← After Party with Emily Jashinsky
After Party with Emily Jashinsky
DOJ Takes on Russiagate, with Glenn Greenwald, FCC Chair on Colbert's Exit, and Michelle O's Undignified Podcast
01:16:46
Emily Jashinsky is joined by Glenn Greenwald, Host of “System Update,” to discuss reports the DOJ is launching a grand jury investigation into Russiagate, Glenn takes a walk down memory lane to his late MSNBC appearance, plus deep thoughts about Sydney Sweeney’s jeans. Then Emily is joined Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr on the push for a revitalization of the public interest mandate tied to broadcast licensing. Chairman Carr discusses the major shifts in legacy media since President Trump came back, credits the president for breaking Hollywood and liberal control, stresses the need for broadcasters to serve the public. He also discusses the FCC’s process in approving Skydance’s acquisition of Paramount CBS, South Park, why he views local television as crucial for America, what he listens to, and more. Emily rounds out the show agreeing with Michelle Obama on the Real Housewives and sports. Cozy Earth: Visit https://cozyearth.com for up to 40% off with cod...
Loading summary
Transcript130 lines
- [00:01]
Glenn Greenwald
When work gets crazy, I like to.
- [00:03]
Emily
Stop by the bar after, have a few cold ones.
- [00:06]
Glenn Greenwald
I don't drink at all until 4 o'.
- [00:08]
Emily
Clock.
- [00:09]
Brendan Carr
We limit ourselves to one bottle of wine a night.
- [00:12]
Emily
Excessive drinking has a way of sneaking up on us. A few drinks, a few nights a week, it can add up and suddenly we're at greater risk for long term problems like heart disease, cancer and depression. Reason enough to rethink the drink. More more@rethinktodrink.com Noha Initiative.
- [00:38]
Brendan Carr
Welcome to Afterparty, everyone. If you are a little sleepy, maybe you're nodding off. That theme song will always get you right back in the mood for some news, some partying, maybe a little bit of both. We got a big show today. The great Glenn Greenwald is here. He's going to join us in just a moment. I also had the chance to sit down with FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr earlier today for a long form discussion of a lot, basically to talk about a lot of the speculation that's been swirling around Chairman Carr and the Paramount Skydance merger. We've covered Colbert and the Late show extensively. Here we show him a clip actually of south park and his reaction to that and much more. It's a, it's a pretty newsy conversation with Chairman Carr. So I encourage you to stick around. Now, we do have some business to get to at the top of the show. First of all, and I would say, most importantly, like I just mentioned, we have a big show today. But the most important thing to start with, I think is that, you know, we love Democratic minority leader in the House, Representative Hakeem Jeffries. On this show, we've often referred to him as the Democratic mascot or, I'm sorry, the unofficial mascot of afterparty, the fearless leader of the House Democrats. It's actually his birthday today. He posted this on Instagram and just said straight up, double nickels. There he is in midtown Manhattan enjoying the day. I'm kidding. That's clearly California, I think. But just wanted to wish Hakeem Jeffries a happy birthday. We love him here on afterparty. His fearlessness, his brave stance and I think above all else, his social media acumen, his ability to relate to younger Democrats, younger Democratic men. So happy birthday, Hakeem Jeffries. Now, on another note, more big news and more important topics for us to cover. Just very briefly, in case you're unaware, after party actually caused a little bit of an international incident after Wednesday's show. Actually, after Monday's show when Adam Carolla joined us, he spilled a Little bit of tea about one time he was Backstage with Ellen DeGeneres. And this was so juicy, in fact, that the Daily Mail covered it. Many, many international outlets covered it. Entertainment Weekly, all of these publications that I read fairly religiously covered it. And it looks like the Daily Mail actually sent a paparazzi to get pictures of Ellen as she reeled from this news that Adam Carolla broke here on after party about Ellen DeGeneres staff seeming fairly afraid of her. This is a quote from the Daily Mail article. The couple affectionately held hands after the comedian and podcaster Adam Carolla alleged that DeGeneres Talk show staff were, quote, scared real squared on the two occasions that he was a guest on her show. So the couple eventually held hands. Good to know. And thanks as always to the Daily Mail for keeping track of this. Now, just one more thing. On this note, the saga deepened when Rob Shooter of the shooter scoop actually confirmed with his source. His source is in Ellen world. Quote, a source alleged that the former host of the Ellen DeGeneres show was shocked, quote, shocked by the explosive news new revelations. Moreover, DeGeneres, quote, had no idea the crew felt that way. This the kind of breaking news that you tune in live Mondays and Wednesdays at 10pm for here on After Party. Cutting Edge, Fearless International, CFI. That's what I want you to think of when you think of After Party cfi, Cutting edge, Fearless International. That is what we do. That is who we are. And actually on that note, I think it's appropriate to bring in our wonderful guest, Glenn Green walled, Cutting Edge, Fearless International. Glenn, you are all of these things.
- [04:35]
Glenn Greenwald
I am all these things. I'm just, I'm so happy to be at your party. I've seen all these people being invited before me and I was like, when am I gonna be invited to this party? And finally I got my invitation. I was so happy, though. I wish you had told me it was Hakeem Jeffrey's birthday. And I brought some cake with like the double nickels. He's so cool the way he says that. The double nickels to celebrate. But no one told me. But I think we can have a metaphorical cake.
- [04:57]
Brendan Carr
I'm going to have to pull an Ellen with the after Party staff and actually get on them for not mentioning to you when you were coming on today on all days, it's Hakim Jeffrey's. So I know you like to celebrate privately, but we're here. So we both wish Hakeem Jeffries a very happy birthday. Now, Glenn, Glenn is of course the host of System update, which I love. Fantastic show. And Glenn, I want to get your reaction to something that you have been covering literally for, for years. This is F4. This is a Fox News headline from today. Attorney General Pam Bondi, the story reads, directed her staff Monday to act on the criminal referral from DNI Gabbard related to the alleged conspiracy to tie Trump to Russia. And the DOJ is now opening a grand jury investigation into the matter. So, Glenn, it is my understanding that you are one of the great legal minds of your generation. You are trained attorney. So what does it mean? What is the significance of the grand jury escalation that we learned about today?
- [06:01]
Glenn Greenwald
Well, I'm of two minds about it. Number one is I have seen the Trump Justice Department announcing what is pretty meaningless often. And you don't usually announce it for that reason, which is we're investigating so and so. And it's usually like red meat fed.
- [06:15]
Brendan Carr
To I don't know what you're talking about. I don't know what you're talking about.
- [06:20]
Glenn Greenwald
And you never hear about it again. It's like, yeah, they're investigating, you know, John Brennan. And then it's like nothing ever comes of it because that's such a meaningless designation. On the other hand, if they're really impaneling a grand jury investigation, that is not something that is done lightly. That is something that requires court approval. You need to get people who, citizens who take off from their job, who stay there for a long time, who accompany this investigation. It's a lot of DOJ resources. And, you know, I, I do think there's some stuff in this new set of disclosures that contributes to the belief that there was criminality here, not just political abuses of the intelligence agency or deliberate dissemination of fabrications that they did for sure. But whether it rises to the intent of a criminal, of a criminal mind, of criminal intent, that you would need even to impanel a grand jury investigation, let alone indict somebody. I think there's a slightly stronger case right now with these new disclosures.
- [07:23]
Brendan Carr
Okay, interesting. So one of the big questions then is, does this imperil legally Hillary Clinton or former President Barack Obama? Those are the two obvious names. I mean, I think it's pretty clear at this point that John Brennan could be in trouble, James Clapper could be in trouble. But when we're talking about former president, former presidential nominee, what do we know? Actually, as you see it right now, that still feels very far fetched to me, especially with the presidential immunity decision in the Obama, legally, is there much that can be done by the Trump administration at this point.
- [07:57]
Glenn Greenwald
Yeah, if you read the Supreme Court's immunity decision, that, of course, redounded massively to the favor of Trump. And I was trying to tell everybody at the time, it's not just for Trump, it also immunizes past presidents and future ones. So if you do want to investigate and imprison Joe Biden or Barack Obama, this is going to completely shield them as well. Basically, it just says that any exercise of legitimate Article 2 power, even if it's done corruptly and criminally, it's still immunized. Just anything you're doing under Article 2 and obviously overseeing an intelligence investigation, even if done with corrupt motives, is clearly within the Article 2 power. So there's no way you could indict President Obama, given that immunity ruling. The other problem with Hillary Clinton is that a lot of these acts are eight years old now, and many of them are outside of the statute of limitations. One of the reasons why people think you could still prosecute Brennan and Clapper and even Comey is because they actually testified much more recently and made some statements that are quite clearly false. The way the New York Times describes it is these newest disclosures complicate Brennan's narrative. That's such a nice way to have your lies described by the New York Times. It complicates the narrative. And another article called it, these are some messy disclosures, but they definitely lied about what Russiagate was, how to what extent they were allowed in the Steele dossier, what kind of intelligence they had that justified these conclusions, whether they were alleging merely Russian involvement or actually collusion. And of course, the collusion was what drove the whole scandal in the first place. There would never have been a scandal about the collusion aspect. Still, having a former CIA director or FBI director indicted, criminally charged and put into criminal court is something we do not see in this country. So I'll see it. I'll believe it only when I see it. But I do think there are probably people inside the Trump administration, given that they did try to actually imprison Donald Trump. Had he not won this election, he would be imprisoned for life, I'm sure, starting with Trump moving down, they want some, I guess you could call it equal application of law or vengeance or some combination thereof. And want to see some of the people who tried to imprison Donald Trump themselves imprisoned.
- [10:10]
Brendan Carr
It's so strange to be in this banana republic territory where you look at what happened to Donald Trump and whether you supported Trump or not, there were people I think that were sober minds saying this is setting a dangerous president. And then you look at the Trump administration coming in and, you know, in some ways pursuing, I think, what's legitimate justice, and then in other ways pursuing very divisive justice. And, you know, there's still an open debate to be had, given where the evidence goes, about whether this is a legitimate pursuit of justice or not when it comes to, like, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, who clearly acted badly. But whether or not there's a legal rationale I think is yet to be determined. And then you have Trump going after, like, Ramesa Oz Turk, and some of the excessive use of power that's come from. That's come from law enforcement under the directive of the president, United States. Like, I know this is a much bigger picture question than Russiagate, but to me, at all, sort of as somebody who's been opposed to Russiagate from basically the beginning, you want to see justice, you want to see clarity, you want to see disclosure. But then you just get that pit in your stomach about where it goes. And I don't know if I'm alone in that, or maybe it's just the red wine, which occurs to me. I'm drinking in a white shirt. So give me your thoughts, Glenn.
- [11:24]
Glenn Greenwald
Yeah, that can create unwarranted anxiety, I hear. No. So, you know, I'm of two minds about this, because I remember in 2007, 2008, which is like this first few years of my writing about politics, I was very focused on the war on terror, the crimes of the Bush and Cheney administration. And I absolutely believe that some of those policies were outright criminal. They ordered the NSA to spy on American citizens without the warrants required by law. They just ignored the law, created a theory that they had the power to do that. Obviously, torture had people having prosecuted for torture under domestic law as well as international law. And it went way beyond just three cases of waterboarding. There were, you know, all kinds of sleep deprivation and stress positions, things that humanitarian law blatantly prohibits. And when Obama was running in 2008, a lot of liberals, a lot of people in his party were asking him, would you, if you're elected, consider having the Justice Department prosecute the people who committed these crimes? And he kept saying, absolutely nobody's above the law. But I would ask my attorney general to see if there are crimes, and if there are crimes, we would prosecute. He wins two months in office, he announces nobody's being prosecuted. His argument was we have to look forward, not backward, which justifies never prosecuting Any crime, I mean, all crimes by definition, require looking backward. They're in the past. So you have to look backward. And that idea, we have so many important things, we can't look backward. Would, you know, you should free everybody from prison then and never have any more criminal trials. And I remember at the time, the overwhelming view of the corporate media was, yes, this is the right decision. Only banana republics prosecute prior presidents, have administrations prosecute prior presidents. And I understand that. I understand the obvious potential for abuse. In Brazil, for example, just today, this very authoritarian judge ordered Jair Bolsonaro put under house arrest because he participated in a protest against this judge. And the prior president, also the current president, Lula da Silva, was also imprisoned on charges that ended up being fabricated. So this kind of retribution of putting people in prison that are political enemies can be a sort of characteristic banana republic. But I also think banana republic, a banana republic, is a place where political elites are immunized even if they break the law. So the idea that, well, because it creates a little bit of danger or potential for retribution, that someone like John Brennan or James Clapper or even Hillary Clinton should be able to break the law, and we're just going to say they're immunized. It's too turbulent to hold them accountable. That was the Gerald Ford argument for not prosecuting Richard Nixon, but instead pardoning him, which is like, we have to move forward. So you create this kind of immunity that all political elites know they enjoy, and they can violate the law with impunity. And that also is a kind of banana republic. But like I said, putting threatening with Trump, Trump with prosecution in four separate jurisdictions, two state and two federal, and on all four, in my view, were frivolous grounds.
- [14:29]
Brendan Carr
Rico.
- [14:30]
Glenn Greenwald
Yeah, I mean, like a president has classified documents. A president is the ultimate, the only arbiter on what's classified or not. He could have just said, I hereby magically just classified them, and they would have all been declassified. And the idea that a president, of all people, can't have classified material. And then, of course, the Manhattan case, which, you know, was about a bookkeeping error, basically, that never would have been a felony but a misdemeanor had it been anyone under Trump, that was vindictive, that was lawfare, that was abusive of the political process against political enemies. And so I do think part of Trump, the motive of Trump and Trump officials is, like I said, a little bit of vengeance. But I also think that if there are crimes here and the grand jury finds them, and I'm not closed at all to the fact that there were, then why shouldn't those people be punished the way every other ordinary citizen is?
- [15:22]
Brendan Carr
Right. No, that's a great point. And actually going back, you were just reflecting on some of your earlier reporting. You were all over this story in 2016 and you posted this as the last time you were on MSNBC. Actually, it was 2016, December. This is incredible. This clip is. This clip is incredible, museum worthy stuff. And we have it here. So I'm gonna play it and then get your reaction on the other side. Glenn.
- [15:47]
Emily
This is S3, but there is still, Glenn, of course, a spectrum that investigators, lawyers and intelligence officials all use. And on that spectrum, the argument here is that the public accounting of the emails is known that there was a lead up of intelligence about Russia doing this, then it was done. And then since that time, there's been a wide variety of, yes, anonymous sources, but in different outlets saying that this was Russia and it had certain political goals. Would you say, though, all of that adds up to circumstantially strong evidence as a general matter? No, no.
- [16:21]
Glenn Greenwald
What circumstantial evidence can you point to, Ari? You just identified what agents have claimed, what agencies have claimed. Agencies that have a long history of error, that are designed to disseminate disinformation, that are subject to groupthink, that are political actors who have constantly disseminated claims that turned out to be false for whatever their motives might be. You have taken all of those agencies and you just described in your question to me what they claim, what evidence is there, definitive, circumstantial or otherwise, that they have presented, that suggests that the Russian government is behind these leaks?
- [16:56]
Brendan Carr
There is none.
- [16:57]
Glenn Greenwald
What is the evidence?
- [16:58]
Emily
Right. No, I mean, I'm asking you the question. I think the background is what they predicted and then the fact that the emails were released.
- [17:07]
Brendan Carr
He was asking you the question, Glenn, and there was nothing leading about the question. Of course, Ari Melber went on to. To totally ignore everything you just said for the better part of the last decade and cover Russiagate with a lot of the hysteria that characterized MSNBC like 247 for, again, the better part of a decade. So, Glenn, I have to ask. Tell us a little bit about. I mean, my memory is that you were like regularly on MSNBC during Bush, Obama years, during Obama years in particular. Is it true that you've actually never been. Been invited back or you haven't been back on since that?
- [17:45]
Glenn Greenwald
I used to be on all those shows frequently, yeah. And that was the last time I had Ever been asked to go on msnbc? And I remember that interview. Emily created a lot of anger and rage among MSNBC viewers because Russiagate was their religion. They didn't allow anyone on MSNBC to question it, to challenge it, to call it the question or dispute it. And looking back on that, like when I, when I actually found that I haven't seen that in many years, I wasn't even saying anything definitive. All I was saying was like, hey, as journalists, I thought we should have learned the lesson that when the CIA leaked claims to the Washington Post and New York Times, we shouldn't put our blind faith and trust in it to believe it. We should actually demand evidence before we see it. Haven't we seen a lot of examples that prove themselves? It was like, hey, I think journalistic skepticism still applies, even though we all hate Donald Trump so much, like, we're not gonna renounce that. And you would have thought he was saying, like, give Vladimir Putin the Nobel Peace Prize the way that audience reacted. And the amazing thing about it is I probably have said the same thing on MSNBC 100 times previously in criticizing the media on other stories. And of course, every liberal was so receptive to it. Cuz that was the story of what the New York Times and the New Yorker and the Atlantic did when it came to wmd. And that was what the New York Times apologized for. Like, hey, we can't just get anonymous leaks from the CIA and put them on our front page so they're true unless we have evidence for it. And we did it and we're sorry. Sorry about that little war that killed a million people. And I don't know, I was so mystified. On top of which, if I could just say quickly, I remember the very first time Russiagate emerged, it was in mid-2016. It was in the form of this Hillary Clinton campaign ad, which was like very sinister music and that like baritone voice, like raising questions and doubts. And they were like, what do Donald Trump and the Kremlin have going on in secret? I was just like, this is the McCarthyite script. It's like you just went to the basement of the CIA. There's like old crusty papers there. Probably like the corners of the paper are like crumbly. And you got that script and you're like, hey, it's been a long time. It's been like 70 years. Probably nobody remembers this anymore. And I was like, the Russians and Trump. Why would the Russians need Trump and the Trump campaign to hack into? But it never made any sense. It was just journalistically so fraudulent. And I always thought it was so dangerous to blame, you know, everything wrong in our country on Russia, because there is a history of great antagonism between what is still the two largest nuclear powers on the planet. So I just, from the beginning, never saw any evidence of it. And, you know, there are people still today who believe that Trump colluded with Russia, even though Robert Mueller, the person they like, held up as the greatest prosecutor ever, closed his investigation without charging anybody with that core conspiracy theory and said in his report he could find no evidence to establish that crime. But people just still believe it like a religious doctrine.
- [20:41]
Brendan Carr
And not an insignificant chunk of the public either. I mean, polling over the years has shown that. So I was actually just reading over the weekend Hubris, which is a book by Michael Isikoff and David Korn about the lead up to the Iraq war and how the intelligence was trumped up and sold to Judith Miller and others in the press. And it occurs to me, the most obvious point in the world, both of them bought Russiagate hook, line and sinker, which is fascinating, and were active participants in selling it to the public. So I just have to ask, as somebody on the left, I was thinking about this, Glenn. This was used very obviously by Republican elites who originally funded the Steele dossier, and Democratic elites to distract from populism and to not deal with populism. What did Democrats talk about is after Donald Trump won the Republican nomination, basically Russia for five years. And they never wanted to compete on the playing field of, like, kitchen table issues with Donald Trump. They thought this was sort of their shortcut. So is it? Or am I putting frustrations into sort of people on the left like yourself? Because I just have to imagine it's maddening to look back the last decade and realize that so many people, I mean, like David Korn, is taking propaganda from the actual intelligence community deep state and allow. I mean, we know this would have been. It was applied to Bernie Sanders. I mean, this is just like crazy stuff that I can't believe how disinterested even now the left is in the story.
- [22:16]
Glenn Greenwald
Michael Isakoff and David Korn, as you kind of implied, were not just supporters of the Russia gay narrative. They were the leading media figures. It was David Korn who first wrote cryptically about the Steele dossier, trying to get. Everybody was like, there's this document circulating, everyone watching the scene that's extremely incriminating of Trump and his blackmail that Russia. I mean, he's the one who introduced Seal dossier into the Ether. And Michael Iskoff pushed it as well. To Michael Isakoff's credit, about two years later, he actually went on MSNBC and said, we got Russiagate wrong. It's time to acknowledge that and admit it. David Korn to this day is like he has his whole identity staked in it. But, you know, this was always so amazing to me is so the scent. The real theme here was not just that Trump and the Russians colluded, but that Putin had sexual, financial and personal blackmail over Trump, including, like a urine video with prostitutes. And the risk. I mean, this insane stuff was all made up and they purposely leaked it, and people believed it for a long time. So the idea was that basically Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin have taken over the United States through Donald Trump, who's their controlled, blackmailed asset. And the two main policies that the Trump administration adopted toward Russia in the first administration were, number one, they flooded Ukraine with offensive arms, something Obama refused to do. They flooded all of Ukraine with like, very serious sophisticated weapons to obviously to threaten the Russians. And then the second thing Trump did was he was obsessed with destroying Nord Stream 2, the pipeline that was the center of Russia's future economic prosperity that would enable them to sell cheap economic gas to Germany and the rest of Europe. He was threatening Europe and saying, we pay for your defense. If you keep buying natural gas from Russia, we're gonna cut you off. You have to buy it from us. He was frontally attacking the two most vital Russian interests in the most direct and violent way possible. Everyone in the media at that point should have been like, well, he's obviously not blackmailed by Putin because he wouldn't be flooding Russia, Ukraine with offensive arms right on the border of Russia, or trying to Destroy Nord Stream 2, the centerpiece of Russian economic prosperity. So it was. But it was such madness. Like, everybody had completely lost sense of their faculties. And I think what you're saying is so true, which is that originally the Fusion GPS was hired by the Washington Free Beacon, which is funded by Paul Singer, the billionaire neocon and corporatist who wanted to keep the Republican Party is like, you know, Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, and he hated Trump. And then it was, you know, the Hillary Clinton campaign that took over that research and then found the Steele dossier. And it's absolutely true that the Republican establishment used Russiagate as much as the Democrats did, in part to get everybody riled up over, over. Over Russia. Hillary Clinton hated Russia for a long time. She was a critical. The only thing she was Critical about was that he didn't confront Russia enough in Syria and Ukraine. She wanted, like, antagonism toward Russia. This is the perfect story for both the Democrat and Republican warmongering establishment, not only to keep people, you know, revved up about Russia as our great enemy, even though they're, you know, like an economy barely the size of Italy, but also, as you say, to make sure Americans weren't focused on the populist themes that Donald Trump had so successfully convinced them to believe in, like deconstructing corporate power in defense of the. In favor of the American worker trade policies, globalism, and the, you know, military industrial complex and the deep state. Those were things none of them wanted to talk about. They wanted to make sure none of that was discussed. And Russiagate was the perfect distraction for both parties.
- [25:57]
Brendan Carr
Yeah. And again, like David Korn of Mother Jones, it's just. It's all so pathetic looking back. But before we let you go, Glenn, speaking of actual distractions, that elite class used to stop dealing with populism, I don't think it's any coincidence whatsoever that when we look back and say, I guess, do we have to call it woke, but, like, peak woke, Capital P, capital W happened was in the middle of the last 10 years, so about halfway into the modern Trump era. And, you know, we've been talking about Russia, but we've neglected arguably the maybe matter. Yeah. I think you know what I'm getting at, and that's Sydney Sweeney. So American Eagle has released a statement. F5 we can put on the screen. Sydney Sweeney has great jeans. Is and always was about the jeans. Her jeans. Her story will continue to celebrate how everyone wears their jeans with confidence, their way. Great jeans look good on everyone. I think it's sort of obvious, maybe you'll disagree with me on this point, but I think it's sort of obvious that American Eagle probably would have apologized or something if this had been 2018, 19 or 2020.
- [26:58]
Glenn Greenwald
But don't you think so their executives would have committed suicide on television to, like, apologize and to repent for their crimes against, like, they're in support of white supremacy.
- [27:10]
Brendan Carr
But even that wouldn't have been enough.
- [27:12]
Glenn Greenwald
No, no. They would know. No, absolutely not. You know, obviously this is not a big issue in one sense. And what is irritating about it is that unlike in 2020 or 2018, with the excesses of Me Too and Wokeism and the Black Lives Matter movement, where Democratic Party officials were all on board with that. This is coming from, like, leftist Anonymous, like losers who are 20 years old on TikTok. You know, this is not actually your biggest fans, Glenn. Democratic Party. Yeah, exactly. They all have me blocks so I don't have to actually see them. But, you know, it's like the idea that this is the Democratic Party telling people that it's not, you know, you're Nazi if you find Sydney Sweeney pretty. This is all too like political warfare, just exaggerating it. But it does seem like that discourse does feel like you've been catapulted back to the worst moments of 2020. Just like thought you escaped it. And then like this zombie discourse. Just where was it? It was like molding in the corner or something, like, very light sleeper. And then there's Cindy Sweeney. I come out this blonde woman with blue eyes, even though she's not actually naturally blonde, talking about her genes and like, just play on the words documented. And you know, to have this discourse. And then Donald Trump. Wait on it, Wait on it.
- [28:32]
Brendan Carr
Today everyone's like, oh, we have this.
- [28:33]
Glenn Greenwald
The Epstein files. Yeah, go ahead.
- [28:35]
Brendan Carr
This is, this is F6. Glenn, I don't think even you could do this justice because Donald Trump posted on True Social today, Sydney Sweeney, a registered Republican, has the all caps. Hottest ad out there. He says, the jeans are flying off the shelves. Go get them, Sydney. And then he goes into how Jaguar did a WOKE ad and ends the post by saying, of course, this is his signature sign off. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I would say it's about 100 words on truth Social dedicated to Sydney Sweeney. Glenn, I feel liberated.
- [29:07]
Glenn Greenwald
First of all, when I was a lawyer, I would write, like, really mean long letters, you'll be surprised to know. And I would always end it with thank you. Attention, attention to this matter. Feel like Trump stole that. I used to love that. It is such a perfect way to end, like, especially vicious commentary. But what's so funny is it was just three weeks ago when Donald Trump got asked by a journalist in the White House, hey, can you let us know if Jeffrey Epstein had ties to any foreign intelligence or domestic intelligence agency? And Trump was like, you're talking about Epstein, some weird obscure freak. Why is this important? Why does this warrant our attention? We have so many important things to come on. And three weeks later, he posts some catty, bitchy commentary on like, Taylor Swift and Jaguar ads and Sydney Sweeney. And so it's just so funny to watch what Trump regards as important and what he doesn't. Of course, a lot of this is they know what stimulates the lizard brain of their supporters and they know Their supporters are kind of disoriented, disenchanted. And this kind of stuff is designed to get them revved up. It's so kind of obvious, I think.
- [30:09]
Brendan Carr
Well, we promised that Glenn Greenwald would be cutting edge. We promised that he would be. What was the other thing? I don't even remember what I said. I know, international, fun party, like. Yep. Oh, fearless. Cutting edge. Fearless and international. And I think, Glenn, you've checked off all of those boxes for us this evening. Thanks for coming on.
- [30:27]
Glenn Greenwald
Thank you, Emily. Great to see you.
- [30:29]
Brendan Carr
Appreciate it. All right. That was a blast. Such a blast. We have, like I said, we have guests that I've been looking forward to for a long time and Glenn was certainly one of them. After this quick ad, we're going to have FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr join us. I pre taped this interview earlier today because people who are in positions of great import, they probably do need to get to bed by 10. So that's okay. In the government. We'll see. I don't know, maybe we can attempt a couple of them to come on actually after the party. But as you know, that means I'm going to be in the YouTube chat. Anytime we have to pre tape, pre tape, that means I'm in the YouTube chat. So if you're watching this live, I'm about to jump into the chat. But before I, I do want to let everybody know that it's actually pretty hard to go to sleep after wrapping up these shows at 11pm Obviously sometimes we go to 11 20, 11, 25. I don't know, maybe today we'll even go later because this is a media interview with Chairman Carr. But broadcasting gets your adrenaline pumping like nothing else. Live television, live broadcasting, it just gets you going. But I really do mean this. Cozy earths, bamboo sheets and bubble cuddle blanket, they make it easy, Much, much, much, much easier to just crash after the show. Like I said, I really mean this. It makes it like something I look forward to, to get into the bed and unwind after doing the show. Even with all my adrenaline pumping, even after we're making all of this international news with Ellen DeGeneres and you guests are here like Glenn Greenwald, consequential journalists like Glenn. It actually is really hard to go to bed. But I look forward to it because I don't know, I love, I'm just like, I love having a cozy bed, so I love having cozy earth sheets. These bamboo sheets are next level, buttery, soft, breathable, and they keep you cool all night. You'll sleep a few degrees cooler, which is awesome, especially here in the swamp and wake up genuinely refreshed. And the bubble cuddle blanket is like a warm luxurious hug midweight, plush faux fur, equal parts nap worthy and stylish. Of course there's a reason Cozy earth offers a 100 night sleep trial and a 10 year warranty. It really speaks for itself. They know that you will fall in love. So here's the move. Go to cozyearth.com and use my code Emily for up to 40% off. Amazing. I couldn't even get the word Emily in my kindergarten class because there were five of us. It was always Emily J. So what an honor to have the Code Emily over at cozy earth that is cozyearth.com code Emily. And if you get the post purchase survey, be sure to mention that you heard about it right here. Because your bed shouldn't just be a place to sleep, it should be your happy place. And Cozy Earth of course makes that possible.
- [33:27]
Emily
This summer, buckle up for a wild.
- [33:30]
Glenn Greenwald
Ride with the pickup, where the plan goes sideways and the laughs hit hard.
- [33:35]
Emily
Streaming August 6th on Prime Video. Eddie Murphy and Pete Davidson star as.
- [33:39]
Glenn Greenwald
Russell and Travis, two armored truck drivers.
- [33:42]
Emily
Who think they're on a basic cash.
- [33:44]
Glenn Greenwald
Run until everything goes off the rails. They get ambushed by a crew of.
- [33:48]
Emily
Ruthless criminals led by mastermind Zoe, played.
- [33:51]
Glenn Greenwald
By the one and only Keke Palmer.
- [33:53]
Emily
Now Russell and Travis have to survive the chaos, clash with each other, and.
- [33:57]
Glenn Greenwald
Somehow make it through one very bad.
- [33:59]
Emily
Day that just keeps getting worse. Directed by Tim Storey, the pickup is.
- [34:04]
Glenn Greenwald
Packed with action, comedy and a cast.
- [34:06]
Emily
That delivers every single time.
- [34:08]
Glenn Greenwald
Think car chases, big laughs, and even bigger personalities. If you love a high stakes mess with wild energy, this is the movie you don't want to miss. Watch the pickup only on Prime Video.
- [34:20]
Brendan Carr
August 6th, as promised. I'm about to refill my wine glass, maybe turn the air conditioner on in here, and I will for sure be in the YouTube chat. But without further ado, this is our after party interview with FCC Chairman Brendan Carr. Enjoy. We're joined now by FCC Chairman Brendan Carr. Thank you so much for joining us, Mr. Chairman.
- [34:45]
Emily
Yeah, good to be with you. Thanks so much for having me.
- [34:48]
Brendan Carr
Of course, it's a busy time over at the fcc and that's why I actually kind of want to start by digging into your broader project as commissioner. So the right has for a long time decried media bias, but in recent history, the right hasn't talked too much about whether individual stations are violating the public interest element of broadcast licensing. And that's really interesting because you came in here on the heels of the last 10 years, Media Trust is tied for a record low again, and you're starting to talk. For example, this was you responding to the axing of Stephen Colbert and the Late show by saying, quote, broadcasters, they have a federal license and they're obligated to operate in the public interest. And to the extent that we're starting to see some changes, I think that's a good thing. So I kind of just want to start with the basics here. Like, even technically and historically, what does it mean that the FCC allocates broadcast licensing? And how are you thinking about the question of public interest?
- [35:44]
Emily
Yeah, I'm really looking forward to this conversation in part because we are seeing right now some real seismic changes and shifts in the media landscape. And just a level set. There's a couple different types of sort of speakers that are out there. So obviously you have your podcast, you've got people that speak on X, formerly Twitter, you've got cable channels, but then you've got broadcast TV and radio. And broadcast TV and radio is in a category unto itself, different from all those other mediums for a couple reasons. But one is because they're licensed by the FCC and they're required by federal law to operate in the public interest. And again, cable channels aren't licensed by the fcc. Although I do get a lot of tweets about whether it's Fox News or MSNBC or cnn, we don't license them. We do license broadcast radio, broadcast tv. Then even within that broadcast space, I think you got to draw a quick distinction. On the one hand, you have what are called national programmers. These are like abc, cbs, NBC. They also own some TV stations. But in the main, they're the ones that produce all the programming that has been aired over broadcast TV stations. And in the majority of cases, those broadcast TV stations are owned by entirely different, different entities. And so you've got two different types of players in the broadcast space. And what we're trying to do as a policy matter at the FCC, is to empower the owners of the actual licensed TV stations to feel like they have the freedom to serve the interests of their local communities. Because for too long the FCC has stepped back from enforcing the public interest mandate. The results sort of speak for themselves. These national programmers, based on executives that live, usually in New York or Hollywood, are creating this content that then getting pushed down and out through the local broadcasters. And I don't think the FCC has done the industry or the American public any favors by not enforcing the public interest mandate. So that's what we're focused on. And again, it comes at a very interesting shifting time in the media landscape as a general matter.
- [37:46]
Brendan Carr
So this is really interesting because back in, you know, 2020, when big tech was censoring conservatives, you were an absolute leader in that space of free speech. And you're getting criticized now. I saw this Dispatch article pulling quotes that said in 2020, you said a newsroom's decision about what stories to cover and how to frame them should be beyond the reach of any government official. Criticized the injection of partisan politics into our licensing process. Said the FCC is operating as the nation's speech police by saying, if ever there were a time for a federal agency to show restraint when it comes to the regulation of political speech and to ensure that it is operating within the statutorily defined bounds of its authority, now would be that time. What's interesting about what you just said with all of that is it sounds to me like you see using the public interest actually as a free speech issue in and of itself and not mutually exclusive with what you've said in the past, despite what your critics are saying now. So is that the case? Are these two, Are these two you in the same vein about free speech at the end of the day, from your perspective?
- [38:50]
Emily
Yeah, these are entirely consistent. So those remarks that you referred to, the context, there was, there was Democrats in Congress who were writing letters to cable companies like Comcast and urging them to drop cable channels like Fox News, OAN and Newsmax based on the political viewpoints of the newsrooms. And again, cable channels are fundamentally different than broadcast channels. So broadcast TV stations have this obligation to operate in the public interest. And I very firmly believe that we need to have more speech, more diversity of opinion. Obviously that's, you know, sacrosanct on the Internet, on social media. I think that's a good thing. When it comes to broadcasters, though, there is that obligation to be in the public interest. And one thing that's interesting is if you look for instance, at cbs, so CBS recently had a transaction before the fcc. They're being purchased by Skydance. One of the things that the new purchasers said in the FCC record was if this transaction goes through, they're going to commit to a greater connection with fact based journalism, with objective reporting, and with what they described as diversity of viewpoints across the political and ideological spectrum. And I think that's such welcome news. And frankly, it's not just a regulatory thing. I do think it's something that the Marketplace is demanding. Again, just look at Colbert. We can talk more about that, but I think that's a sign of where the marketplace is changing dramatically right now.
- [40:19]
Brendan Carr
Yeah. So you don't believe that it encroaches on free speech to say, if you are a broadcast network, the public interest should mean that you are broadcasting kind of across the political spectrum and the mainstream spectrum, and you're doing your best to be fair and balanced. As people say, if you are licensed to operate in the public interest, it's not an encroachment on free speech so much as it is, you know, so much as it is about that umbrella definition of the public interest. That has to be, again, like, as somebody who comes from years of free speech activism, essentially like that. That has to be, from your perspective, something you're thinking about balancing all of the time.
- [41:00]
Emily
Yeah, there is something just fundamentally different about a broadcast license because again, when the government said, says you get to use these 6 megahertz of airwaves, we're necessarily denying other speakers the ability to use those 6 MHz of airways for their own political viewpoints. That's why the government imposes a mandate that is different than a cable channel, different than a podcast. And how the FC has defined the public interest in the broadcast space over the years is a couple ways. One, they say you need to be responsive to the needs of your local communities. They talk about diversity of viewpoints, and so they would talk about competition as well. So there's lots of features of the public interest standard. And I do think that it's incumbent on broadcasters to meet that and frankly, incumbent on the FCC to reinvigorate our enforcement. If broadcasters don't like it, if they don't want a public interest obligation, that's. That's fine. The FCC's address is 45 L Street. They can take their federal license, they can put it in the mail, I think, become a cable channel, or they become a podcast, you know, that's perfectly fine. But if you want the benefit of using this public resource, a scarce public resource, you got to hold up your end of the bargain. And again, that's why I was glad to see CBS make some commitments in that direction, and hopefully we'll see a course correction across the board as well.
- [42:13]
Brendan Carr
And maybe one even that benefits the left, too, because there are a lot of people in the populist left who feel shut out of the kind of mainstream discourse they have their own issues with. The elite Democrats, for example, who were involved in basically trying to get Bernie Sanders as we now know to be defeated by Hillary Clinton in 2016 and to shut him out of the race in 2020. So I guess, Chairman Carr, there's an argument perhaps that this isn't just beneficial to the right, that it could also probably be helpful to the populous left in some circumstances as well.
- [42:47]
Emily
Yeah, I think that's right. Again, it's principally a particular set of executives. Again, they're mostly in New York, mostly in Hollywood. It's been there their viewpoint or their lack of diversity of viewpoint that has been the predominant factor in media over the last couple of years. And look, there is a real sort of crisis taking place in the legacy mainstream media right now. I mean, just look at the number of stories over the last four or five years where there's just been massive, massive misses, inconsistent misses across all of these different legacy outlets. Whether it's Russiagate, whether it was the Russian bounties in the middle eas, whether it was, if you remember, sort of the whips at the border or the, you know, juicy Smollett, you know, mostly peaceful protests, Covington Catholic. I mean, something has gone seriously awry that these, you know, significant major stories, you know, the Hunter Biden laptop story, President Biden's mental acuity, just were all missed. And so I do think, you know, there's definitely a need for a course correction. I think in the main, it happens from the market. But again, I don't think you can overlook the role that President Trump is playing here. He's playing a very important role where I think President Trump is fundamentally reshaping the media landscape, but not necessarily in the ways or that a lot of people think about it. I think what he's done is he's helped facilitate a much broader macro movement. So, for instance, when President Trump ran for election, he ran directly at the legacy mainstream media and he smashed through the facade that again, these executives in New York and Hollywood get to control the narrative. They get to decide what everyday people think and are allowed to say. And he was really speaking up for American people who simply don't trust the mainstream media anymore. And once they lost that gatekeeper status, there's a lot of different consequences that flow from that. Again, I think think that broader trend is why you see Colbert show ending and them struggling and other shows similarly. But I think it goes back to President Trump because most politicians, they just simply accepted the narrative that the mainstream media dictated and they felt constrained to operate within the terms that they set. And President Trump upended that. Again, if you look at all of the Changes that are taking place already, already since President Trump has won the election. In terms of the reshaping the media landscape, it's pretty impressive. You got PBS defunded, you've got NPR defunded, you've got Colbert show ending, you've got Joy Reid out at msnbc, Lester Holt out at NBC. You've got Terry Moran gone at abc, You've got these new owners of CBS committing to more fact based, objective reporting. ABC reach a settlement with Trump. CBS reached a settlement with Trump. At Washington Post, Jeff Bezos committing their editorial board to a different approach on their editorials and people quitting because they didn't want to run patriotic op EDS over there. So I do think that there's a fundamental shift taking place. I think you do have to look at Trump as part of the reason for that. But again, in a much bigger macro picture way, it's not, know, sort of the, the nefarious picking up the phone and, you know, bullying people that some of the reporters want to sort of attribute it to. Again, I think the reason why they look at that is they don't want to grasp or deal with that much bigger picture changes that's taking place in media right now.
- [46:19]
Brendan Carr
Yeah. Because that's where this gets, that's where this gets into a lot of the media criticism and actually probably criticism from some folks on the Hill as well. Definitely some criticism from some folks on the Hill as well. Because there's, with what you're doing at the fcc and it's not happening in a vacuum because it's also happening with what Donald Trump is doing sort of with the bully pulpit and Truth social and his various statements about his own different political enemies. So, Chairman, I wanted to get you to respond to the rendition of all of this because you just mentioned those sort of picking up the phone and making those kind of backroom deals or whatever. I wanted to get you to respond to this rendition, speaking of cable being different than broadcast networks on south park, and see what we can talk about on the other side of it. We can go ahead and roll the south park clip.
- [47:10]
Emily
Break bread with me.
- [47:12]
Glenn Greenwald
This is my body given for you.
- [47:16]
Brendan Carr
Do this in remembrance of me.
- [47:22]
Glenn Greenwald
Now just eat the bread and listen.
- [47:26]
Brendan Carr
I didn't want to come back and.
- [47:28]
Glenn Greenwald
Be in the school, but I had.
- [47:29]
Brendan Carr
To because it was part of a lawsuit and the agreement with Paramount.
- [47:35]
Glenn Greenwald
The president's suing you.
- [47:36]
Brendan Carr
The guard can do whatever he wants.
- [47:38]
Emily
Now that someone burst down.
- [47:40]
Glenn Greenwald
Okay, eat the bread. Eat the bread.
- [47:43]
Emily
You guys saw what happened to cvs.
- [47:46]
Glenn Greenwald
Y' all won't.
- [47:46]
Brendan Carr
Guess who owns cvs. Paramount.
- [47:49]
Glenn Greenwald
You really want to end up the culprit? You guys gotta stop being stupid. We can't understand you. Just shut up.
- [47:58]
Brendan Carr
We're going to get canceled, you idiots. What the hell?
- [48:01]
Emily
What the hell, Tom?
- [48:02]
Glenn Greenwald
They're calling it the Sermon on the Mount.
- [48:06]
Brendan Carr
Okay, Jim, so is that protected speech? And what is that rendering of how this is all going down? Getting right or wrong from your perspective?
- [48:17]
Emily
Yeah, I think everyone's trying to look for the tree and they're missing the forest. Right. Of that broader trend line of once President Trump ran the legacy national media and he sort of removed their gatekeeper status. Once you had social media like X embrace free speech, people had access to news and information. And so, you know, running just a partisan carnival. I think the way the Colbert show was is simply just not very good business in. And satire is awesome, right? Satire is probably one of the most fundamental and early aspects of free speech in all of democracy. And people should feel free to make fun of people that are in positions of power, whether it's the President or myself. Trust me, I got my fair share of ribbing. I'm not doing my job until I get made fun of more in some of these shows. It reminds me, there was a former FCC chairman, Newt Minnow, who talked about broadcast TV at the time being what he gave his famous speech that described it as the vast wasteland and broadcasters didn't like it. And that's why you saw sort of the, the, the SS Minnow was the, the famous ship on Gilligan's island was named after FC Chairman. So that's, that's the mark that I need to try to at least, you know, hit or exceed. But I think also when you look at comedy, you look at these late night shows, again, satire is great. We want it make fun of everybody. I think that's part of what makes for democracy. But a lot of these late night shows went from. There's an op ed that described this, that they basically went from being court jesters making fun of everybody to court clerics, where instead of going for laugh lines, they were going for applause lines and they were trying to enforce a particular political orthodoxy. And not there's anything wrong with that, but it turns out that that's not necessarily a great business model. And reports are that the Colbert show was losing something like $50 million a year and you can only sustain that for so long. And so again, I think people want to look for the tree. They want to look for something specific and nefarious because they are whistling past the graveyard of these bigger macro shifts that are taking place in media. And yes, I think those bigger macro shifts have to do with President Trump, but not for the reasons that people think. It's because he hasn't played the game of allowing the legacy mainstream media to set the narrative.
- [50:34]
Brendan Carr
Yeah, there is a lot of speculation about nefariousness potentially behind the scenes of the Paramount Skydance merger, which actually required your approval at the FCC cleared that hurdle last week. Do you believe that CBS axed Colbert and the Late show in any way to win your favor, to win Donald Trump's favor in the merger process?
- [50:56]
Emily
No, I don't think so at all. I mean, look, the FCC's own review process here, we ran our normal course standard process. We had a full commission vote, the all the commissioners, there's three of us, two Republicans, two Democrats voted. There was people that were expressing concern that we weren't going to have a commission level vote on the item. We did. We ran our normal process there in terms of the amount of time that it took and the timing of the review itself. It was right in the sweet spot of how long it takes the agency, both now in the prior administration, to review deals like this. And so these things were all, as I said, many, many times unrelated. There was a private lawsuit that was settled. There was a news distortion complaint that continues to be pending at the fcc. And then there was a transaction itself and we just ran our normal process on it.
- [51:41]
Brendan Carr
Was the, from your perspective, the Late show operating in the public interest? And did you have any prior conversations with them about whether they were operating the public interest with that show with Colbert? I mean, they're still on and they're still doing their thing. So did any of that go on?
- [51:57]
Glenn Greenwald
No.
- [51:57]
Emily
I mean, there's no discussions from my part about the Colbert show at all. I mean, I learned about it the way everyone else learned about it, or I guess most everybody learned about it, which was on news reports. It wasn't part of the FCC's review or transaction one way or the other.
- [52:13]
Brendan Carr
And is that like as we think about public interest and you know, the old one thing we talk about on the show all the time is the Johnny Carson model versus the Colbert model. And both of them respectively were top in Late Night, which is a remarkable reflection on some of the macro trends you've just been talking about.
- [52:29]
Emily
One was top in making money and one was top and losing money.
- [52:32]
Brendan Carr
Yes, yes. Although it's remarkable that Colbert, I think, was able to be top in rich ratings, and that's with a much lower number that Colbert than Johnny Carson was, because you're just competing for a smaller slice of the public because the scarcity that meant you were allocating licenses to them in the past has basically evaporated with different technology. I mean, it still exists obviously with broadcast licenses, but it's different with all of the other technology. So if Colbert is doing a broadly anti Trump show, does that mean CBS is not operating in the public interest?
- [53:08]
Emily
Well, the one interesting question is, you know, Congress has created special rules for equal opportunity, equal time, for instance, and the FCC has said actually statutorily that those particular rules don't apply to a bona fide news program, at least historically. There were some late night shows where the FCC would say that that sort of couch sit down interview portion was itself itself a bona fide newscast and therefore exempt from the congressional political rules. Meaning if you're in the relevant period of time before an election, you could have one candidate on and not the other. We haven't looked at those rules in a long time. But you know, it strikes me that, you know, a lot has changed since the FCC first started saying that those, you know, couch sit downs are bonafide news programs. And it would seem to me that before the FCC would provide any such exemption to any of these late shows, I think they should come back into the FCC and re up any requests. It's not clear to me that they would qualify as bonafide news programs. But again, the obligation isn't on CBS itself as a national programmer. The obligation, the public interest obligation, is on the local TV station. So for instance, if they don't feel like the programs that they're getting from CBS central meet the needs of their communities or further the public interest, and they should have the right, and they're supposed to in their agreement to preempt the programming and do something else. In fact, a week or so ago I started a new inquiry into Comcast, which owns NBC. And I've asked to get copies of their agreements with the local TV stations to try to make sure that there's not terms or conditions in that relationship between again, national programmer and the actual TV station that is precluding the TV station from fulfilling its public interest obligations. So, you know, those sort of a cluster of issues that we need to look at yet.
- [55:00]
Brendan Carr
Yeah, I wanted to ask about that. We can put this up on the screen because this is I'm reading from a Variety report as of last week that you informed Comcast on Tuesday you're launching an investigation in the company's relations with NBC affiliates. And they write, days after President Trump called for the network to be held, quote, unquote, accountable for favoring the dumb party and threatened to revoke broadcast licenses. The FCC has an interest in and the authority to promote the public interest and to ensure that local broadcast TV stations retain the economic and operational independent independence necessary to meet their public interest obligations. Is your point. And so I basically want to ask in this case, do you see your deregulatory agenda as actually complementary to course correcting or helping the media course correct to being more aligned with that perspective on public interest?
- [55:45]
Emily
Yeah, I think so. Again, Fundamentally, our North Star in the media portion of the FCC's DOC and other stuff that we do, in fact, we have a whole Build America agenda that we're running that looks at spectrum and infrastructure and workforce issue. But within the media space in particular, my North Star is I want to find ways to empower those local broadcast TV stations, the ones are actually licensed by the FCC and they're owned by a range of different companies, nexstar, Gray, Sinclair, to empower those stations to feel like they can serve the needs of their communities and to some extent to shrink the power of the national programmers like cbs, NBC, abc. And so by looking at NBC and the contractual relationships they have with the local stations, it's consistent with that broader goal that we're trying to push in the media ecosystem.
- [56:34]
Brendan Carr
And to the point that variety sort of combined these two things, noting that you sent Comcast that letter after Donald Trump called for NBC to be held accountable. That doesn't you. Is that, that doesn't strike you as inappropriate? I mean, I'm guessing because you're involved in it, but it's not inappropriate from your perspective to have the President criticizing the networks, pressuring the networks for different coverage, and then acting with that letter from, from, from your part?
- [57:01]
Emily
Yeah, no, not at all. I mean, I've sent, you know, a number of letters at this point to lots of the entities that we regulate, whether it's Comcast. I've sent letters and inquiries to Disney, which runs abc. Of course, we've done issues with Verizon as well. You know, we're working with a lot of different companies across these regulated spheres. And I want to move them all in a direction that promotes the public interest, whether it's, you know, a company like Verizon where they've agreed to end their DEI, their Nvidia's forms of DEI discrimination. I think that's a good thing. Disney, ABC, I'm looking similarly at some DEI issues there, whether it's Comcast looking at this network affiliation relationship. I mean, there's gonna be a lot of activity. The FC's busy place, there's gonna be a lot of activity between the FCC and regulated entities. And President Trump is also, you know, very focused on media issues as a general matter. From his public feed, you can see that. And so I do think, you know, we're both gonna be speaking on similar issues at similar times times. But I think that's going to continue because that's, that's where our focus is.
- [57:56]
Brendan Carr
Yeah. And we have this from the Verge as well. The Freedom of Press foundation filed a complaint against you with the Office of Disciplinary counsel at the D.C. court of Appeals, alleging that you had repeatedly broken basic principles of conduct as a licensed attorney, including by leveraging your power to control media outlet speech. But the Verge, in their coverage of this letter, even admits, as a legal complaint, quote, it's a long shot, but the filing accuses you of perpetuating a, quote, unquote, unconstitutional shakedown. Now, I know you don't agree with that characterization, but I think this was just filed today. So what's your response, Mr. Chairman, to this complaint that was filed here in DC?
- [58:35]
Emily
Well, look, it's, you know, obviously a totally frivolous filing that's simply trying to intimidate the FCC and, you know, stop us from doing our job. And I can assure you that that is not going to happen. If anything, you know, we're going to continue to accelerate our work. We've got an obligation from Congress to enforce a public interest mandate on broadcasters. And, you know, that's exactly what we're going to do. And we're going to, you know, keep at it as long as we have the privilege of serving this job. I'm not worried about that filing. You know, it was an attempt, I think, to get a headline, and maybe they got one in the Verge. But beyond that, you know, it has no meaning to me.
- [59:12]
Brendan Carr
Okay, so just returning as we wrap up here to that question of scarcity. I'm a millennial. It's weird for me. I can't imagine what it's like for Gen Z and people. Gen Alpha. Next up, who don't know, as you said, who juicy Small a even is, Mr. Chairman, to think about anything in the media world as being scarce because there's just so much technological capacity for competition now. So I wanted to ask you a little bit how your own, what your own media diet looks like. What are you Consuming. Are you deep in the podcast world? How do you think about these things based on your consumption of different media on your own?
- [59:53]
Emily
Yeah, I've definitely shifted a lot into podcasts. I mean, really, it sort of accelerated during COVID 19. I sort of kept the habit up, but yours is a good one, so we've got to keep that in the mix as well. But, yeah, a lot of. A lot of ruthless, a lot of all in podcasts, you know, try to take in a variety of different things. But you're right, I mean, this. This idea of. Of scarcity and broadcast, which has justified historical. The licensing of these stations may seem odd to people, but at the same time, you know, it's something that. A decision that Congress made, and it's up the FCC to enforce it. If people don't like it, again, they can go to Congress and they can say, we don't think it makes sense anymore to treat broadcasters different given all the competition that's out there. But until that happens, we got to enforce the law. And I do think that there's some changes we should do in the media space in light of podcasts and all this competition, because if you look at local TV stations, for instance, they're competing really in the market for. For advertising dollars. And if you look at sort of the percentage of advertising dollars that had supported local TV stations that has swung to digital, whether it's Google or Facebook, it's a dramatic number. And we saw this first with newspapers, right? We've got hundreds and hundreds of newspapers that have shuttered all across the country. And to some extent, that's the ghost of Christmas future for local TV stations if the FCC doesn't update its approach so that those local stations can compete with Google, with Facebook, Facebook, in the market for advertising. Because I do think there's still something very important in this country of local news, local reporters, local journalists. And to some extent, that's unique among the broadcast TV because podcasts and cable channels, you know, they're really good at the national stories, but it's those local reporters at local TV stations that cover the local stories. And so I do think, you know, again, empowering those to continue to do well, to survive, to stay in business. Business is part of what the FCC does, even if it does pinch some of those national programmers a little bit.
- [61:43]
Brendan Carr
And last question, as I think about this, as someone on the right and, you know, broadly supportive of the idea that competition generally makes a better product, I look at all this competition. I look at, you know, how Colbert, I think, made that show drove that show into the ground, from my perspective, because he was going for a narrow, narrow slice that was more and more loyal of the public. And that's how you end up with. I mean, mean, I think his average is probably two and a half, three million somewhere like that, but still losing money for the network. So anyway, all that is to say, is this competition making any of those outlets right now better, or is that trend sort of yet to be seen from your perspective?
- [62:23]
Emily
I do think the competition is helping. I do think the market forces are encouraging right now. Again, if you just sort of run your program the way, the way CBS had allowed the Colbert show to be run, you know, they're losing money. And so I do think you're seeing a market course correction there, which is needed. But a lot of this stuff you see across the board, I mean, frankly, with, you know, NPR and PBS as well, with Congress passing laws to defund them, really, they only have themselves to blame over for years. It wasn't that long ago that NPR and pbs, their viewership was a pretty good cross section of the American electorate. As a general matter, when you're basically forcing the American people to have money taken out of their pocketbooks to support something, I think it makes sense that you would attempt to be broadly appealable. But as a former editor at npr, Uri Berliner, that put out a lot of op eds on this, said, in his view, NPR just increasingly tried to appeal to a narrower and narrower base of basically Acela corridor listeners. And then that bargain with the American people forced them to subsidize. It no longer made sense. And so I do think across the board, obviously there was some government action there, but we are seeing some market forces and some course corrections. I think that's a good thing. It's definitely needed.
- [63:33]
Brendan Carr
Chairman Brendan Carr, thank you so much for your time tonight.
- [63:36]
Emily
Yeah, good to be with you. Thanks.
- [63:39]
Brendan Carr
Okay, so a couple of interesting takeaways there. Obviously, the chairman said that he did not have any communication with CBS or Paramount about Colbert. He said he found out about the decision from the news media just like everyone else did, which is quite interesting. Also very interested in. Interested in his point that if the broader public doesn't like him suddenly leveraging that definition of public interest, then Congress perhaps should act about whether or not the public interest definition still should apply to broadcast networks in basically a media atmosphere that nobody could imagine would exist when the. I think it was actually the Federal Communications act, the piece of legislation that estab. That was originally passed. Now, I will say I still. You think there's an interesting. I don't know if interesting is the right word. I still think having the president weighing in on these media outlets and their broadcast licenses while also having the FCC chairman do that as a journalist, which is the worst three words that you can say maybe after. As a millennial. My God, I'm in a millennial journalist. I'm having an identity crisis on the air right now. But it does there, there are certain people in the industry who will make decisions based on that. I'm not saying that I have any examples of that happening right now because I don't know that that's the case. But it also wouldn't shock me if we learn out, if we learn that later down the line, that was what was happening behind closed doors. So not ideal. But also the, the media status quo is so egregious and I frankly have a hard time getting worked up about any of it. So we thank Chairman Carr for joining us here on afterparty. And now for an ad that I tell you with all sincerity, I have been so excited to read for weeks because it's Massa chips. I got a box of these to my front door. I didn't know what they were. I tried them and I was blown away. Let me tell you, I love chips. I love chips with a sandwich. It is one of the of my very favorite meals. I am not a foodie. Nothing fancy or gourmet. Usually that's. It's just, it's simply too sophisticated for my unsophisticated palette. I enjoy simple things and one simple thing that I enjoy is a sandwich with chips. But chips now are so disgusting that when I tried these masa chips, looked on the back and saw the ingredient list, it honestly blew my mind. So I've been very excited to do this ad. All chips and fries used to be cooked in tallow up until the 1990s. You've all probably heard that many times. Times by now when big corporations swept to switched to cheap processed seed oils. Today, seed oils make up 20% of the average American's daily calories. Recent studies have linked seed oils to metabolic health issues and inflammation. Go to YouTube and look at those videos of canola oil being made. They will ruin your appetite. But Massa did something about it. They created a delicious tortilla chip with just three ingredients and no seed oils. Organic nixim, malized corn, sea salt and 100% grass fed beef tallow. And you can taste the beef tallow and it is absolutely fantastic. It is such a wonderful taste. These chips avoid all the bad stuff. They taste incredible. Masa is crunchier, tastier and it doesn't break in your guac. Snacking on massive chips is nothing like eating regular chips. With Masa, you feel satisfied and light with no crash or blow afterwards is honestly so true. The beef tallow makes the chips satiating so you won't find yourself uncontrollably binging. Also true and feeling hungry afterwards. Masa Chips is beloved by 10 thousands of customers and has been endorsed by industry leading health and nutrition experts. So if you're ready to give Masa a try, go to Massachips.com afterparty and use code AFTERPARTY for 25 off your first order. That's Massachips.com and code AFTERPARTY for 25% off your first order. Those things are delicious. Believe me. Your body is brilliant.
- [68:03]
Emily
Nature's Bounty has a bounty of solutions.
- [68:05]
Brendan Carr
To help you thrive, supporting your systems.
- [68:06]
Emily
From your head to your heels.
- [68:08]
Brendan Carr
Nature's Bounty High absorption magnesium glycinate supports heart, bone, nerve and muscle health, while just one hair growth capsule a day helps grow thicker, fuller hair. Delicious new Nature's Bounty probiotic gummies contain.
- [68:19]
Emily
Prebiotics and postbiotics, supporting gut health, regularity and immune health. Nature's Bounty it's in your nature. Learn more@naturesbounty.com these statements have not been.
- [68:27]
Brendan Carr
Evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease and now a word on South Park. Just because we were talking about it with Chairman Carr, I have to say I've never been a South park person. I know some women are. I do think honestly that it's a sex thing. Just south park is so male coded to me. Every time I watch it I see. I guess I see the appeal, but it just, it's never been my thing so it's probably not surprising to people like cartoons aren't my thing. But I actually have always also thought that American dad and Family Guy are funnier than south park and cueing a lot of angry commenters here, including some of my friends, but that is just my perspective on it. Even that said, nobody is other than like the maga, right? Saying this about the south park episodes on Trump so far. I know we were talking about Sydney Sweeney earlier, but I feel like for south park, which I'm not even a huge fan of, this satire has been mid I feel like south park can do do better than what they've done with Trump. It feels like, honestly, I'm sorry, but it feels like sort of brain dead 2017, like MSNBC lib nonsense. It just, it has not made me laugh that hard and I'm willing to laugh at this. So far be it from me, a humble podcaster, but I feel like south park can, like, it just, it feels like they're doing so much low hanging fruit. And that's, that's kind of the thing sometimes, like if you're the best person at picking the low hanging fruit, that there's a virtue to that. But I actually feel like they can, they can do better. So that was just, that's been sort of stuck in my craw for a couple of weeks now because there's so much hype about how hilarious these south park segments are. There's, there is really funny anti Trump satire. Higher. And I just thought that was mid. I feel like it was mediocre. Like it really could be better. So moving on, moving on from that. Maybe this will be a more popular take, but I wanted to roll this clip of a position of agreement I found with Michelle Obama. Maybe unexpected to everyone, but I thought this was actually quite an interesting comment from the former first lady. So let's take a look.
- [70:59]
Glenn Greenwald
If I listen to ESPN for an hour, it's like watching the Real Housewives of Atlanta. You know, I mean, you know, it's.
- [71:06]
Emily
The same drama and they're yelling at.
- [71:08]
Glenn Greenwald
Each other and they don't get along. You know, I mean, Stephen A. Smith, he's just like every other post.
- [71:16]
Emily
Real Housewife, he would be right.
- [71:19]
Glenn Greenwald
Be amazing. So that's why I'm like, what's the difference?
- [71:22]
Brendan Carr
It's just, you know, it's just sociological drama. Drama.
- [71:27]
Glenn Greenwald
If I listen to ESPN for an hour.
- [71:29]
Brendan Carr
So let me just share this tab instead because guess what? I, I actually wrote a story very similar to this for the Federalist in 2019. So if anything, Michelle Obama, maybe she read it. That seems slightly unlikely to me, but I actually think this is a really interesting point. And at the same time time, I think it's somewhat undignified. Correct me if I'm wrong. Undignified. First of all, for the former first lady of the United States to have a podcast. I say that as a podcaster. For the former first lady of the United States to have a podcast, which she does with her brother and obviously she had her husband on recently, it just feels undignified. It feels like it is below, especially because it's not like some type of special podcast. It's them sitting around in t shirts and jeans and talking about the Real Housewives. And I'm saying this again as somebody who is a podcaster and agrees with Michelle Obama on this, on this very important take. This was the headline of my Federalist story all the way back in 2019, which was assigned to me. So I can't take full credit, but if Real Housewives fought physically instead of verbally, it'd be WrestleMania. I watched all of WrestleMania and this brilliant nugget occurred to me about halfway through it. And I think it's completely true. And there's something about the emotional dynamics of the Housewives. So if you are watching, if you're watching the Housewives as a woman, the primary pull is the emotional dynamics of the group. If you are watching football as a man, it's not that the emotional dynamics are irrelevant, but you are primarily pulled in by the physical dynamics of the competition. And to me, that's such a perfect distillation, oddly enough, of the male and female brain, that for women here, you have this utterly low risk, with a couple of exceptions, but this, this utterly low risk arena for emotional warfare. And for men, in the case of sports, you have this relatively low risk. It's not literal war arena for physical dynamics, physical competition. So the house size are emotional competition. And don't get me started, I don't think necessarily applies to the Bachelor. I've always said the Housewives are far superior to the Bachelor. If you want to watch real reality tv, give up on the Bachelor, Go to the Real Housewives. Start with season four of the Real Housewives of New York City. That would be my recommendation. Or start from the beginning of Vanderpump Rules and just clear a weekend. Don't move off the couch. Get a cooler for, for water, electrolytes. That's how you should handle whichever weekend you're able to book out for it.
- [74:23]
Glenn Greenwald
But.
- [74:23]
Brendan Carr
But I thought it was somewhat interesting, after all of the sort of gender fluid mania of the last 10 years, to have Michelle Obama, I think making a shockingly salient point here, dare I say, about the. Actually, really, I think fair illustration that we see in both of these things. And actually, Jerry o'. Connell, Jerry o' Connell had a great show on Bravo for Men at one point that I think made this very clear because it was sort of ironic and funny that the men were also pulled in to the emotional dynamics of the Housewives and of Bravo. That was like genuinely the shtick of the show is that it's funny that the men are getting pulled into this. I don't Think again. I think emotions are an important part of sports too. But I also think that the primary, the primary, let's say, appeal, appeal of both genres really clearly illustrates where we're coming from as men and women. And to hear it from Michelle Obama herself, the, the former first lady herself, I'm not going to go in any further into exploring that particular thread or any jokes that may come of it, but Michelle Obama, I think you were correct about the Real Housewives.
- [75:45]
Emily
Finally.
- [75:45]
Brendan Carr
Before we wrap tonight, I just wanted to share a couple of thoughts. I did watch the new Happy Gilmore a little. I was a little disappointed. I mean, it was basically what I expected. I love the original Happy Gilmore. That was a VHS tape that my friends and I just wore out at sleepovers back in the day. So I thought that it was totally worth watching, like a really fun time. Could have maybe been funnier. You know who was, who's great in it though was Travis Kelce. And Bad Bunny was really good in it too. So it was, it was a delightful watch. It doesn't of course, live up to the original. Nothing really ever does, but, you know, worth a watch. Could have been better. Still, really fun. More importantly, I watched the live action Lilo and Stitch last night and I'm curious. I don't watch a lot of kids movies, so I'm curious if any of the, the parents have a reaction to this. But man, translating that from animation to live action, I think absolutely upped the emotional resonance of the plot in a way that was borderline sadistic. I was a wreck. I was sobbing. I was losing my mind at the live action Lilo and Stitch because it was all grass, no breaks on the emotional low notes and the pains. This is not a spoiler at all. I mean, the original Lila Stitch, which this is very true to, has been out for a long time. So all I'm saying is that they twist the knife over and over again in a way that feels just. It feels cruel when you're watching the live action version. The actress who played Lila was brilliant. Of course, the actor who played Stitch was brilliant. Actually. Don't know how they did Stitch, I assume like combination of cgi, I don't know. But it was, it was a, it was great. It was just honestly I thought borderline cruel for a children's movie to keep twisting the knife. But actually probably a lot of that goes over kids heads because I don't remember it pulling at my heartstrings quite as much when I was a kid either. So maybe it's just maybe it's when they really, really gets the adults. Many such cases. Many such cases, as the President would say. My email address, by the way, is emily devilmaycare media.com emily devil may care media.com feel free to send your thoughts over there. I try to respond to every email as best I can. We will be back here on Wednesday, 10pm live. Maybe we'll have more updates on the the international saga of Ellen DeGeneres and whether or not she was cruel to her her staff when she had a talk show back in the day. So stay tuned. Maybe we'll have updates, maybe we won't. I shouldn't promise anything, but I will promise more fun. So 10pm Wednesday. We'll be back. Your body is brilliant.
- [78:44]
Emily
Nature's Bounty has a bounty of solutions.
- [78:45]
Brendan Carr
To help you thrive, supporting your systems.
- [78:47]
Emily
From your head to your heels.
- [78:49]
Brendan Carr
Nature's Bounty High absorption magnesium glycinate support heart, bone, nerve and muscle health while just one hair growth capsule a day helps grow thicker, fuller hair. Delicious new Nature's Bounty probiotic gummies contain.
- [78:59]
Emily
Prebiotics and postbiotics supporting gut health, regularity and immune health. Nature's Bounty it's in your nature. Learn more@naturesbounty.com these statements have not been.
- [79:08]
Brendan Carr
Evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.