait, what would

39:04

my friends say? And a good example

39:06

of that is a phenomenon that we've

39:09

been noticing since the start of Jubilee

39:11

is we have had hundreds of Jubilee

39:13

clubs sprout out in high schools and

39:15

colleges around the country. And we get

39:18

emails every week and people say, hey,

39:20

can we start a Jubilee Club and

39:22

we say, sure. What does that mean?

39:24

And they say, well, we meet every

39:27

Friday and we'll watch. one of your

39:29

videos and then we'll do the debate

39:31

ourselves and then we're going to split

39:33

up into whatever, you know, Vax, anti-Vax,

39:35

where we're going to split up into

39:38

tariffs, anti-tariff, and we're going to do

39:40

the conversation. We're like, that's exactly the

39:42

premise that we want to like instill

39:44

into folks of how do you exercise

39:47

empathy in your own life? So we're

39:49

really proud of that because I think

39:51

that is very lovely, but also does

39:53

sort of raise the question I'm sure

39:56

for your investors of like, okay, like,

39:58

you know, where's the licensing revenue? from

40:00

the Jubilee Club in Topeka, right? You

40:02

know, what I tell my investors is

40:05

we're going to change the world, but

40:07

if we're successful in changing the world,

40:09

it's not going to make the world

40:11

a better place, but you're going to

40:14

make a lot of money. Don't worry.

40:16

I interviewed Ted Sarandos, the CEO of

40:18

Netflix, a couple weeks ago, and asked

40:20

him about YouTube. And his, you know,

40:22

slightly sneering response was, oh, YouTube's great.

40:25

It's a great farm league for people

40:27

who could learn how to make content

40:29

so that they can then actually monetize

40:31

it on Netflix. And obviously, the folks

40:34

at YouTube hotly dispute that and note

40:36

how much advertising money they pay out.

40:38

But I am curious what you think

40:40

of that. Do you think of that?

40:43

Do you want to start doing a

40:45

bunch of premium premium production premium production

40:47

or what's? More and more being reached

40:49

out to by legacy media or by

40:52

streamers or by these Hollywood producers who

40:54

are saying whoa What is happening here?

40:56

How do we get a piece of

40:58

this and what I truly believe is

41:01

that we've seen the Golden Age of

41:03

movies We've seen the Golden Age of

41:05

television and we actually still have yet

41:07

to see the Golden Age of digital

41:09

or YouTube I think that the best

41:12

creators I think that the most Interesting,

41:14

raw storytellers are all on digital, not

41:16

just on YouTube, but on digital, and

41:18

that if Netflix is not careful that

41:21

YouTube will come and eat their lunch,

41:23

right? We know that so many more

41:25

people are watching YouTube on television for

41:27

us, then even on mobile. So I'm

41:30

sure Neil has a lot of opinions.

41:32

So people are watching you on the

41:34

big screen. Exactly. Exactly. And they're watching

41:36

for a long time, right? And Jubilee

41:39

is agnostic to platform, to be honest.

41:41

Like, the great thing about Jubilee is

41:43

that we've made content and it'll do

41:45

well on TikTok, it'll do well on

41:48

Snapchat, it'll do well on any platform,

41:50

and we've got ideas for what we

41:52

want to do for a Netflix, for

41:54

example. But I think those lines are

41:56

becoming very, very hazy, actually. That's a

41:59

huge theme of this year, I think,

42:01

the blurring of all of that. And

42:03

also, if you're a creatora, was that

42:05

I have an idea and I can

42:08

make something for you know not that

42:10

much money but see out in the

42:12

world in three weeks and get three

42:14

million views or I can spend 18

42:17

months making content with a larger budget

42:19

but still much much of a lot

42:21

of it doesn't go into my pocket

42:23

it may go out onto the platform

42:26

but no one necessarily watches it what

42:28

would you rather choose like if we're

42:30

actually in the space of like affecting

42:32

culture where can you do that most

42:34

and I'm not saying one Is clearly

42:37

the answer? Sorry Ted. No interest in

42:39

the overall deal. Yeah, hey Ted, we'd

42:41

love to talk to you because we've

42:43

had ideas for how you can also

42:46

skate faster to the puck, frankly. Well,

42:48

and is that, I mean, you guys

42:50

recently announced that you're partnering with UTA,

42:52

the talent agency. Is that part of

42:55

why you paired up with UTA is

42:57

to kind of take advantage of those

42:59

opportunities and that kind of incoming? What's

43:01

the goal of that partnership? Or is

43:04

it to bring UTA talent? into Jubilee

43:06

programming videos. What's the goal of that

43:08

partnership? I think all of the above,

43:10

actually. What we've been really lucky about

43:13

is, you know, you can kind of

43:15

tell what the agency is thinking based

43:17

on who they bring into the room.

43:19

And when we were having our meetings

43:21

with UTA and other agencies, so many

43:24

different individuals were in the room. you've

43:26

got the individual from film and TV,

43:28

you've got the individual from podcast, you've

43:30

got the individual from technology and from

43:33

merchandise, and really the way that we

43:35

should be thinking about the business is

43:37

in this very, very diversified 360 way.

43:39

So all of the above, meanwhile there's

43:42

certainly a risk of like boiling the

43:44

ocean and trying to do too much.

43:46

So, you know, we're obviously living in

43:48

this just really unbelievably divided moment, this

43:51

very kind of dark politics and also

43:53

the sort of news ecosystem right now

43:55

is just absolutely full of garbage like

43:57

yesterday I think something like two and

44:00

a half trillion dollars worth of stock

44:02

traded off like a fake tweet you

44:04

are you've always I mean I think

44:06

ever since I've first met you you

44:08

see like a very optimistic guy. Do

44:11

you think that like have we hit

44:13

the bottom here? I do think that

44:15

we're seeing a swing back and depending

44:17

on where you're sitting that angle looks

44:20

different right and swing back from what

44:22

but I do think that Several things

44:24

are happening. One is I think that

44:26

we're becoming much more aware of the

44:29

effect of social media on society, not

44:31

just for young people, but for all

44:33

of us. And how do we, like,

44:35

stay in the space in the right

44:38

way and participate in the right way?

44:40

I think we're also starting to understand

44:42

and recognize that, hey, maybe the echo

44:44

chambers or the ways that we've thought

44:47

about content are not always beneficial to

44:49

us. And we've been surprised by some

44:51

of the implications of that, the outcome

44:53

of the election. Also, who are the

44:55

other individuals who have so much influence

44:58

that I've never even heard about, right?

45:00

And I'm also seeing that every platform

45:02

is converging, right? So there's all these

45:04

kind of macro trends that I think

45:07

that we're seeing, and I think ultimately...

45:09

What I do believe is that young

45:11

people in particular is that there is

45:13

a willingness and an appetite to lean

45:16

into what I would call radical empathy

45:18

and that's one of the reasons why

45:20

Jubilee has been successful and whether you

45:22

know Jubilee's name or not you've seen

45:25

our content and there's a reason why

45:27

it does resonate with you. Hopefully not

45:29

just in that kind of short form

45:31

clipped moment Max but also in the

45:34

long form moment. But yeah I'm a

45:36

true believer that we can provoke understanding

45:38

create human connection and that Jubilee will

45:40

be at the forefront of that. Well,

45:42

I always feel better after talking to

45:45

you, Jason, so thank you for joining

45:47

us. Together we can, yeah. Thank you.

45:49

Thank you so much, Jason. you turn

45:51

to the experts. Think with Google brings

45:54

you insights from top CMOs, practical guides

45:56

on emerging tech, and strategies that drive

45:58

real growth. It's like having a marketing

46:00

guru in your pocket. think with google.com

46:03

to become a forward-thinking marketer. Your next

46:05

game-changing idea is just a

46:07

click away. So I'm so glad we

46:09

got to do that because I've always thought

46:11

like this is a really interesting guy

46:14

doing something very unusual and interesting

46:16

and more people ought to be

46:18

thinking about what he's doing. But

46:20

did you buy? I mean I

46:22

think the core question that I

46:25

always wonder about Jubilee is this

46:27

question of are they as they say...

46:29

helping to solve polarization or are they

46:31

feeding it? I mean, what did you

46:33

leave thinking? I left thinking that I

46:36

understand the argument that they're

46:38

making, that basically these are conversations

46:40

that people are having and they're

46:42

big and they're influencing our politics

46:44

and we're not. improving dialogue by

46:46

keeping these out of the public

46:49

eye, the safety question that he

46:51

was kind of referencing or alluding

46:53

to, we're actually not necessarily making

46:55

people more safe, you know, by

46:57

not having kind of these conversations.

46:59

And so, look, I mean, some

47:02

of the people who they have

47:04

on these, on, you know, their

47:06

videos are really quite dim in

47:08

my view. They're not informed,

47:11

they're crazy, they would not

47:13

be allowed on CNN or

47:15

even Fox News. You know,

47:18

they have wild, completely uninformed

47:20

ideas. But I. Do you think that

47:22

they represent points of view that

47:24

are out there and they have their

47:26

attempt, did you believe videos attempt to

47:29

actually really engage with them? You see

47:31

this in the video that they had

47:33

recently of the doctor taking on the

47:35

20 vaccine skeptics. Hello? How are you

47:37

doing fantastic? Excited to talk about health?

47:40

I just had a baby, seven months old.

47:42

And you know, my baby, I was like,

47:44

no, I'm not getting any vaccines. The doctors

47:46

came in. They made me feel like a

47:49

very bad mother for not doing that. Right?

47:51

I was very pressured. Well, first of all,

47:53

congratulations on the birth of a seven-month-old. The

47:55

fact that anyone made you feel bad in

47:57

the health care system, I feel like... a

48:00

failure on us in the health care

48:02

system, so I'm sorry that happened to

48:04

you. And, you know, the doctor kind

48:06

of stays very, very calm throughout the

48:08

entire video and kind of calmly starts

48:10

to take apart the arguments. So, you

48:12

know, I can kind of see it.

48:15

There is a tone of calmness in

48:17

these argumentative shows that. is slightly different

48:19

than I'm going to yell at you

48:21

cable news. I don't know, what do

48:23

you think Ben, do you buy it

48:25

or no? You seem skeptical. No, I

48:28

actually, you know, I do buy it.

48:30

I think there's something that's sort of

48:32

modeling a kind of civil conversation where

48:34

Twitter models, you know, sort of moronic

48:36

insult fest. And I think that's nice.

48:38

I mean, you do lack obviously radical

48:40

empathy for dim people. I don't lack

48:43

empathy for them. I just think that

48:45

they're just, you know, I don't know

48:47

if I want to watch a lot

48:49

of YouTube videos, hours of them, you

48:51

know. But yeah, but there's something, you

48:53

know, honestly, I guess in some sense

48:55

for me the test is like, when

48:58

you watch one of those videos, do

49:00

you feel better or worse? And I

49:02

actually think you feel better. The fundamental

49:04

vibe, and I think you get it

49:06

from Jason from Jason personally, you don't

49:08

totally see a lot of it. I

49:10

do think it's the sort of way

49:13

in which you hear someone who's like,

49:15

he may be a millennial, but he's

49:17

like so, Gen Z and his sort

49:19

of value set in the way he's

49:21

talking, like wrestling with these questions around

49:23

free speech, but not sneering at these

49:26

ideas of safety and harm, which maybe

49:28

to like, you know, us Gen X

49:30

type sound pretty ridiculous, but trying to

49:32

sort of frame them in a way

49:34

that is much closer to a free

49:36

speech perspective, was really interesting. Yeah, absolutely.

49:38

He's a great salesperson for it because

49:41

he is calm, he's heard the criticisms,

49:43

he's very used to them. One final

49:45

thing before we go, I mean, how

49:47

crazy that Pete's, A, that they gave

49:49

the White's, I mean, I guess that's

49:51

the entertainment business and they can do

49:53

what they want, but that they gave

49:56

the White House the right to censor

49:58

parts of the video, and then of

50:00

course the White House took out the

50:02

best parts or whoever was, you know,

50:04

in charge of Pete's. making like what

50:06

a really I do think that insight

50:08

into the to what ails the Democratic

50:11

Party not totally new but just so

50:13

painful absolutely I will say well there's

50:15

one one thing that I think may

50:17

have played into that although I don't

50:19

know it Obviously, the top line is,

50:21

and he obviously learns the lesson, it's

50:24

the reason why so many other news

50:26

organizations don't allow big public figures or

50:28

CEOs to kind of have any sort

50:30

of editorial control, which is it's a

50:32

very slippery slope, and you lose a

50:34

lot of the really good stuff that

50:36

you want. But I wonder how much

50:39

of that was like this idea of,

50:41

you know, Pete was supposed to be

50:43

there in his personal capacity as a,

50:45

if that was what they used. Democrats

50:47

love rules. Yes, that is true that

50:49

the Republicans seem to have a few

50:51

less, they feel a little bit more

50:54

comfortable with maybe violations of the Hatch

50:56

Act, which I believe that is. He's

50:58

Exeth will be more relaxed with this

51:00

stuff when they get him on Jubilee.

51:02

Well, this was this, I'm glad I

51:04

got to introduce you to the, to

51:06

Jason, that was fun, Max. Oh yeah,

51:09

it was great. I need to go

51:11

surfing with him. Oh God. Well... That

51:13

is it for us this week. Thank

51:15

you for listening to Mix Signals from

51:17

Semaphore Media. Our show is produced by

51:19

Shina Uzaki, with special thanks to Max

51:22

Tumi, Ridda Galanis, Chad Lewis, Rachel Oppenheim,

51:24

Anna Pizzino, Garrett Wiley, Julesern, and Tori

51:26

Kaur. Our engineer is Rick Kwan, and

51:28

our theme music is by Billy Libby.

51:30

Our public editor this week is the

51:32

former members of the Biden White House,

51:34

who did not... sensor or cut or

51:37

have any editorial control over this interview.

51:39

Only the current White House Press shop

51:41

has is oversight over our podcast. And

51:43

so we really are grateful to Stephen

51:45

Chung and Carolyn Levitt for letting this

51:47

stuff get through. Anyway, if you like

51:49

Mix Signals, please follow us wherever you

51:52

get your podcast and feel free to

51:54

review us. And if you want more,

51:56

you can always sign up for semaphore's

51:58

media newsletter out every Sunday night. Okay.

52:03

You