Q&A: Trump vs the BBC, plus Mayor Mamdani & the future of Israel's left

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: Christiane Amanpour Presents: The Ex Files

Episode: Q&A: Trump vs the BBC, plus Mayor Mamdani & the future of Israel's left

Release Date: November 13, 2025
Hosts: Christiane Amanpour (B), Jamie Rubin (A)

---

Episode Overview

In this special bonus Q&A episode, journalist Christiane Amanpour and ex-husband Jamie Rubin respond to listeners' questions on media bias, the role of public broadcasting, the state of the Democratic Party following recent US elections, New York’s new mayor Owais Mamdani, and the future of Israel’s political left post-Rabin. Drawing on their extensive experience in international journalism and statecraft, they dissect each topic with trademark candor, humor, and insight into the world’s increasingly chaotic geopolitics.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Trump, the BBC, and Media Bias

(00:21 - 07:58)

• Splicing and Misrepresentation in the Media

  • Context: The BBC’s “Panorama” was accused of manipulating video of Trump’s January 6 speech, omitting the word “peacefully.”
  • Amanpour: Editing for time and redundancy is normal, “but on no account should anyone be editing and splicing bits and bobs together that willfully and deliberately change somebody’s meaning.” (00:39)
  • She highlights how attacks on the BBC in the UK, and similar attacks on PBS/NPR in the US, are often politically motivated, especially by the right wing post-Brexit and in the Trump era.

• Jamie Rubin’s View on Right-Wing Media Criticism

  • Rubin refers to “the right wing in my country and certainly seen it a bit in Europe, whine endlessly about the media. They just never stop whining.” (02:25)
  • He argues tech industry leaders—“tech bosses, not left wing”—now shape the news ecosystem, and worries most about unregulated social media distorting the public square.
  • Memorable Quote:

    “As they used to say, you’re entitled to your own opinions, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.” (03:45)

• The Role and Importance of Public Service Broadcasting

  • Amanpour calls the BBC “one of the most powerful and editorially and culturally significant content providers.”
  • Public broadcasters serve “the entire country and often are most appreciated in some of the areas that actually tend to vote Conservative.” (06:40)
  • She warns of the danger of dismantling such institutions:

    “Public service broadcasting is absolutely vital and it’s at our peril if we allow it to be destroyed.” (07:53)

• Historical Context & Loss of Regulation

  • Rubin recalls when news was seen as a public service by major networks: “These were people who believed that news was a public service. …not expecting them to make money.” (08:25)
  • Amanpour explains the US Fairness Doctrine and the role of the FCC in ensuring equal time, until deregulation in the Reagan era, paralleling the UK’s Ofcom for broadcasters today.
  • Concerns are voiced over unregulated partisan broadcasters like GB News.

---

2. Democrats’ Success & Mayor Owais Mamdani

(12:24 - 19:26)

• Balancing Ambition & Pragmatism

  • Question: Should Democrats pull to the center after recent successes, especially in swing regions, to avoid a backlash against progressive policies?

• Jamie Rubin’s Take

  • Celebrates Democratic victories in VA, NJ, and CA, but tempers excitement over Mamdani’s NYC win:

    “I am worried that his first steps out of the box are to emphasize the fact that he’s a socialist, not a social Democrat, but an actual socialist…” (13:03)

  • Rubin stresses practicality:

    “There aren’t enough [millionaires and billionaires]… The real money has to come from the upper middle classes if you want to raise money in America.” (14:45)

  • He argues that success in NYC doesn’t translate nationally, and warns Democrats:

    “We need to appeal to moderates and centrists to get the presidency back, to get the House of Representatives back, to get the Senate back.” (16:18)

• Christiane Amanpour’s Counterpoint

  • She notes that in American discourse, “when you say the word socialist, in America, they say communist.” (14:05)
  • While agreeing that Mamdani might not define the national party, she sees his win as a shift: “He was underestimated during the run for mayor. During the primaries, he beat the establishment candidates…” (17:53)

• Broader Democratic Lessons

  • Amanpour draws comparisons to European debates over wealth taxes: “That’s a factor of democracy around the world right now.” (18:49)
  • Discussion highlights the dangers of over-reading progressive victories and the necessity for broad appeal.

---

3. The Future of Israel’s Left Post-Rabin

(19:27 - 25:03)

• Yitzhak Rabin’s Legacy

  • Amanpour laments,

    “The assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, basically nothing’s been the same since.” (19:46)
    She stresses his credentials as a soldier, statesman, and peacemaker—killed by an Israeli extremist for seeking peace.

• Israeli-Palestinian Stalemate and Leadership

  • Echoes Yuval Noah Harari’s insight:

    “Neither side’s narrative…is 100% right or 100% wrong…The only way to peace is if they listen to each other, if they compromise, and if they realize that each side has a story and each side has ownership of this land.” (21:06)

  • Amanpour uses the phrase “from the river to the sea” to underscore the need for true sharing of the land, referencing contemporary leaders' inability to make peace.

• Rubin’s Analysis & Current Prospects

  • Rubin notes the difficult environment for Israel’s left after the failed Camp David peace talks:

    “Israeli leaders on the left…became discredited by that. And it made it hard for them to win back elections. Now they have moved…in a more anti-peace direction.” (24:00)

  • He argues current regional developments could provide Israel with opportunities for recognition and security—and insists,

    “This is when peace needs to be made.” (24:57)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Fact-Based Media:

  “The media needs to be fact based…You’re entitled to your own opinions, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.” – Jamie Rubin (03:40-03:45)

• On Public Service Broadcasting:

  “Public service broadcasting is absolutely vital and it’s at our peril if we allow it to be destroyed.” – Amanpour (07:53)

• On US Political Realities:

  “America is built on capitalism, not socialism.” – Jamie Rubin (14:35)

• On the Need for Political Compromise:

  “Neither side’s narrative…is 100% right or 100% wrong…The only way to peace is if they listen to each other, if they compromise…” – Amanpour, paraphrasing Yuval Noah Harari (21:06)

• On the Israeli Left’s Prospects:

  “Israeli leaders on the left…became discredited by that. And it made it hard for them to win back elections.” – Jamie Rubin (24:00)

---

Recommendations Segment

(25:09 - 27:33)

• Jamie Rubin’s Recommendation:

  • The Leopard (Il Gattopardo), both the novel by Giuseppe di Lampedusa and Netflix adaptation—a historical tale of Sicily’s transformation, praising its beauty and cultural depth.

• Christiane Amanpour’s Recommendation:

  • Multi-part Martin Scorsese documentary on Apple TV, exploring the director’s creative partnership with De Niro and DiCaprio, and his investigation of the American “dark underbelly.”

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Media: Trump, BBC, Tech & Public Broadcasting: 00:21 – 12:24
• Democrats, Mayor Mamdani, Party Strategy: 12:24 – 19:26
• Israel’s Left, Rabin, Future Peace: 19:27 – 25:03
• Cultural Recommendations: 25:09 – 27:33

---

Tone & Language

The conversation is brisk, layered with personal anecdotes and good-natured bickering, reflecting the hosts’ shared history. They combine wit (“Techno is music,” quips Amanpour at 02:58) with passionate, sometimes sharp exchanges about political realities, yet always circle back to actionable advice and a deep sense of professional responsibility, particularly towards journalistic integrity and public dialogue.

---

This episode is a masterclass in explaining media and geopolitical complexity in relatable terms, leaving listeners with a nuanced understanding of current affairs—and the tools for critical analysis.

Transcript

[A]

This is a Global Player original podcast.

[B]

Hello, everyone, and welcome to the special bonus episode of our podcast. This is the Q and A of the X Files with me, Cristiana Monpour and Jamie Rubin, and it's where we answer your questions. So let's get started. All right, Jamie, do you want to get the first one?

[A]

How serious is it for a public broadcaster? Tommy on Instagram asks to splice together quotes that may alter a political figure's meaning has this justified the right's feeling that the media is biased against them.

[B]

So here's what Tommy needs to know. On no account is it ever permissible to alter speeches, quotes, whatever it might be, whether it's on broadcast, online, in print to alter a person's meaning. We in the business are constantly editing. You have to edit for time, you have to edit for repetition. You have to edit for, you know, errors and things like that. But on no account should anyone be editing and splicing bits and bobs together that willfully and deliberately change somebody's meaning and change the intent of what they were saying. So in this regard, what's happened is they apparently took Panorama on the BBC, took a couple of sentences from Trump's speech on January 6, 2020, when all those people were going to the Capitol, and they missed a little bit of it where he said peacefully. But I think this is also something that has been highly politicized. And Jamie, I don't know what you, you think, but first and foremost in the BBC in England, ever since Brexit, right wing politicians have been gunning for the BBC, just gunning for the BBC, whether it was Boris Johnson and his crowd or whoever. And in the United States, you have essentially the right wing Trump, the others gunning for PBS and certainly the administration gunning for what they believe is either inaccurate or unfair coverage. So this falls into a really unfortunate splicing together coupled with a deliberate political desire to destroy some of the mainstream media.

[A]

Yeah, look, I've been watching the right wing in my country and certainly seen it a bit in Europe, whine endlessly about the media. They just never stop whining. And it's frustrating because what's really happened nowadays is the right wing media, through all of these elaborate techno media organizations, are now controlled by the techno bosses. And those techno bosses are no left wingers, tech bosses.

[B]

Techno is music.

[A]

That's true. Tech bosses, you're right. And they're not left wing. They're, if anything, they're right wing. They believe in no government. So this whole idea of the right that the media is biased against them is endless whining. I think it's been ridiculous from the beginning. To me, the media needs to be fact based sometimes on the right. They don't like facts and they create things called alternative facts. That's what happened in the first Trump administration. And that to me is an example and proof in a way that this is all based on politics. They want to create this idea that there are elites that are controlling information and controlling the debate and somehow misleading the public, when nowadays I'm more worried about the misleading and controlling or lack of controlling that generates the opposite effect. Because without the, the regulation of the social media companies, our public square has been ruined. Former president, current President Macron has given a very powerful speech in France about how the public square has been damaged by these tech bosses and their social media companies. And I think we should spend a lot of less time worrying about the hard work that goes into the BBC's careful editing of thousands of news programs and, and the, and the media in the United States, careful work to be as factual as possible and spend a lot more time figuring out how to regulate social media, which is where most people unfortunately get their news and are getting a slanted picture. As they used to say, you're entitled, entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts.

[B]

I know that sounds quaint today.

[A]

I know the facts are what these people don't want. These people who whine and complain endlessly. I know you've suffered from it. I've suffered from it at the podium and subsequently. And it seems to me that until we have an agreed set of facts from most of our citizens, we're not going to have a rationale, constructive debate that will allow democracy to thrive. Remember, democracy can't thrive without an effective first, sorry, First Amendment that gives journalists the right to report. As Thomas Jefferson said, the most important amendment in the Bill of Rights was the First Amendment and the, and the right to a free press and the right for people to listen to that freedom of speech, that's the part we don't say out loud. Without people listening to the free speech and thinking this through. Democracy just doesn't work. Right?

[B]

And I think the second part of the, of the, you know, of second part of the question is public broadcasting. This is such a desperate need for that. You need something that is not left right or corporatist, you know, owned by a corporate entity. The truth is that in the, in the uk, the BBC is one of the most powerful and editorially and Culturally significant content providers, I hate using that word, but it does films, it does, you know, all sorts of cultural programs. It does politics from one end of the spectrum to the other. It does sports, entertainment, all of that. David Attenborough, you know, the great naturalist who brought everybody the world and made the world fall in love with wildlife. Thank you to the BBC. So I do think that one has to be super careful for why not just, you know, say when you're wrong, make a correction. But the idea of institutional bias at the BBC, I think is probably wrong. Although I will say that they have been incredibly under fire as well for a lot of things in the last several years, including the, the coverage of the Israeli Gaza war. And a lot of people here were very upset about the amount of weight that was given to one side, you know, versus the other side. I think in the United States, public broadcasting also is a, is a, is an absolute must. And so to see the Corporation for Public Broadcasting be, you know, dismantled, to see the pressure against PBS and NPR when these are not servicing left wing communities, these. And nor is the BBC. They service the entire country and often are most appreciated in some of the areas that actually tend to vote Conservative and are not as serviced and satisfied and catered to by, by a lot of the other media. So I think public service broadcasting is absolutely vital and it's at our peril if we allow it to be destroyed.

[A]

You know, Donald Trump often talks about this idea of, you know, making America great again. And the time when America was great in his mind and many people's minds was the 50s and the 60s. At that time, we had a media that wasn't challenged in the same way it is challenged today. But who and how did that happen? That happened because very, very wealthy owners of cbs, NBC, abc, the New York Times, Washington Post, et cetera, these were people who believed that news was a public service. And so they used their news divisions to provide that public service, not expecting them to make money. And they made money in other divisions of their corporate empires or they bought newspapers. And we're happy to see losing money, if necessary to serve the public through honest, fair reporting. And so those days that Donald Trump wants to bring back were enabled by public service entities within a larger corporation. So the CBS News division that I know you were proud to join at 60 Minutes was enabled. 60 Minutes, yeah, right. You only joined. The 60 Minutes part was enabled by William Paley, who owned CBS. And he said, I'm going to provide this public service and I don't care if it makes money because it's the right thing to do. And so there is a standard you can establish for journalism. It is being sought, and largely and almost always achieved by the pbs, by the BBC. And this whining endlessly by the right wing about the media is more a reflection of their attempt to skew the debate, to try to create alternative facts, as if there could be such a thing or alternative truths. And I think we should stop giving them so much attention. And yes, when journalists make a mistake at serious news organizations, they admit it. I wish politicians would do the same when they make a mistake.

[B]

Yeah. And just to build on that, Jamie talked about, you just Talked about the 60s and 50s, Etc. All the way through the 70s there was a thing called the FCC which actually did raise, regulate what was said. There was the basically equal time.

[A]

Equal time, yeah.

[B]

To different sides of the political spectrum. You had to be fair. There was a fairness doctrine, frankly that governed the way the established US media, broadcast media, and this is before cable and before all the fragmentation of the media and then with the Reagan administration, all the deregulation sort of put paid to that. So that's when the whole thing became a jungle. And the same is true over in the uk. There's this thing called Ofcom which essentially regulates TV and broadcasters and makes sure that you can't just be for one political party or, or the other. I know in newspapers it's different because they are overtly political, but in, in broadcasting we are not meant to be. And one of the sec, one of the ministers today brought up a really important issue. On the one hand you've got all this happening at the BBC and the top leaders resigning over it. But there's another thing that's allowed in the UK and that OFCOM should have ruled on and ministers are very surprised that they didn't rule against it. There are actual politicians, sitting politicians and ex politicians who have programs on what's known as GB news and those kinds of new, very partisan broadcasters that should be regulated. And as yet it's not regulated. So look, you know, it's not just, just one issue, it's a huge big issue. And regulation, absolutely, I think needs to happen. And the deregulation of our space, in my opinion, working in the United States and living here in, in the UK is what has allowed the cat among the pigeons and has thrown up. Yeah, I mean really just, you know, all efforts at fairness. The Fairness Doctrine. I like that. So how about Mac on Instagram? With the recent success of the Democrats in elections, how should they balance ambition with pragmatism to avoid backlash, especially in swing regions where voters may be more moderate or conservative.

[A]

Look, the Democrats had a good night on Tuesday. We won governorships in Virginia and New Jersey. And the governor of California had a very good night because his idea. Idea of how to pursue the state elections inside California won an overwhelming victory in a referendum, which was seen as a referendum on his governorship in many ways. And it was. So the Democrats had a good night. Now, the one. Because New York City is, in many respects the media capital of the world, Mamdani's victory gets the most attention. And I hope that people don't misunderstand Mamdani's victory. Let me say two things about it. I stand ready to hope that he succeeds as mayor. I don't know who I would have voted for. I don't vote in New York City. But I am worried that his first steps out of the box are to emphasize the fact that he's a socialist, not a social Democrat, but an actual socialist and wants to.

[B]

He calls himself a democratic socialist.

[A]

Well, he does, but he's a socialist. But he's a socialist. I'm a capitalist. I believe in the capitalist system.

[B]

I'm just going to stop you. I'm a capitalist. Mamdani probably believes in.

[A]

You know, I haven't heard him talk about capitalism very much at all.

[B]

Listen, from Europe, you can be a socialist and a capitalist. Sorry, you just can. Democratic, socialist, social.

[A]

I call it Social Democrats. That's fine.

[B]

Social Democrats. In America, they've just got it the other way around.

[A]

No, in America, he decided to join a party that is socialist.

[B]

I'm sorry, that's democratic. Socialists.

[A]

Right. Socialist. Socialist.

[B]

Super careful, Jamie, because when you say the word socialist, in America, they say communist. You know, on election night, there was a woman.

[A]

I. I'm a person who understands the difference between a socialist and a communist. And I want to say that Mamdani is happily calling himself a socialist. I think that's troubling. I didn't say it does. It doesn't mean communist. But more importantly, New York City is the capitalist capital of the world. And look, that's where capitalism.

[B]

New York. Why do you think they voted for him?

[A]

Let them.

[B]

Let him.

[A]

Let him make it better. But he's not gonna make it better if he doesn't understand that America is built on capitalism, not socialism.

[B]

That's what he does understand.

[A]

He doesn't seem to, because his first step out of the box is to misunderstand the tax system. Let me tell People, something that very few people really apprec. Get a lot of money by taxing millionaires and billionaires. There aren't enough of them. The real money has to come from the upper middle classes if you want to raise money to do things in America, the tax base is contained in the hundreds or millions of people who are in the upper middle class bracket, not the big time millionaires and billionaires. There's just not enough money there in the tax base. And so to come out of the box and say, I'm going to get all this money for New York City by taxing millionaires and billionaires, he's just wrong. The money isn't there. There aren't enough of them. And so he needs to understand the tax system better. He needs to understand that if he drives the businesses away from New York City, New York City is going to suffer. What I worry about is that he's going to do things in a few years to try to raise money, to try to do the things he wants to do that are socialist, democratic, socialist, fine, but socialist. And drive capitalist leaders out of the city. That I love, that I believe in, that I believe can do both. Take care of people and promote.

[B]

I'm sure it can, but it doesn't.

[A]

It doesn't. And he needs to help fix that. And I hope he succeeds. But what I don't hope is that the Democratic Party sees him as any sort of leader for the future of our country. He's not a leader that will sell well in other cities or other countries, other states around the country. Let me just get this out and then welcome to criticize it. My country is views. My country. Yeah, criticize it with different views. I mean, in the nicest possible way, the way we do between an ex wife and an ex husband is that in my country, we are a conservative country. We're divided down the middle. The voting patterns demonstrate very clearly that Donald Trump, had there been more voters in 2024, he would have won by a bigger margin. We need to appeal to moderates and centrists to get the presidency back, to get the House of Representatives back, to get the Sen. Senate back. And that's what happened in New Jersey, that's what happened in Virginia. Moderate Democrats won elections in states that sometimes go for Republicans. So what all I'm saying here is that let Momdani show his ideas can work in New York if they work great. I have my doubts for the reasons I suggested, but let's not see him as a leader for our party. He's captured an important issue, affordability. That's something that is hurting Trump all over the country because of his crazy tariffs are causing damage to people's lives, his crazy policies of causing damage to people's lives. But I just hope that Mamdani's victory doesn't misguide our party into thinking that some form of democratic socialism is going to help us. Bernie Sanders was a great, great candidate. He inspired a lot of people, but he wasn't going to win the presidency.

[B]

I think that that's all well and good, and of course, America is not a socialist country, but the poison, obviously that's been spewed out about Mamdani shows that he's a force to be reckoned with. And I think that people are changing. I'm not saying America is going to become socialist or that he's the future of the bigger Democratic Party, but he was underestimated during the run for for mayor. During the primaries, he beat the establishment candidates. Your, you know, your friend former Governor Cuomo, he beat him handily in the primary and very handily in the mayoral election.

[A]

I don't agree that it was handily. An independent got 41 of the vote in this election. That's not handily.

[B]

Okay. All the other elections, that's pretty handy. All the other elections that you just mentioned were not razor thinned. They were all hefty margins of victory.

[A]

And they were moderate Democrats. Moderate.

[B]

They were all hefty margins of victory. But I would say that you, to talk about the so called wealth tax that I think you were saying that he, he's playing with, that's a factor of democracy around the world right now. It's happening right now. The Chancellor of the Exchequer of the labor government here is trying to figure out what to do to fill the budget. And they've been floating a wealth tax or a property tax or a. Whatever. Sophie, this is an important one. You can ask that, sure.

[A]

Last week it was the 30th anniversary of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. What do you think about the future of the Israeli left and the new generation of Israeli left leaders like Nama Lazim? Well, all I know is that the assassination, Sorry, Lazimi.

[B]

The assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, basically nothing's been the same since. In Israel. This was a warrior, statesman, peacemaker who took all his experience from the founding of the state and fighting for it to knowing that he had to also then make peace with his enemies. And that was during the Oslo period and all the rest. And then he was Assassinated for that very reason by an Israeli, whatever you want to call him, extremist, you know.

[A]

Terrorist, whatever, definitely an extremist.

[B]

An Israeli killed him, not a Palestinian, not an Iranian. And Israeli did. And that, for me, the legacy is, and the tragedy is that there has been no real, real sticky negotiations and, you know, talk between the Israelis and the Palestinians, really, even despite the Ehud Barak, you know, time. But that was the time and it was 30 plus years ago. And we really need to have leaders on both sides who are able to do that. You know, in answer to this question, and I don't know whether it's left, right, or in the center. Yuval Noah Harari, who is a. Sorry. Yuval Noah Hariri, who is a fantastic historian and, you know, just cultural genius, has just written a brilliant piece for the weekend FT just this past weekend, in which he said, in short, neither side, neither side's narrative, neither side's version of history is 100 right or 100 wrong. That sounds like a truism. But each side believes that they are a hundred percent right and that they are, you know, just into their corners. And that's it. It's my way or the highway. And the only way to peace is if they listen to each other, if they compromise, and if they realize that each side has a story and each side has ownership of this land. Israel, Palestine, whatever you want to call it, from the river to the Sea has to be shared. And that is something that President Trump and Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff and Netanyahu and Abbas, they have to come together and talk about it like that because otherwise this is going to carry on.

[A]

Well, you know, when you save from the river to the Sea, I get shutters down my spine because that's. Can I finish my point, please?

[B]

Hariri Road.

[A]

Good for him.

[B]

Jordan river to the Mediterranean Sea.

[A]

Good for him. Good for him. But when I hear from the river to the Sea, I hear the protesters who believe that that should all be Palestinian, the Israelis should be ruled, that.

[B]

It should all be Israel.

[A]

Can I get my point? Of course. No, I don't want to park it. I don't want to give credit to people who take one side, whether that's Israelis or Palestinians. But let's say something more important. Currently, right now, Israel should be in a good position. After the horrors of October 7th, their military intelligence service, with the help of the United States and a lot of other countries, did a remarkable job in destroying the Iranian group of resistance, both Hezbollah, Hamas, and in Iran itself, and in Syria and the Syrian government is now meeting with President Trump. Sanctions are going to be lifted. There's a chance for the people of Syria. The Lebanese government is willing to make peace or discuss peace options with the Israelis for the first time, not the Iranians. And the Palestinian Authority has shown remarkable flexibility to allow for a peace plan to end the war in Gaz, Gaza. Now what we need is Israeli leaders who have the skill set that Rabin had, the ability that Barak had as well. And I don't think we should dismiss that period when Barak offered Yasser Arafat a solution to all this that would have made the Palestinians lives a lot better back in2019, in 2000, the Camp David Peace Accords. He would have created two states with a capital in Jerusalem, a solution to the refugee problem, and the 67th borders with some swaps. That was all offered to Arafat and he said no, unfortunately. And the Palestinian situation just got worse and worse and worse. And then Israeli leaders on the left, which is what the questioner asked about, became discredited by that. And it made it hard for them to win back elections. Now they have moved, let's put it in a more anti peace direction. It's hard to talk about a Palestinian state in Israel. It's hard to talk about peace with the Palestinians in Israel after October 7th. But now Israel's in a position to achieve the dreams of its founders, to have recognition from Saudi Arabia, potentially from Lebanon and Syria, all the neighbors recognizing Israel in its current borders with its security needs taken care of. And they have defeated, met much of the power of their enemies. This is when peace needs to be made.

[B]

With the Middle east peace still unresolved. Jamie, what's your recommendation this week? We're doing it on the bonus episode this week.

[A]

Well, you know, most of the work that we do is about very painful subjects, war and peace or geopolitical threats or the crisis in the media or things like that. So sometimes when I turn to a book or a movie, I actually don't want to think about any of those things. And one of the most beautiful films that I've seen, it's actually a series on Netflix, is based on a famous. It is the filming of a famous book by Giuseppe de Lampedusa called Leopard. And it's filmed in Sicily with all Italian actors. It's in Italian and it was one of the most beautiful small series. I think there were four or five episodes. And the book is a wonderful book. It's a famous book about the changes in Italy in the 19th century. When Italy became a national country and the people of Sicily and their rulers had to figure out how to deal with that. And it's a family story about a father and a daughter and a wife and a, and a husband and the kids and how they, you know, go through political experiences. But what's so amazing about it is the filming and the beauty of Sicily and how it's got nothing to do with the mob and the Mafia, which is what most people see when they see Sicily. Unfortunately, it's got to do with the beauty of that land and the culture that evolved over centuries with all of the invasions that Sicily went through.

[B]

Yes, I saw it and loved it and read the book. Loved it. It's really lovely. And actually it dovetails. I didn't know you were going to choose the Leopard and the Sicily and the Mob, but I would recommend anybody to go on Apple TV and watch the multi part series on Martin Scorsese, the great American director who dived deep into mob land and with his relationship, his film relationship with Robert De Niro in explored these incredible stories for so long and then later into all sorts of other aspects of American life and always the dark underbelly. So he then partnered in terms of his main actor, his muse, I guess, Leonardo DiCaprio on everything from, you know, Wolf of Wall street, you know, down to the Killers of the Flower Moon and many, many others. So, Jamie, that's it. Now, thank you for listening to this Q and A episode of the X Files with me and with Jamie.

[A]

Me.

[B]

If you have a question for us, don't forget to keep them coming in. Something in the news, something else, whatever you want to know, we will try to answer them. You know all our social media platforms, our handle is at amanpourpod or email [e-mail] and our next main episode is out on Tuesday and you can get that wherever you get your podcasts or on globalplayer.com, watch our main episodes and our bonus episodes on YouTube because we have the channel. Just search Christiana Manpour presents and subscribe to our channel so that you never, ever, ever miss an episode. God forbid.

[A]

Goodbye from London, goodbye from New York state.

[B]

Bye.

[A]

This has been a global player original production.