0:00

As As a business owner, you

0:02

wear a lot of hats. One

0:04

minute you're ordering today's inventory, and

0:06

the next you're planning tomorrow's expansion.

0:08

It's complicated. But your business credit

0:10

card should be simple. With the

0:13

Signify Business Cash Card by Wells

0:15

Fargo, you earn unlimited 2% cash

0:17

rewards on purchases for your business,

0:19

with no caps or categories to

0:22

track. Signify Business Cash, the deliberately

0:24

simple business credit card. Learn more

0:26

at Wells fargo.com/Signify, terms apply. At

0:31

At Sutter, healing hearts never

0:34

stops. Our specialists provide life-changing

0:36

cardiac care for every heartbeat,

0:39

every step of the way,

0:41

and are dedicated to helping

0:43

hearts love longer and beat

0:46

stronger. Whether it's transplants, arrhythmias,

0:48

or blood pressure management, pioneering

0:50

heart care isn't just our

0:53

purpose, it's our promise. A

0:55

whole team on your team.

0:57

Sutter Health. Learn more at

1:00

Sutter health.org/ heart. Hello

1:08

from Los Angeles, I'm Chuck Todd, and

1:10

this is the Chuck Todd cast. Donald

1:12

Trump's return to the White House has

1:14

also brought a return of his signature

1:16

strategy, simply flooding the zone. As media

1:18

outlets scramble to keep up with the

1:20

president's break that pace of executive action, and

1:23

his expansive view of presidential power,

1:26

the press is facing familiar challenges in real

1:28

time. So to help guide the media through

1:30

this moment, my guest today is Marty

1:32

Barron, he's the former executive editor for The

1:34

Washington Post. He was there for Trump

1:36

1 .0, he's the author of

1:38

Collision of Power, Trump, Bezos,

1:41

and The Washington Post. So I

1:43

can't think of a better person

1:45

to discuss sort of the future of

1:47

press coverage, the future of the media

1:49

and the future of journalism than

1:51

with my friend Marty Barron. And there's

1:53

a reason I am closing with

1:55

that. I have my own news to

1:58

announce today on the podcast. Today

2:00

is my last day. Today, Friday,

2:02

January 31st is my last day

2:05

at NBC. And

2:07

it is, look,

2:11

I've been here a long time. Let me

2:13

just give you a sense of it. I started

2:15

as political director in 2007. It was a

2:17

month before my son was born. He'll

2:20

be graduating high school in a few months. So

2:22

what it means is I've been here a

2:24

while. So look, I

2:26

am leaving a bit earlier than I had

2:28

been. Frankly, we had all originally planned,

2:30

but there's a reason for it. I'm pretty

2:32

excited by a few new projects that

2:34

are on the cusp of going from pie

2:36

in the sky to near reality. In

2:39

fact, most of them are in related to

2:41

the conversation that I'll be having with

2:43

Marty Baron here in this podcast about the

2:45

future of news, future of local in

2:47

particular. So frankly, I'm grateful for the chance

2:49

to get a jumpstart on what I

2:51

want to do and what I think is

2:53

this very important moment for you podcast listeners

2:55

out there and you Chuck Todd

2:57

cast fans. I hope there are many

2:59

of you. The good news is

3:01

the podcast is coming with me and

3:04

it's not going away. Thank you NBC for

3:06

that. I am going

3:08

to go on a little hiatus, you

3:10

know, hopefully not that long, maybe a few

3:12

weeks, maybe a month at most. As

3:14

I am in the middle of finding a

3:16

new home for the Todd cast. I'm

3:18

pretty excited about the various places I'm

3:20

looking at. And there's a ton of great

3:23

neighborhoods out there. And I'm sure the

3:25

one we pick is going to be a

3:27

good one. So I do plan to continue

3:29

to share my reporting and my perspective and

3:31

and to cover politics the way I've been

3:33

covering it with data. History,

3:35

using that as important baselines and understanding

3:38

where we were, where we are

3:40

and where we're going. By the way,

3:42

go to the Chuck Todd cast.com.

3:44

You can sign up right now. So

3:47

that way you will get

3:49

an immediate email alert when

3:51

I have news to share

3:53

when we when we move

3:55

the Chuck Todd cast to

3:57

a new network. But look.

4:01

I have reason I'm ready

4:03

to move is that I think

4:05

the media has a lot of work

4:07

to do to win back the trust and

4:09

I think frankly it's national media isn't

4:11

the place that's going to be able to

4:13

do it and this is no indictment

4:15

of national media as the problem. I'm a

4:18

believer that national media is never always

4:20

really that trusted by people. You

4:22

know we're always, the farther away something is

4:24

the more skeptical we are of it. When it

4:26

comes to local media it's always been the

4:28

case people trust local media more than they trust

4:30

national media and part of it is simple

4:32

I've always said you know why they trust local

4:34

media they get the fact check it every

4:36

day. Local media tells them where there's traffic

4:38

and tells them about the weather and if

4:40

local media is wrong about that they're like

4:42

what the heck you know you told me

4:44

I needed an umbrella I didn't rain today

4:46

it was sunny all day vice versa right

4:48

so at the end of the day you

4:50

feel like you can fact check local media

4:52

immediately it feels a little more relevant feels

4:55

like you know who these folks are and

4:57

frankly I think it's it's the gutting of

4:59

local media has gotten rid of what I

5:01

believe are the net or the folks you

5:03

know they gave national media our credibility and

5:05

national media is

5:07

not going to fix its credibility

5:09

on its own you're not going to

5:11

fix credibility by gaming an algorithm

5:13

with a headline just because you get

5:15

to increase traffic I mean some

5:17

of the tactics that I'm seeing right

5:19

now in the national space is

5:21

I understand it from a business perspective

5:23

but it is a terrible idea

5:25

from a journalistic perspective so look as

5:27

I said when I announced my

5:29

exit for me the press I do leave

5:31

feeling a bit concerned about the moment in history

5:33

that we're living in but I'm

5:35

pretty confident that we all sort of

5:37

understand the challenge ahead of us including

5:40

my colleagues at NBC mean those we've

5:42

all set a standard here we've worked

5:44

hard to set it and I know

5:46

everybody that that is still here is

5:48

working just as hard to keep that

5:50

so look it's a bottom

5:52

line here is we

5:55

can't be we we

5:58

can't stick our heads in the sand and we can't be

6:00

propagandists. You know, we got to continue to

6:02

call them like we see them. We got to

6:04

continue covering politics as it is, not as

6:06

we wish it were. Being

6:09

a real political journalist isn't about building

6:11

a brand. It's about simply reporting

6:13

what's happening, explaining why it's happening,

6:16

letting the public absorb the facts without

6:18

judging them if they come to

6:20

a different conclusion. If you

6:22

do the job just seeking popularity

6:24

or simply to be an activist,

6:26

which too many a national media

6:28

are doing these days, you're not

6:30

doing this job correctly. So look,

6:32

I don't leave here with anything but still

6:34

in awe of all my colleagues here

6:36

at NBC. The beauty of working at

6:38

NBC is you can't do this as

6:40

a soloist. Television

6:42

is the ultimate collaborative, ultimate team sport

6:44

and journalism. It's unlike working frankly

6:46

at print or digital where you can

6:48

be a soloist every now and

6:50

then. You can be a soloist on

6:53

TikTok. You could be a soloist

6:55

on Substack. You can't do that in

6:57

television and it's a good thing.

6:59

When you're collaborative, you get

7:01

more perspective involved in the

7:03

making of every news story.

7:05

So look, I'm tempted to

7:07

start thanking everybody that I've been

7:09

with over the years but

7:12

then I'll leave somebody out and

7:14

that'll feel wrong. At

7:16

the end of the day, I got

7:18

to work at the former home of David

7:20

Brinkley, Tom Brokaw and Tim Russer. To

7:24

be honest, I still can't believe that

7:26

I got to follow in those

7:28

amazing footsteps. That alone is the honor

7:30

of a lifetime. No matter where

7:32

I go in the next 10 years,

7:34

15 years, 20 years, that's

7:37

something that's always there. Will always

7:39

be in my Wikipedia anyway.

7:41

Don't be shy about staying in

7:43

touch. Like

7:45

I said, go to thechucktodcast.com.

7:48

Send me email at thechucktodcast

7:50

at gmail.com and I will

7:52

let you know where

7:54

I'll be planting my flag

7:56

publicly very soon. And

8:00

I also will be working on

8:02

some projects behind the scenes that

8:04

I hope when they come to fruition,

8:06

you'll look back and go, hey, all

8:08

those podcast episodes about media, now I

8:10

know why you were talking so much

8:12

about it in 2024, it'll all start

8:14

to make sense. So with that, I'm

8:16

gonna sneak in a break, absorb

8:19

my news there a little bit, if

8:21

you hadn't found out already. And when

8:23

we come back after the break, my

8:25

conversation with Marty with Marty

8:27

Bear. As

8:32

a business As a business

8:35

owner, you wear a lot of

8:37

hats. One minute you're ordering today's

8:39

inventory, and the next you're planning

8:41

tomorrow's expansion. It's complicated. But

8:43

your business credit card should be

8:45

simple. With the Signify Business Cash

8:47

Card by Wells Fargo, you earn

8:50

unlimited 2% cash rewards on purchases

8:52

for your business, with no caps

8:54

or categories to track. Signify Business

8:56

Cash, the deliberately simple business credit

8:59

card. Learn more at Wells fargo.com/Signify,

9:01

terms apply. At

9:05

Sutter, Breakthrough Cancer Care never

9:07

stops. Our teams of doctors,

9:09

surgeons, and nurses are dedicated

9:12

to you from day one

9:14

of your diagnosis. Our 22 cancer

9:16

centers deliver nationally recognized care

9:19

every day and every step

9:21

of your way. And we're

9:23

located right in your community,

9:26

ready to fight by your

9:28

side. A whole team on

9:30

your team. Sutter Health. Learn

9:32

more at Sutter health.org/cancer. You

9:35

get those shoes. DSW has all

9:37

the shoes you need for whatever

9:39

you're into. You know, like running

9:41

shoes that give new meaning to

9:43

personal best. Or everyday sneakers that

9:46

make coffee runs look cool. Basically,

9:48

DSW has all the best styles

9:50

from the brands that always get

9:52

it right. Like Nike, Brooks, Timberland,

9:54

and more. Oh yeah, did we

9:56

mention they also happen to be

9:58

the perfect price? Find a shoe for

10:01

every you at your DSW store in dsw.com.

10:05

former editor of the

10:07

Washington Post in Boston Globe.

10:10

It's Marty Barron. Good to

10:12

talk with you. Great to

10:14

be with you, Chuck. So let's

10:17

start big picture here because

10:19

there's a lot of there's a

10:22

lot of debate already

10:24

among The chattering class that likes

10:26

to give us journalist advice of how

10:28

to do things, how to cover Trump,

10:30

how not to cover Trump and all

10:32

of this stuff. But let's be honest,

10:34

there's a decidedly different

10:36

tone and tenor of the coverage of

10:39

Trump 2.0 versus Trump 1.0. I look at

10:41

it, I think some things are being calibrated

10:43

correctly, and I think obviously

10:45

there are some things that I think

10:47

could be done better, but what is

10:50

your general observation so far? Well,

10:52

I think some of the coverage so

10:55

far is restrained in a bad

10:57

way and others in a good

10:59

way. I think we're not here

11:01

to, at least in the traditional

11:03

media, we're not here to sort

11:05

of just be spalling off our

11:07

opinions about this or that and

11:09

rushing to judgment about different things,

11:11

and I think that that's good.

11:13

On the other hand, I think

11:15

that some of the coverage has

11:18

been, is not willing to call

11:20

things as they actually are, as

11:22

the facts are verified. And

11:24

it's a holding back in

11:26

a certain timidity that troubles

11:29

me. It's painfully obvious that

11:31

there's some owners, whether

11:33

it's corporate shareholders, individual

11:36

owners at news

11:38

organizations, that are nervous

11:40

about how this reflects on

11:43

them. in their relationship with

11:45

Donald Trump. And in some

11:48

ways, some of the things

11:50

they've done are small. They

11:52

haven't been that invasive, and

11:54

yet the motivation

11:56

behind it is scary. Right?

11:58

The fact that... they're doing

12:01

that. But I'll be honest with

12:03

you, I vacillate on this because, you

12:05

know, you can't complain about

12:07

all billionaire owners. Some

12:09

billionaire owners are malevolent

12:11

and some billionaire owners are

12:14

hands off and benevolent. You

12:16

know, is there a good model here

12:18

for media ownership these days? Look, there's

12:20

no perfect model for media ownership back

12:22

when we were owned by publicly held

12:25

companies as many still are. There was

12:27

concern that we were just too short-term

12:29

oriented, that these owners were just trying

12:31

to drive up to stock price, increase

12:33

the dividends, that sort of thing. Then

12:35

you talk about these private equity and

12:38

hedge fund owners and they're just trying

12:40

to extract as much cash as they

12:42

possibly can as quickly as they can.

12:44

Then you talk about the really wealthy

12:46

owners and they do have their

12:48

commercial interest. There's no question about

12:50

that. uh... and so that raises

12:52

that raises questions and then people

12:54

point to non-profit but uh... look

12:56

non-profits where they look for money

12:58

they look for money from wealthy

13:00

people uh... they look for money

13:02

from the foundations that are basically

13:05

controlled by the so-called elites so

13:07

and they're constantly begging for funds

13:09

and uh... and so and they're

13:11

dependent as well and so there

13:13

is no perfect There's no perfect

13:15

model. And I do think, I

13:17

certainly take your point that I

13:19

think that a number of the

13:21

owners now, particularly the wealthy ones,

13:23

are both media companies and tech

13:26

platforms and all of that, are

13:28

demonstrating a certain level of fear,

13:30

a high level of fear, actually,

13:32

toward Donald Trump, a fear that

13:35

he will in fact act on

13:37

his most vengeful impulses, of which

13:39

he has plenty of those. And

13:41

that they will pay the price

13:44

for that. And I'm very concerned

13:46

about that. I'm concerned that that

13:48

means that we will not be

13:50

doing our jobs as we should. You

13:52

know, there's a lot of fear of

13:54

some things that Donald Trump could

13:57

do. And this is another thing I

13:59

vacillate on. Remember the movie Minority Report,

14:01

sort of the premise behind that movie, essentially

14:04

arresting people before they commit a crime. We

14:06

know you're going to in the future, so we might as well arrest

14:08

you now. And sometimes I

14:10

fear some coverage of Trump is like

14:13

that. He could end up

14:15

doing all of this, so we've got to stop

14:17

him now, versus

14:19

sometimes you got to actually let, is he going

14:21

to do it? And then he does it,

14:23

and then you... And I'll

14:25

be honest, that's another one

14:27

I struggle with. What's the, when

14:31

do you raise the alarm? Well,

14:33

I think we have to be,

14:35

certainly we have to be careful

14:37

about what we assume he's going

14:40

to do. But he's been quite

14:42

clear about what he intends to

14:44

do with regard to the press,

14:46

and so have the people he's

14:48

nominated for high positions in government.

14:50

And I think we can't pretend

14:52

that that doesn't exist. And I

14:54

think it's important to remember that

14:56

Trump said after his election, and

14:58

shortly before his inauguration, he said

15:00

promises made, promises kept. And I

15:02

think the promises that he has

15:05

made with regard to the press,

15:07

he intends to keep. I think

15:09

they are in fact salivating for

15:11

the opportunity to prosecute a journalist

15:13

on the grounds of the leads

15:15

of national security. The new chairman

15:18

of the Federal Communications Commission has

15:20

already threatened the withdrawal of licenses

15:22

for stations that are affiliated with

15:24

the major networks. Well, some of

15:26

the major networks, ABC, NBC, CBS,

15:28

no threat, no letter of threat

15:31

has gone out to Fox that

15:33

I know of, even though Fox

15:35

had to pay a $787

15:37

million settlement for lying about

15:39

a Dominion voting system having

15:41

participated in fraud during the

15:43

2020 election. That's the most

15:45

egregious behavior that I can

15:48

even think of of any

15:50

major network. And yet they've

15:52

received no threat. And I

15:54

think that they are, look,

15:56

I think they're using Fox

15:58

News essentially. is sort

16:00

of a propaganda arm, and

16:02

they're getting the bulk of

16:05

the interviews, of course, and

16:08

Fox is just basically a

16:10

cheering section for the administration.

16:13

I think we'll see a lot of

16:15

denial of access for information. I

16:18

think that'll come. Of course, we have

16:20

to wait to see what they actually

16:22

do, but what they've said is deeply

16:24

concerning. As

16:27

an editor, how

16:29

did you view public opinion

16:31

when it came to

16:33

covering the story? Meaning

16:36

what I mean is not sort

16:38

of it's sort of there's certain levels

16:40

where I think public opinion matters

16:42

and where it doesn't if you're an

16:44

editor, meaning public cares about an

16:46

issue. That should matter to an editor.

16:48

OK, we should focus a little

16:50

bit. The public really cares about this

16:52

issue versus if something is popular,

16:54

or if it is something the public

16:56

wants. But, Shira,

16:58

how did you sort of where did

17:00

you put public opinion in your

17:02

decision matrix on how to cover a

17:04

story? Not necessarily whether to cover

17:06

a story about how to do it.

17:09

Well, I

17:11

think we always have to have credibility

17:14

with the public, so it's important that

17:16

we give people the evidence that will

17:18

persuade them that what we've done is,

17:20

in fact, correct. I think we always

17:22

have to be persuasive in the way

17:24

that we communicate. I

17:26

think we always have to listen to the

17:28

public. They know a lot of people

17:30

in the public, in many instances, know more

17:32

than we do. And so it's very

17:34

important to hear what they have to say

17:36

and to be open to that and

17:38

to be open to the criticisms of our

17:41

coverage because they may be seeing things

17:43

through a different prism. And they may be

17:45

correct about that. On the other hand,

17:47

it's very important that we ourselves have a

17:49

moral compass. And so we're not that

17:51

we have experience. We know how to cover

17:53

stories. If

17:55

we're doing our jobs

17:57

correctly, we're unearthing the

18:00

facts. And it's very

18:02

important that we... tell people directly

18:04

what we've learned to be true, what has

18:06

been verified, what has been corroborated. And we

18:09

can't let the public's reaction, whether they like

18:11

it or they don't like it or they,

18:13

this news that they want to hear or

18:15

they don't hear, that's the sort of thing

18:17

that I don't think that can guide us.

18:20

That's where we need our own moral compass.

18:22

But certainly communicating and an effective and persuasive

18:24

way with the public, I think is very

18:26

important. Let's take the, I

18:28

want to take a case study of the

18:31

24 campaign, because you, in some ways, you

18:33

and I were more on the observational side

18:35

of things. We weren't, as our hands weren't

18:37

as dirty as it was for the previous

18:39

campaigns. And that is this idea. Did the

18:42

mainstream media alert the country

18:44

enough about Biden's age? And it was

18:46

a pet peeve of mine, because I'm like, well,

18:48

why does the public, all of the polling

18:50

shows the public thinks he's too old. How

18:52

does the public come to that conclusion

18:55

come to that conclusion? based on

18:57

the coverage that we have given, based

18:59

on the picture, the reflection that we

19:01

show the country. I've always pushed back

19:04

on this criticism that the press

19:06

didn't do enough to uncover Biden's

19:08

issues, and I'm like, you mean

19:10

reminding people that they were using

19:12

the short staircase? Look, there were

19:14

things we couldn't report because we

19:17

didn't have it confirmed internally. But

19:19

as journalists, we were observers, and we

19:21

made sure to point out. the

19:24

observations. Oh, he's doing

19:26

something different that we've not

19:28

seen presidents do before. Oh,

19:31

we've noticed they're doing this.

19:33

We've noticed they're doing

19:35

this. Cabinet secretaries

19:38

don't get one-on-one meetings. Like, I

19:40

look at it, and I see

19:42

there was coverage that indicated,

19:45

hey, there's something going

19:47

on here with Biden and his

19:49

inner circle. So... I've tipped the scale a

19:52

little bit here, sort of where I'm going

19:54

here, but this is one of those cases where

19:56

the press has gotten grief that it hasn't done

19:58

enough, and I actually think the... fact that

20:00

the public saw it the press was doing

20:03

its job but what say you well

20:05

you're trying to ask a leading question

20:07

I know I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm

20:09

gonna differ with you on this but

20:11

you will disagree that's what I love

20:14

about you is you're not you don't

20:16

care I'll call it as I see

20:18

it I don't think the press did

20:20

enough on that it's true that okay

20:23

the public was concerned about Biden's age

20:25

because he's old okay because they could

20:27

see what they saw him and and

20:29

and he wasn't he didn't appear to

20:32

be terribly vigorous he wasn't a good

20:34

communicator he fumbled things all the time

20:36

as he always did but it was

20:38

seemed worse than ever and he walked

20:40

as if he was very frail so

20:42

there was a lot that they saw

20:45

and yeah there were these fragmentary stories

20:47

here and there that indicated that there

20:49

were some issues but I don't think

20:51

the press did adequately was try to

20:53

put it all together in a way

20:56

that said how bad is it really

20:58

is it really people outside that circle

21:00

who could observe as well. You can

21:02

talk to people who were like foreign

21:04

leaders. You can talk to people who

21:06

were in meetings with him, who can

21:08

who can tell you, you know, how

21:10

he was behaving or, you know, whether

21:13

he was functioning at peak effectiveness.

21:15

And I think that that's

21:17

a real issue. I realize

21:19

that people who supported Biden.

21:21

felt like the press was

21:23

actually picking on him when

21:25

they wrote and broadcast about

21:28

his about his age. That

21:30

said, we do have an

21:32

obligation to tell people whether

21:34

the President of the United

21:36

States is functioning at the

21:38

level that he or someday maybe

21:40

she should mention. And that will

21:42

be true of Trump as well

21:44

as it should have been true

21:46

of Biden. And I think that All

21:49

of those fragmentary stories that you're referring

21:51

to should have been clues for us

21:53

to do for the press to do

21:56

a much bigger and more thorough and

21:58

a deeper look at where whether Biden

22:00

was functioning as he should. And all

22:02

of that, of course, came to a

22:04

head during that disastrous debate

22:06

performance, where he looked completely

22:08

out of it. He couldn't

22:10

complete a thought. He couldn't

22:13

complete a sentence. To reinforce your

22:15

point, I mean, really, the only

22:17

major news piece that I can think of

22:19

that did what you said should have

22:21

been done, trying to connect all the

22:23

dots with that Wall Street Journal piece

22:25

that had that did have a. If

22:27

you want the record quotes, of course

22:29

the flaw they had was no Democrats

22:32

go on the record, they only gave

22:34

them background, which politically you get,

22:36

right? We've all dealt with that,

22:38

which actually leads me to my next

22:40

question to you. Certain beats,

22:43

particularly, and I'll do it as,

22:45

let's use sports as a good example. You

22:47

pay your Washington commanders beat

22:49

reporter, needs to know what the

22:51

Washington commanders are doing that day.

22:53

If they've cut a player, not

22:55

cut a player, right? They've got

22:57

to have access. Access journalism

23:00

and politics can lead

23:02

to propaganda, right? And yet

23:04

a news organization does

23:06

need some access to do their job.

23:08

How do you, what is the best

23:11

way to handle that? Do you, do

23:13

you want to have, like I used to

23:15

defend Maggie Haberman to

23:17

people and say, look, somebody's got

23:19

to talk to Trump at the

23:21

New York Times, all right? She

23:23

has that job. She has that

23:26

job. And she's going to report what

23:28

he tells her. And she's doing her

23:30

job. And then people get mad that she's,

23:32

you know, she wasn't doing the job of

23:34

critiquing it or whatever. That's the job of

23:36

other reporters. Is that how you viewed

23:38

it? Look, you're going to have some people

23:40

that have to have the relationship, but

23:43

if you're a robust news organization, you

23:45

have some with relationships and you have

23:47

some who are not going to get

23:49

essentially Stockholm syndrome. Yeah, I mean I don't

23:51

I don't think that Maggie had Stockholm syndrome.

23:53

I don't and I you're right. Thank you

23:56

for clear. But I mean like that you

23:58

get my point I mean you know, Maggie

24:00

just took, talked to him. Frankly, if

24:03

she wasn't, I'm glad she was

24:05

there. You can't cover the government

24:07

without talking to people in the

24:09

government, including the President of the

24:11

United States. And of course, it's

24:13

very important to ask the pertinent

24:15

questions, to many of them are

24:17

very tough questions, and that you

24:19

need to challenge him when he

24:21

deserves to be challenged. I think

24:23

there are many reporters who've done

24:25

that, they've done that in a

24:27

very good way. That said, it's

24:29

true that you know you always

24:31

put your access at risk if

24:33

you're doing that in the most

24:35

aggressive way. It's important to in

24:37

a way triangulate is have other

24:39

reporters who are working with you

24:41

who are not, let's say, the

24:43

regular beat report. That's true in

24:45

sports. That's true in sports. are

24:47

done by people who do not

24:49

have that as their day-to-day beat

24:51

and don't have to have access

24:53

day in and day out to

24:55

those athletes and to team owners

24:57

and others affiliated with those organizations.

24:59

So it's important to bring in

25:01

other people and to work with

25:03

them and to collaborate in order

25:05

to do the kinds of stories

25:07

that are absolutely necessary. You can't

25:09

stop talking to the president. You

25:11

can't stop talking to the government

25:13

officials. You have to, it's very

25:15

important that you hear what they

25:18

have to say and be open-minded

25:20

about that. You've got to check

25:22

it against the actual facts. You've

25:24

got to do your job. And

25:26

you have to call things as

25:28

they call things as they are.

25:30

And at times, you will risk

25:32

your access. There's no question that

25:34

can put it at risk. Look, when

25:36

the post was covering Trump's first campaign,

25:38

we were banned, like some other media

25:41

organizations from the press pool. We could

25:43

not accompany him. We were not

25:45

on the plane. We had to walk

25:47

into those rallies like any member

25:49

of the public. Well, so be it,

25:52

right? and that's the way it

25:54

was until the very last final the

25:56

final weeks of that of that campaign

25:58

in 2016 so That's okay. If

26:01

that's what we had to deal with,

26:03

that's what we had to deal with.

26:05

In some ways, with this

26:07

administration, because you really can't always

26:10

trust everything they tell you anyway.

26:12

I mean, I have found it

26:14

is sometimes easier not to be caught

26:16

up in the initial back and forth.

26:18

Right. Well, you know, there's the old

26:21

line about journalism that if your mother

26:23

tells you that she loves you, you,

26:25

you have to, you know. Check it

26:27

out, make sure it's true. And

26:29

then I heard a corollary to

26:31

that recently, it's like, and by

26:34

the way, you need to check

26:36

to make sure that she's your

26:38

mother. So it's important. It's important

26:40

to, especially at AI, make sure

26:42

it's not like AI Brad Pitt.

26:44

These days with AI, it might

26:46

not even be your mother, but

26:48

it's, you do need to check

26:50

things. That's true with anybody. It's

26:52

not just true with this current

26:54

administration. That's true with any administration.

26:56

That's our job. It's all assumption

26:58

among people who are on the

27:00

conservative or on the right that

27:02

we don't do that with regard

27:05

to democratic presidents. I don't believe that's

27:07

true. I think there's plenty of evidence

27:09

that documents that that's not true. I

27:11

mean, I call very distinctly during the

27:13

final years of the Obama administration. I

27:15

mean, they were furious with us. They

27:18

were not giving us interviews. They were

27:20

very upset with our coverage of the

27:22

rollout of what's come to be known

27:24

as Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act. It

27:26

was a complete and utter disaster at

27:29

the beginning. And we reported on that

27:31

very aggressively and how they messed things

27:33

up terribly. You know, they were giving

27:35

interviews to media outlets that they

27:37

saw as their natural allies and

27:39

we weren't among them. Right. No,

27:41

I have been on that side of the

27:43

of that world when it came to Biden

27:46

for sure on that front. Let's

27:48

talk a little bit about local,

27:50

but I actually want to start

27:52

with your former organization,

27:54

the Washington Post, which is

27:57

going through its um-teenth identity

27:59

crisis. to local versus national,

28:01

right? What is the Washington Post?

28:03

What word matters more? Washington or

28:05

post? Because look, as a local,

28:08

I, you know, I'll be honest,

28:10

things had ramped up. I felt

28:12

like local had been getting better,

28:14

particularly in your tenure, going through

28:17

there was an, it felt like

28:19

there was an and, right? The

28:21

post is going to do this

28:23

ant rather than or, rather than

28:25

picking a. a lane. Is this

28:28

just forever going to be the

28:30

Washington Post's that just will see

28:32

this vacillation because of the pull

28:34

of the nation's capital of national

28:37

news stories versus covering the region

28:39

a bit more thoroughly? Well, it

28:41

depends what you mean by local.

28:43

I mean, certainly the post has

28:46

always had at the center of

28:48

its mission covering politics, covering government.

28:50

That will always be the case.

28:52

It is the Washington Post. It

28:55

is the news organization. in the

28:57

nation's capital and that has to

28:59

be at the center of its

29:01

coverage. But ever since Subbasos acquired

29:04

it in 2013, the goal has

29:06

been to make it a national

29:08

and even global news organization. And

29:10

I think the emphasis will be

29:13

on that because that's where the

29:15

numbers are. If you're just focused

29:17

on your audience being in the

29:19

Washington metro region, you have very

29:21

small audience. So obviously there's a

29:24

lot that happens in Washington, global

29:26

interest, but other kinds of local

29:28

news. I think have been de-emphasized,

29:30

certainly been de-emphasized over the years.

29:33

Although, of course, as happened yesterday,

29:35

tragically, when you have a, you

29:37

know, a plane accident and there's

29:39

a crash between a helicopter, you

29:42

know, military helicopter on a plane,

29:44

they're going to be all over

29:46

that story as they should be.

29:48

But I think their focus will

29:51

be national politics. national and the

29:53

administration of government and and then

29:55

a national and global global audience

29:57

because that's where the numbers are.

30:01

I get that as a business. Now let's say

30:03

you live in Montgomery County, where should

30:05

you expect to get coverage of

30:07

the school board? Well that's really

30:09

good question. I think the post

30:11

schools continue to say that it

30:13

does that, but it's not doing

30:15

it as regularly as it once

30:17

did. Right. Because it costs pretty

30:19

much the same amount of money

30:21

to have a reporter covering a

30:23

good reporter covering Montgomery, the Montgomery

30:25

School Board. So. You know, I

30:27

think that's the question for all

30:29

local news is where we're going

30:31

to do this. I think that

30:33

is, there's a lot of crises

30:36

in the field of journalism that

30:38

may be the biggest crisis, I

30:40

think it is, is who's going

30:42

to provide local coverage. I think

30:44

we're going to wait and see

30:46

how that develops. I think

30:48

a lot of smaller sites are

30:50

going to develop, are going to

30:52

emerge, that provide that kind of

30:55

coverage. of a quality that we would hope

30:57

for. Right. No, I mean, this is, look,

30:59

I've been, you and I've had

31:01

conversations offline about this, I've been

31:03

in this arena now for a while,

31:05

learning about it, trying to figure out,

31:08

is there a better way to supercharge

31:10

it? And look, I've come to

31:12

the uncomfortable conclusion that I don't

31:14

know if anybody ever was paying

31:16

for news. I think they were paying

31:18

for a community bullets and board that

31:21

came delivered to their doorstep every

31:23

day that... help them live their

31:25

lives. Sometimes it was the news

31:27

junkies got the news, but other

31:29

people got the classifieds and found out

31:31

they needed a job, other people were

31:33

selling goods and services. And it was

31:36

such an elegant business model,

31:38

particularly for what I

31:40

would say mid-sized to small news

31:42

organizations, right? You know, in particular,

31:44

I think the larger ones it's

31:46

a different business model, but for sort

31:48

of the communities of say 50,000

31:50

and under. It was a wonderful

31:53

business model until it disappeared,

31:55

right? Thank you Mr. Newmark

31:57

and Craigslist. And I guess...

32:00

What I've been searching for is another

32:02

revenue stream and right now all the

32:04

most successful local organization so far have

32:06

all been non-profit and the thing that

32:09

I'm learning is that a lot of

32:11

these non-profits are suddenly running into donor

32:13

fatigue. So it comes to we've got

32:16

to find a business model to sustain

32:18

local. There's no question. that what you

32:20

said is true. When people were buying

32:23

their local paper, they weren't just buying

32:25

it for the news, they were buying

32:27

it for the classifies, they were buying

32:30

it for the other advertising, they were

32:32

buying it for sports scores, stock scores,

32:34

you name it. A lot of that

32:37

information is available elsewhere and the advertising

32:39

is more efficiently and effectively delivered via

32:41

search engines like Google. uh... or on

32:43

social media where people already know what

32:46

your preferences are based on your behavior

32:48

so uh... so that is a huge

32:50

crisis and look the the model is

32:53

going to have to come from people

32:55

citizens themselves they're gonna have to pay

32:57

for it if they want it they

33:00

need to pay for it uh... it's

33:02

true that there are non-profits that are

33:04

emerging and there's some hope there that

33:07

But they either pay for it through

33:09

a donation as they would, let's say,

33:11

to their local NPR affiliate or something

33:14

like that, or to their PBS affiliate,

33:16

and they make donations, or they pay

33:18

for it through a subscription. One way

33:20

or another, if this kind of news

33:23

is to be delivered, people will have

33:25

to say it's of sufficient value to

33:27

me, then I'm willing to pay for

33:30

it. Do you worry that creates gated

33:32

communities? You know, my concern about... Essentially,

33:34

we continue to make news for the

33:37

subscribers, news for your subscriber base, news

33:39

for news junkie. How do we accidentally

33:41

inform the folks that don't necessarily seek

33:44

out this information? Well, first of all,

33:46

there are a lot of sharing tools

33:48

online where you can share it and

33:51

say share a story or something like

33:53

that, so people do get it. It

33:55

also circulates through... links on social media

33:58

or things like that. So it does

34:00

get amplified. I'm not terribly worried about,

34:02

you know, these sort of. just a

34:04

limited number of people getting it because

34:07

they're the only ones paying for it.

34:09

You know, it's always been, when it

34:11

comes to newspapers, for example, when we,

34:14

the world was focused on print newspapers,

34:16

you know, we did not, we did

34:18

not give it away for free, remember.

34:21

No. We gave it, you had to

34:23

put a, you had to put a

34:25

coin in the, and the newspaper box,

34:28

or you had to get it delivered

34:30

to deliver to your house. And we didn't

34:32

give it away for free papers for free

34:34

papers out there, but they were not the

34:36

primary source news. And so, you know, I

34:38

think if we keep giving away things

34:40

for free, people will continue to get

34:42

the idea that news can be, they

34:45

can get news for free. And that

34:47

is, that's a real problem for us,

34:49

is that people think that it, and

34:51

that suggests they don't value it. Well,

34:53

if they do value it, they should

34:55

be willing to pay for it. The

34:57

tech companies, I'm sort of tired

34:59

of whining about them. I mean, there's

35:02

a lot of things I'd love to

35:04

change on how they operate on how

35:06

they operate on how they operate. I'd

35:08

love to change about algorithms. I'd still

35:11

would love to see that. But

35:13

I don't know. Sometimes it feels

35:15

like peeing in a hurricane. How

35:17

would you fight this issue? I

35:19

mean, in some ways, your

35:22

any news organization is at the

35:24

mercy of these tech algorithms. There's

35:26

no question. It's just only

35:28

going to get worse with

35:30

AI, I think. China ruins AI.

35:32

Look they're they're the sovereigns and

35:35

we're the supplicants when it

35:37

comes to that. They are

35:39

right there. I mean they have

35:41

enormous power where you show

35:43

up on a Google search

35:45

is has enormous enormous impact. You

35:48

know what Facebook decides to do

35:50

with regard to its news

35:52

feed has enormous impact as

35:54

we can tell because Facebook

35:56

has deemphasized news in its

35:59

news feed. that's how it's

36:01

like bankrupted some news organizations hasn't

36:03

just by what is like changing

36:05

something yeah some built their entire

36:07

model on on Facebook and right

36:09

well then when Facebook decided they

36:11

didn't want news well then they

36:13

didn't have a business model so

36:15

they're enormously powerful and as we

36:17

can see more recently they're highly

36:19

subject to pressure from the federal

36:21

government which can exercise power over

36:23

over them so you see that

36:25

what's happened at Facebook is that

36:27

Marx Leckerberg has just, who just

36:29

essentially bends with the winds of

36:31

political pressure at any one moment.

36:33

Well, isn't that, I'm glad you

36:35

said it that way. This is

36:37

not about him bending to Trump.

36:39

It means he bent to Biden.

36:41

Now he's bending to Trump. Like,

36:43

to me, it's like, how do

36:45

you trust this guy on either

36:47

side of the coin? Yeah, well,

36:49

you know, I think there's something

36:51

missing there. What I would say

36:53

is missing is a moral compass.

36:55

and I met with him because

36:57

we at the post we used

36:59

to visit and and all of

37:01

that and they were always very

37:03

welcoming and he was very nice

37:05

and we communicated on a couple

37:07

of occasions about their news products

37:09

separately from our meetings out out

37:11

in California and but you know

37:13

it's clear he apologizes whoever he

37:15

feels he needs to apologize to

37:17

apologize to the Democrats he's apologized

37:19

to the Republicans he's apologized to

37:21

the Republicans he's apologized now he's

37:23

clearly bending the need to Trump.

37:25

regulating him, he's going to apologize

37:27

too. Yeah, right. And the idea

37:29

is to keep your business going

37:31

and keep making money. And you

37:33

know, when your goal is basically,

37:35

is not really based on sort

37:37

of core principles, but it's based

37:39

on just how much money you're

37:41

going to make. Well, then you

37:43

just do whatever you need to

37:45

do in order to satisfy whoever

37:47

needs to be satisfied. And that's

37:49

what he's doing. There's a lot

37:51

of new startups out there. What's

37:53

impressed you who's impressed you? What's

37:55

out there new that you're like

37:57

you know what that's an interesting?

37:59

Way they're going about it. I

38:01

want to see how that goes

38:03

I'll see how that develops. Well,

38:05

there's some that in the realm

38:07

of media and technology that I

38:09

think are doing well. The information,

38:11

of course, platformer seems to be

38:13

doing, platformer seems to be new

38:15

and well. Shockbeat, which separate from

38:17

that, Shockbeat, which covers schools, is

38:19

doing quite well. Cal matters which

38:21

covers public policy in California I

38:23

think is doing extremely well doing

38:25

a lot of good journalism and

38:27

seems to be on a sustainable

38:29

a sustainable path at the national

38:32

level pro-publica of course has raised

38:34

a lot of money it's done

38:36

some strong strong journalism. It's now

38:38

affiliating with some local, it's doing

38:41

much more local works by reaching

38:43

out to the local news organizations

38:45

and collaborating with them and I

38:47

think that's great. So you know

38:50

I think there are a lot

38:52

that are that are out there

38:54

that are doing really in the

38:56

investigative area, something like Spotlight PA,

38:59

which has been sustainable. I'm very

39:01

pleased that it's using the word

39:03

spotlight. It is they've raised good

39:05

money. They do great work.

39:08

They seem to be on

39:10

a sustainable path for a

39:12

nonprofit news organization. They're working

39:14

collaboratively with other news organizations there.

39:16

And so, you know, there's a

39:19

lot that's I think there's a

39:21

lot that's really interesting out there.

39:23

And this is a great opportunity

39:25

for people to experiment. Look,

39:28

I do too. I think this is a real. I

39:30

look at my own career. It got started

39:32

in the early 90s. at a

39:34

time when there was newspaper consolidation

39:37

and people were saying, uh-oh,

39:39

everything's shrinking and no, there

39:41

was a whole bunch of

39:43

entrepreneurial things with the with the

39:45

digital economy and AI could be

39:47

that type of thing that provides. But

39:50

you, it was interesting

39:52

to me to hear you go

39:54

through some of these potential new

39:56

success stories, and that is, take chalk be.

39:58

Do you think the era of... the all

40:00

encompassing news organization is over, meaning you

40:02

gotta pick your lane, maybe you can

40:04

pick a couple of lanes, you become,

40:06

you know, pick up, essentially portal fragmentation,

40:08

you're gonna be the expert on health

40:11

care, you're gonna be the expert on

40:13

education, maybe do a couple of things,

40:15

but don't try to do everything anymore.

40:17

I wouldn't say it's completely over, but

40:19

I think it's certainly challenged and there

40:21

will be a few, I think only

40:23

a few survivors. In the same way

40:25

that there are only a few department

40:27

stores and there are a few box

40:29

stores. You know, there's still a lot

40:32

of specialty outlets out there and you

40:34

can get your whatever it is you

40:36

need there. You don't even have to

40:38

go to a physical store and they

40:40

may not even have a physical store.

40:42

So there are a lot of other

40:44

models out there, but department stores have

40:46

always been challenged too, or at least

40:48

in... certainly in the last couple of

40:51

decades and box stores are challenged as

40:53

well but look I mean the New

40:55

York Times has made a great success

40:57

out of diversifying its portfolio it's reconstituted

40:59

what's come to be known as the

41:01

bundle you know what we were talking

41:03

about before you know you would have

41:05

a newspaper that had the stock stock

41:07

the stock prices and the and the

41:09

sports scores and the advertising and all

41:12

of that so recipes you name it

41:14

all those sorts of things. How replicable

41:16

is that like I you know I

41:18

was talking with somebody who who Who

41:20

had up was working at the LA

41:22

Times and they said you know the

41:24

LA Times was watching what the New

41:26

York Times is doing? Hey, why don't

41:28

we have puzzles and why don't we

41:31

do this and it and the thought

41:33

was? Puzzles didn't work for everybody, you

41:35

know that that maybe it is You

41:37

know first mover here may be first

41:39

mover and only mover, but what say

41:41

you? Well, we live in a time

41:43

where there are really one or two

41:45

survivors in every and sort of every

41:47

field take a look at search for

41:50

example Online search really Google is the

41:52

really just dominates Even even with the

41:54

chat GPT. Well, think about every thing

41:56

is going to make a do you

41:58

search or do you Google? Right? What

42:00

do you use to blow your

42:02

nose? A tissue or a Kleenex?

42:04

Yeah, sure. And look, everybody said

42:06

that Bing was somehow going to

42:08

make a comeback with ChatGPT. And

42:10

I don't know any who uses

42:12

Bing, not with standing ChatTPT. So,

42:14

you know, it's, you know, you

42:16

look at the kinds of mobile

42:18

phones that you have. So, there's

42:20

iOS and there's Android, right. That's

42:22

it. So, they're going to be

42:24

a couple or few that can

42:26

do that sort of thing. I

42:28

don't think that the route to success

42:31

is not to look at the New

42:33

York Times and say we're just going

42:35

to replicate that because there already is

42:37

a New York Times. So you can

42:39

approach some of those things, those subject

42:41

areas in a very different way. I

42:43

don't know that I really want to

42:45

go into all my advice on how

42:47

that might be done here, but there

42:49

are ways to do food, for example,

42:51

that are quite different from the way

42:53

that the New York Times does it. And

42:56

there are a lot of great

42:58

sites out there with recipes and

43:00

things like that. And there are

43:02

ways to leapfrog in New York

43:05

Times. I mean, when I got

43:07

to the Post in 2013, you

43:09

know, there was an incredible inferiority

43:11

complex, I think. Like, we can't

43:13

really challenge the New York Times,

43:16

etc., etc., etc. But you can

43:18

if you're more innovative. I mean,

43:20

if the big guys can be

43:22

challenged, look, nobody was talking about

43:25

Tikt. tick-tock all of a sudden

43:27

emerged and developed and challenged you know

43:29

some of the platforms that were out

43:31

there and a leapfrog them and it's

43:34

possible to sort of think ahead to

43:36

where the business is going and do

43:38

things in a more effective way and

43:41

then maybe even a less expensive way

43:43

if you're creative and you know that's

43:45

going to be led by younger people

43:47

in the field they're going to come

43:50

up with new ideas and they can

43:52

uh... you know they can challenge i

43:54

mean the field the history of

43:57

our businesses littered with with uh...

43:59

predictions of these next winners. I

44:01

mean people said Buzzfeed was going

44:03

to, Buzzfeed and Huffington Post were

44:05

going to triumph of the New

44:07

York Times, and the New York

44:09

Times was going to go bankrupt.

44:11

That's what people were saying in

44:14

2009. Well that didn't happen. And

44:16

so I'm very wary of these

44:18

sorts of predictions about who the

44:20

winners and losers are going to

44:22

be because they're creative individuals who

44:24

come along and upend all of

44:26

our assumptions. Let me close with

44:28

this and do another previous newspaper

44:30

that you were at, which is

44:32

the Boston Globe. When you were

44:34

at the Globe, you could give

44:36

it a national footprint and it

44:38

was a regional footprint, right? But

44:41

it was basically a very powerful

44:43

regional newspaper. Really the paper of

44:45

New England, and you know, and

44:47

that, you correct me if I'm

44:49

wrong, but I always felt as

44:51

if that was, you know, the

44:53

Boston Globe told you what was

44:55

happening in New England, right culturally

44:57

and news-wise everything. Is

44:59

the regional newspaper debt, is the regional

45:02

news organization debt, is that possible to

45:04

build the robust sort of regional, we

45:06

own the Midwest, the Chicago Tribune, we

45:08

own the South, the Atlanta Constitution, is

45:11

that possible in this day and age?

45:13

I think it's really difficult. I mean,

45:15

I say that even as I believe

45:18

the Boston Globe is doing a really

45:20

good job, I'm a subscriber, continue to

45:22

be, and they do a lot of

45:24

really great work. They've done a lot

45:27

of innovating, little, little, They're always doing

45:29

a little project here. I mean, it's

45:31

they never stopped trying and I admire

45:34

that. Yeah, and I think that's great.

45:36

And I think their owners are stuck

45:38

with them and they've, you know, they

45:40

have a staff that's bigger than most

45:43

regional newspapers, if not all other ones.

45:45

And they've done a really good job

45:47

of getting paying subscribers as well. So,

45:50

I mean, I don't know their internal

45:52

financials, but they seem to be on

45:54

a reasonable path. And so I give

45:56

them credit for that. but whether they're

45:59

really covering all of New England. They're

46:01

not really covering all of New England.

46:03

You know, I live in Western Massachusetts

46:05

and they don't cover Western Massachusetts. You

46:08

know, in Boston they think that Western

46:10

Massachusetts goes as far as Worcester. But

46:12

I'm well Western. I've got to know

46:15

the folks over at Mass Live a

46:17

little bit. They're very proud of what

46:19

they've been building over there. And I've

46:21

been watching what they're doing. They've

46:24

had some success. Yeah, well look,

46:26

I mean, that's the thing is

46:28

that I don't think people can,

46:30

I think this gets to the

46:32

point that you were making is

46:34

that you do have to pick

46:36

your shots, decide really what your

46:38

target is, what your audience is,

46:40

and then focus on that and

46:42

do it better than anybody else.

46:45

You can't be everything for everybody.

46:47

Pick your shots. And I think

46:49

there will be a lot of

46:51

smaller news organizations or individuals who

46:53

create successful models by doing specific

46:55

things and doing them incredibly well

46:57

so that they attract an audience.

47:00

We see that already in terms

47:02

of podcasting. We see that already

47:04

in terms of people's on substack.

47:07

So there are a lot of

47:09

new models out there and I

47:11

think they're... They're challenging for traditional

47:14

news organizations, but that's fine. As

47:16

long as people are doing good

47:18

work, as long as they're not

47:21

spreading this information or disinformation, as

47:23

long as they're verifying what they're

47:25

saying, I think all these all

47:27

these innovations are great. Could you imagine

47:29

in sort of the next iteration, let's

47:31

say you were taking over the Washington

47:34

Post now, could you imagine going on

47:36

to sub-stack and essentially creating

47:38

a Washington Post bundle? Hey,

47:40

you'll be exclusive. newsletter

47:42

subscribers to Washington Post. I mean, I've

47:45

been waiting for somebody to try to

47:47

bundle up some of these sort of

47:49

expert newsletter writers on sub stack and

47:51

sub stack hasn't done it for because

47:53

I think I give them credit. They

47:56

could exploit it. They've chosen not to

47:58

let their let their individual newsletter

48:00

proprietors thrive, but it seems it's the

48:02

possibility seems to be to be there.

48:04

I mean we saw it with podcast.

48:07

Podcast, right? First everybody had their own

48:09

podcast and then we got podcast networks,

48:11

right? That over time started to create

48:13

their own identities and had a certain

48:15

set of things. Do you expect that

48:17

in the newsletter world? Do you expect

48:20

that on substacks soon enough? I don't

48:22

know. I think that a lot of

48:24

people who are on sub stack want

48:26

to be their own thing. They don't

48:28

necessarily want to affiliate. Some might. And

48:30

look, I mean, there are, you know,

48:32

there are outfits on sub stack that

48:35

are essentially their own news organization and

48:37

they're using the sub stack platform. So,

48:39

and they've had, some of them have

48:41

had considerable success. So, I don't know

48:43

how that's going to evolve. I mean,

48:45

keep in mind, sometimes there gets to

48:48

be a glut. Not everybody on sub

48:50

stack is making a lot of I

48:52

don't I can't afford to subscribe all

48:54

these newsletters that I'd like to read

48:56

That's the problem. And I'm not and

48:58

yeah, even in the realm of it

49:00

or the wrong word I don't have

49:03

the mental bandwidth to read all these.

49:05

That's right I mean you don't have

49:07

the time and and people don't have

49:09

the money for that if it's $50

49:11

for every subscription for a year that

49:13

adds up to a lot of money

49:16

in a very short period of time

49:18

quickly and even in the world of

49:20

entertainment you know, you know, you know,

49:22

you know, you know, you know, you

49:24

know, you know, Paramount or whatever, maybe,

49:26

Hulu, whatever. Well, they're only, as we've

49:28

discovered, people reach a point where they

49:31

say, I can't afford to buy all

49:33

of them. And that is going to

49:35

happen if it's not already happening in

49:37

the world of sub stack and in

49:39

podcasts, where everybody said podcast is the

49:41

future. And then there's so many podcasts.

49:44

There's only so much time. And so

49:46

people pick. And they listen to a

49:48

few. They don't listen to all of

49:50

them. And so that happens in pretty

49:52

much every field is that people say

49:54

this is the future, everybody rushes into

49:57

it, and then you have too many,

49:59

and then they get cleaned out. And

50:01

so there will be survivors, there will

50:03

be people who would lose very well,

50:05

that will be, my prediction is that

50:07

there will be a relatively small percentage

50:09

of the overall participants on sub stack

50:12

or participants in podcasts and things like

50:14

that. Yeah, it's almost like you outline,

50:16

you're right, I mean, whether if you look

50:18

at radio, first a whole bunch of

50:20

people started radio stations. then they

50:22

consolidated over time into regional networks,

50:25

then national networks, and then etc.

50:27

You could picture that happening here.

50:29

There are a million magazines until

50:32

there weren't there. You know, you can

50:34

easily see it. Which means the next step

50:36

on newsletters is probably going to

50:38

some sort of bundle until that

50:40

gets weeded out. And then you're right.

50:42

You'll probably just have the cream.

50:44

Yeah. So I mean, look, I mean, our

50:47

field is always changing. I mean, and God

50:49

knows what new technology is going to emerge.

50:51

I mean. It's interesting to see how even

50:53

in the in the in the nascent field

50:56

of generative AI all of a sudden you

50:58

know there's panic in that field because there's

51:00

this Chinese company that it's indicated that it

51:02

can do it can be just as powerful

51:05

and do it a lot more cheaply and

51:07

and that didn't take long right and so

51:09

it wasn't that well what is the what

51:11

is the mother of innovation right is it

51:14

like sometimes it's desperate you know if

51:16

you're going to starve them of resources

51:18

they're going to innovate yeah Right, and

51:20

so that's what people will do. And

51:23

I think that we see that in

51:25

every field. I mean, look, it wasn't

51:27

that long ago that in our field,

51:29

hardly, nobody was really talking about Gen

51:32

AI three years ago. Now that's all

51:34

anybody can talk about because it's going

51:36

to have such a dramatic impact on

51:38

our business and it's a tool that

51:41

we can use as well. So it

51:43

comes like all technology with enormous

51:45

advantages and enormous disadvantages as well.

51:47

And so who knows what the

51:50

next thing is going to be?

51:52

I mean I think that we

51:54

and our business have to anticipate

51:57

that every half dozen years or fewer

51:59

we are have to rethink our

52:01

strategies and our tactics and that,

52:03

you know, I've been saying for

52:05

a long time now that we

52:07

have to get comfortable with discomfort.

52:09

Dis comfort is a permanent condition

52:12

in our business. It is not

52:14

temporary. It is permanent. And we're

52:16

just going to have to live

52:18

with that. That will create, that

52:20

will make a lot of people,

52:22

they'll be very frustrated by that,

52:25

but other people will see opportunity

52:27

in that. You know, so it's

52:29

that's that's the way that's the

52:31

way of the world at the

52:33

moment. How do you convince a

52:35

parent that their their kid wants

52:37

to major in journalism and the

52:40

parent says that there's no money

52:42

in that. I hear this from

52:44

journalism schools are very frustrated that

52:46

that parents are the ones discouraging

52:48

some of these students these days

52:50

because they don't see the near

52:53

term future. And so my whole

52:55

pitch has been, oh, you have

52:57

no idea. This is a this

52:59

is a moment of acceleration. This

53:01

is an You actually, the fact

53:03

that there is so much uncertainty

53:05

is why you should do it,

53:08

but that doesn't make parents who

53:10

pay $70,000 a year for college

53:12

feel better. Yeah, well, maybe they

53:14

don't have to pay $70,000 a

53:16

year for college, but they could

53:18

find an alternative for that as

53:21

well. There are cheaper alternatives to

53:23

$70,000 a year, I think. That

53:25

said. Look, I mean, I always

53:27

say don't listen to your parents.

53:29

That's what I say. That's because,

53:31

look, I mean, when I was

53:33

started in journalism, I remember my

53:36

mother saying, don't you want to

53:38

be a lawyer like all your

53:40

friends? And I said, first of

53:42

all, not my friends. Secondly, I

53:44

don't want to be a lawyer.

53:46

And look, a lot of people

53:48

went into the law and they

53:51

discovered, well, there's a lot of

53:53

lawyers and a lot of stuff

53:55

that was being done by lawyers.

53:57

Essentially. Talk about stuff that generative

53:59

AI is going to replace. And

54:01

you see that I'm sure there

54:04

now in the world of software

54:06

and coding and all of that.

54:08

Yeah. that Geni can do a

54:10

lot of work and that'll happen

54:12

in the field of medicine too

54:14

where diagnoses can come more quickly

54:16

in the field of, you know,

54:19

driving a car, a taxi. Well,

54:21

maybe these cars will be self-driven

54:23

and you won't need a driver,

54:25

right? So. Every field is subject

54:27

to disruption and I think that

54:29

parents should think about that, that

54:32

some of the things that they

54:34

recommend that as the careers of

54:36

the future turn out not to

54:38

be the careers of the future

54:40

because they themselves have been disrupted.

54:42

In many ways journalism was the

54:44

canary on the coal mine for

54:47

so many other industries because it

54:49

showed how we could be disrupted.

54:51

I do think that because of

54:53

all this disruption, for people who

54:55

have the stomach for it and

54:57

are inspired by it and who

55:00

are energized by, energized, they will

55:02

see opportunity and look, we're going

55:04

to be communicating, I think we

55:06

need to hold on to the

55:08

values that we've had in our

55:10

business. That is verifying information, treating

55:12

people fairly, honorably, honestly, all of

55:15

that. That's incredibly important, maintaining an

55:17

open mind. all of that I

55:19

think is very very important for

55:21

us. The way we communicate is

55:23

going to change, already has changed.

55:25

It's changing dramatically and it'll change

55:28

in the future. And that creates

55:30

a lot of opportunity for young

55:32

people coming up in the field

55:34

who understand this better than, you

55:36

know, someone of my generation, for

55:38

example. And they will find a

55:40

way to communicate effectively while still,

55:43

I hope, adhering to the core

55:45

values of our profession. Why not

55:47

a bad, really appreciate this. I

55:49

thought this was a nice way

55:51

for me to say farewell to

55:53

my NBC audience, but a good

55:55

piece of long-term advice on journalism

55:58

and the future of it. Thank

56:00

you, my friend. Well, thank you,

56:02

Chuck, and good luck to you.

56:04

you're ordering today's inventory, and the

56:06

next, you're planning tomorrow's expansion. It's

56:08

complicated, but your business credit card

56:11

should be simple. With the Signify

56:13

Business Cash Card by Wells Fargo,

56:15

you earn unlimited 2% cash rewards

56:17

on purchases for your business with

56:19

no caps or categories to track.

56:21

Signify Business Cash. The Deliberately Simple

56:23

Business Credit Card. Learn more at Wells

56:26

fargo.com slash Signify, At

56:28

Sutter, caring for women of

56:30

all ages never stops, because

56:32

we know women have unique

56:34

needs when it comes to

56:37

health care. That's why our

56:39

team of obese and nurses

56:41

are committed to building long-term

56:43

relationships for lifelong care. From

56:45

prenatal support to post-menopause guidance,

56:47

we're here for every woman

56:49

at every stage of her

56:51

life. A whole team on

56:53

your team. Sutter Health. Learn

56:56

more at Sutter health.org/Women's Health.

56:59

Well, no question this episode.

57:02

I promise you know what I'll

57:04

do? The second episode back

57:06

in my new network, I

57:08

will do a massive grabbag

57:10

of questions. So that should encourage

57:13

you to go to the Chuck

57:15

Toddcast at gmail.com. That

57:17

does it for today's episode

57:19

of the Chuck Toddcast. I have

57:21

to look, I thank NBC for...

57:24

for letting me take the podcast

57:26

with me. That doesn't happen very

57:28

often at major news organizations. I'm

57:31

well aware of that and I'm

57:33

very appreciative. Today's episode was

57:35

produced by Elias Miller, Louise Rach,

57:37

Greg Martin, and the person that has

57:39

been a partner with me for a

57:42

long time on trying to expand everything

57:44

at Meet the Press in so many

57:46

ways. Matt Rivera. I wish I could

57:48

take Matt with me ever where I

57:50

go. And I know someday I'll be

57:52

our paths will cross again and maybe

57:54

we'll be working again again soon. But

57:56

I thank all of you guys, particularly

57:58

for the last year. as we've done

58:00

our little pirate ship of

58:03

the Todd our The theme music

58:05

is composed by Spoke ship for

58:07

listening, the I mean this, As

58:21

a business owner, you wear a lot

58:23

of hats. One minute you're ordering

58:25

today's inventory, and the next you're

58:27

planning tomorrow's expansion. It's complicated.

58:29

But your business credit card should

58:32

be simple. With the Signify Business

58:34

Cash Card by Wells Fargo, you

58:36

earn unlimited 2% cash rewards on

58:38

purchases for your business, with no

58:41

caps or categories to track. Signify

58:43

Business Cash, the deliberately simple business

58:45

credit card. Learn more at Wells

58:47

fargo.com/Signify, terms supply. apply.