Loading summary
Transcript80 lines
- [00:08]
A
Hello and welcome back to the City Journal podcast. I am your host, Raphael Mangual, and today I am delighted to be joined by my wonderful colleague, the great, the one and only Judy Miller. Welcome to the show, Judy.
- [00:19]
B
Well, I'm delighted to be here with you.
- [00:21]
A
I'm so excited to talk to you for so many reasons. In part because you're one of my favorite people at mi. I don't know how much you remember about this, but when I first joined the Manhattan Institute in 2015, you made me feel very, very welco welcome. You were always saying nice things to me after staff meetings, and it gave me a lot of confidence. So I always appreciated you as a colleague. I wanted to talk to you today because I think you are one of the most interesting and accomplished people here at the Manhattan Institute when you think about the trajectory of your career as a journalist. And I think a lot of people often view policy work and journalism as sort of siloed, as different operations and endeavors. And I wanted to start our conversation by just getting a sense, someone who has a long and distinguished career in journalism, who has spent a significant amount of time now here at the Manhattan Institute, a public policy think tank, how those two worlds have been connected for you.
- [01:18]
B
I think that they're similar worlds, though they don't seem to be because they both involve people asking questions. I mean, I became a journalist because I had a lot of questions, and I think that policy people have sometimes different questions, but pretty much the same desire to find answers that work and find answers that make sense and also to explain things to people. So when people sometimes say, why are you at a think tank? I think, well, almost all journalists, if they're any good, should kind of think of themselves as at a think tank.
- [02:04]
A
Right, Right. Yeah. And it's interesting because I have been at MI now for a while, and I spend a lot of my time talking to journalists, explaining things to them, answering their questions. But I often find myself on panels with them, at public discussions, and in my experience, actually, I think that people who spend a good amount of time covering a particular issue or set of issues carefully and thoroughly, they're going to develop an expertise that I think will rival that of any academic who's been studying the topic for a long time. And I think too many people sort of discount the experiential learning that's involved in good journalism.
- [02:42]
B
And plus, they can say things, journalists can say things if people who work for the institutions they're covering can't. So in a way, it's kind of Relief. I remember when I was writing about biological weapons and national security, I would sometimes get a call from somebody whom I had quoted, though not by name, in a story, and he would say, thank you so much because I've been saying this for months and I couldn't get my boss's attention. But somehow when it was in the newspaper, when it was in the Times, all of a sudden he said, oh, yes, yes, this is right. So I think in that Sen. We are useful, but you're only useful if you know the subject. If you don't, you're a drain on the policy person's attention.
- [03:37]
A
I think that's right. I think that's right. So you mentioned the Times, where you were, I think, beginning 1977. You said 1977, the New York Times rose to the ranks very quickly. I mean, for those of you who don't know Judy's career, I mean, it is incredible what, by 1983, you were chief of the Cairo bureau. A few years later you were deputy deputy chief of the D.C. bureau. Do I have that right? I mean, talk to me just about what that world was like. I think a lot of people hear the New York Times today, and it has a very different connotation than it had back then, where it was sort of considered the paper of record, the sort of most rigorous, most neutral, most thorough news source in America, where you could always go. And now I think a lot of people sort of look askance at the institution.
- [04:21]
B
I think the Times has changed. With the Times, it is one of the few successes, financially successful newspapers that can still afford to have a foreign staff of over 35 people all over the world, which gives them a reach that is unparalleled and it's still, I think, essential reading for anyone. What is different about the paper that I joined from the paper today is the amount of opinion that's in the paper and also opinion labeled as newspaper. And when I joined the New York Times, there was a very strict distinction between those two things. News was on the news pages and opinion was on the op ed and the editorial page. That's less true today. I still think that as a journalist, I was just blessed to be there. Full disclosure, I got my job basically through affirmative action.
- [05:26]
A
Is that right?
- [05:27]
B
Yes. Of the New York Times had sued the newspaper and the women of Newsweek had also sued their magazine because of discrimination. And it was very clear that the Times was going to lose that suit because women were treated differently. Our pay scale was different, the jobs we could occupy was different. And so I was one of four women who were hired at that point in response to the suit and put in. And I asked for the Washington bureau because I was living in Washington and wanted to stay there, wanted to cover Washington issues. And so I was hired. By the way, I think out of the four, there was one or maybe two survivors. But it was a very tough, competitive place, and people were very strict about things like mixing opinion with. Even though 80% of the staff was liberal and Democratic.
- [06:26]
A
So you say you wanted to stay in D.C. but you pretty quickly found yourself in the Middle East. How did that walk us through that transition?
- [06:33]
B
I had been covering the Middle East. I had gone there as a graduate student from Princeton, and I had fallen in love with the Middle east, and I had gone to do a paper in my master's degree, and I just fell in love with it. I just. It spoke to me, the issues spoke to me. And there were all these things I wanted to write that didn't fit into the paper I was supposed to write. So I began freelancing, and then I discovered that people would actually pay you to ask questions.
- [07:10]
A
What a wonderful discovery.
- [07:11]
B
It was thanks to that summer in the Middle east that I one became just fixated on the Middle east and its problems, but also decided that journalism was for me. So I really, I loved it. I became fascinated by the area. I went back every year to try to a different country to try and expand my knowledge base of it. And I was very lucky to be the first woman appointed to head the Cairo bureau, which really meant you were responsible for about 17 different Arab countries.
- [07:46]
A
Incredible. Incredible. And I have no doubt that that work really helped sort of shape your expertise in the region and your deep interest that I think followed you throughout, you know, the next couple of decades. And I want to jump ahead a little bit because, you know, you are, I think, the only person at the Manhattan Institute that's ever won a Pulitzer, which is incredible. And one of only a handful in the world. Right. I mean, and I want to talk about that work because a lot of people may have forgotten or don't know, actually. It's disconcerting how few people I run into on a daily basis who remember 9 11, who were alive for 9 11, but. But in the lead up to September 11, 2001, that January, I believe, you co authored a deep dive piece on Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda and the threat that they posed to the United States, which proved, you know, sadly, very prescient. What stood out about him as an individual and Al Qaeda as A group at that time to you that made it worth covering with that intensity?
- [08:55]
B
Well, I think I had been worried about, fixated on the threat not just to Europe but also to America of militant Islamism. And I had been worried about this ever since I was appointed Cairo bureau Chief in the 80s because you could see the growing strength of these Islamist movements. And the one president who really understood the danger I felt was Bill Clinton. And he was determined to try and kill Bin Laden because he understood that this man was dangerous to the United States. But he just couldn't get the intelligence that he needed to stage an assassination at that point that might have prevented 9 11. So this had been a long term concern of mine. It took a while to organize the pape, the team that did that reporting. At the time that we did the Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda series, it was one of the longest series the Times had ever run. It was five or six pieces involving six or seven people. I had gone to Afghanistan, I had interviewed the Taliban. I had been thrown out of Afghanistan by the Taliban. I was just so alarmed by the threat. We. I think I can't remember exactly when this series started but it was about nine months before 9 11. And I remember that we had all kinds of news in that story. I also remember that after the series ran I don't think I got another call from a journalist to follow up on any of the amazing news that we had broken about Al Qaeda's biological, chemical, nuclear intentions about what they were doing, the people they were killing. It was just amazing to me that people were not interested in this subject until 9 11. And of course I was about 10 blocks from the Trade center because I lived there. I lived downtown New York when it occurred. And I wish I could say I had a sense of, you see, all I had a sense of was horror and wondering whether or not I should go to the office to report or whether or not I should try to go to the site itself because I was so close to it. I decided not to go to the site itself because to Washington meant the right choice because I didn't have a New York press pass, I only had a White House press pass and I had a Pentagon press pass because I was still working in Washington. But I thought, oh, they won't let me in.
- [11:47]
A
Well, with 911 illness they may have very well saved your life.
- [11:50]
B
I mean, I know and in fact one of the people I called was, was killed that day. John o' Neill, who had been responsible had been one of the, the clarion voices warning about Islamic fundamentalism. And he had been in charge of security at a new job, having left law enforcement. And he had. Was in between the two buildings when I tried to reach him. And he was later killed in the building.
- [12:19]
A
It was such a scary, scary day. My father was a police officer, responded down to the World Trade Center. Didn't hear from him for a period of time. Worrying, not knowing what that was like. And the aftermath of 911 was such a strange time in America. I mean, I saw a level of unity and national cohesion that I haven't seen since and didn't see before. And at the same time, it dawned on me that there were small but noticeable elements within the country that actually thought we were the bad guys. And that, you know, the level of unity sort of gave that discord an opportunity to come to the fore. There was a guy I was in a school with, his name was Samir Khan. We went to high school together, Clark High School out in Long Island. He was a year ahead of me. And I remember, like, right after 9 11, he had made some, you know, ugly comments about the United States and you know, someone let them know how. Let him know how they felt about it. And, you know, he kind of pulled back, you know, from the. From the school after that, you know, but he went from sort of normal to the garb and to. And then, you know, within a couple years we were all reading about how he was killed in a drone strike with Anwar Al Awlaki. I mean, he had joined Al Qaeda.
- [13:49]
B
That's amazing.
- [13:50]
A
There were real homegrown threats that we were recently reminded of here in New York City just a few weeks ago with the attempted IED attack outside of Gracie Mansion. Given all the incredible work that you did in the lead up to 911 and then of course, everything that you did covering the global war on terrorism, are there sort of lessons in that that we ought to be keeping in mind as we approach the 25th anniversary of that day that I think a lot of people are beginning to forget.
- [14:23]
B
Memories are short, particularly in America, but yes, I mean, there were so many changes that came out of that horrible event. But now I think we're beginning to see a swing back to the complacency about having being a very big continent island surrounded by water, a feeling of safety that really shouldn't exist. Because if we've Learned anything since 9 11, it should be that the borders are permeable. That the new kind of warfare, be it cyber warfare, hacking, biological warfare, all of this poses great threats to America. And what you need is the kind of coordination and cooperation that didn't exist before 911 and that began to exist after 9 11. But now we see the same kind of dysfunction, the same kind of bureaucratization. I think the Department of Homeland Security was a terrible mistake, putting everybody in one unit, that supposed one department that was supposedly going to be able to. Where they were going to be able to work together. But actually, I don't think it's worked that way. And I think that's an issue that, though it won't be in the presidential election, it's an issue that policy people should deal with. Was that department a mistake? And I think we could have a healthy debate about it.
- [15:54]
A
So fascinating. And one of the things that we also saw in the wake of 911 was the sort of development of a more robust counterterrorism capacity at the local level. I mean, cities like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, that were targets of particularly Islamic terrorism, but, you know, global terrorism, realized that they were actually the first responders to this sort of thing and that they had a role to play in intelligence gathering, in analysis, and then, of course, in, you know, boots on the ground kind of responses. What's your sense of how that played out? You know, maybe start with it with the nypd, which has probably built out the biggest sort of counterterrorism bureau of a modern police department. And the best. Absolutely.
- [16:41]
B
And I think in many ways better than the FBI, at least in terms of language, because they have more foreign language speakers than the FBI.
- [16:51]
A
Yeah. I think over 100 countries are represented within the ranks of the NYPD, and
- [16:56]
B
that we owe that to, at first Giuliani and then Mayor Bloomberg and the amazing Ray Kelly, who put together an extraordinary team, people from the CIA, people from the military, to devise this extraordinary program which has really kept New York safe, as you know, and you've written, prevented multiple attacks on the city, some including just recently, some not, including just recently. So especially a city like New York is going to be a target. It is, it has been, and it will continue to be. And therefore, having that capability with 1,000 people devoted day in, day out to counterterrorism is essential. And if our current mayor thinks that he can do away with that or diminish its capabilities, he will be making a critical mistake.
- [17:50]
A
I think that's right. I think that's right. I mean, you know, a lot of people who have these conversations, their mind understandably goes to the very big events like 9 11, like the October 7th attacks. Right. These Large scale, highly coordinated attacks that took a lot of planning, that are expensive to undertake. Right. They require resources. But we've also seen and I think failed to appreciate the dangerous posed by lone wolf actors by very small teams. You know, the Boston bombing, the Boston Marathon bombing comes to mind where you have, you know, two no name brothers make a homemade explosive and do an incredible amount of damage and throw a city into a state of chaos. Exactly. You know, for, for days. Do you think that we, and by we, I mean local law enforcement, local leaders, the federal government are doing enough to prepare and harden potentially soft targets to these kinds of threats?
- [18:53]
B
I think they're doing much more than they did before 9 11. But as you pointed out, 9 11's a long time ago and a lot of people just don't even remember it. I think it's very challenging in a city to balance the needs for openness and making the city friendly and accessible and protecting security. And I think that there's gotta be a constant debate about where that line is. So I understand why our current mayor wants to thinks we've gone too far and needs to change that. I just disagree with him. I mean, I think that what would be catastrophic for New York at this point, it would be another terrorist attack. And I don't think he can allow that on his watch if he's going to survive politically.
- [19:46]
A
Yeah, well. Or perhaps literally. Right. I mean, we're all mortally at risk.
- [19:52]
B
Or mortally at risk. But you know, in a way it's interesting that the terror threat is now lone wolves, because what it means is that the major organized threats that were here have largely been infiltrated and disbanded. So that the people, people you're worried about are people who sit in their basements and are radicalized online. Is that a harder challenge? You bet. Right, Harder law enforcement challenge. But you need to constantly be vigilant. And that's hard in a democracy like ours.
- [20:28]
A
It is, it is. And I think that's always the challenge, Right. It's sort of balancing competing interests and they are competing, Right. We all have an interest in living peacefully and living well, enjoying the day to day. And we all get annoyed when we have to take our shoes off at the airport. But on the other hand, right, I mean, there is, there is a real risk. And if those risks come to pass, I mean, you're talking complete catastrophe, economic harm and harm to the social fabric. You know, it erodes the trust that people have. I mean, I, it took me a while to ride the subway comfortably after 9 11. I just always felt like I was stepping into a coffin, that, you know, that it was just a matter of time. And then, of course, there was the attempted bombing in Times Square. You know, a few years after that, two attempted bombings in Times Square. You had the car bomb and then the attempted suicide bombing. I want to shift the conversation a little bit to just the incredible work that you've done on the ground as a journalist, particularly with the global war on terrorism. I mean, I don't think as many people really understand just how much dedication you. I mean, you embedded with US Forces for how long?
- [21:48]
B
Four months. It was when I told my husband that I had gotten this assignment to embed with the army unit that was going to hunt for weapons of mass destruction in New York. He said to me, well, how long will you be gone? And I said, weapons of mass destruction is going to be easy. I'll be back in a couple of weeks.
- [22:07]
A
Right.
- [22:08]
B
Four months later, we were still schlepping around the desert looking for people, facilities, programs. Of course, the intelligence had been wrong about that, but at a catastrophic price, I think, for the United States in terms of the implications and the impact of that war. But once again, being a journalist is being exposed to a lot of different situations that you don't anticipate. Because I covered the Pentagon at one point, I thought that I knew the US Military. What I learned when I was embedded with the military in Iraq, what I learned when I was embedded with the US Military in Iraq is that you don't really know the US Military until you are embedded with soldiers, ordinary soldiers. And then I came away with enormous respect for what the army does, what the army is, the people who. I just. I become a huge booster of the idea of national service of some kind for everybody after.
- [23:20]
A
What were some of the things that you learned about the servicemen and women?
- [23:23]
B
I think the degree of dedication, the spirit of camaraderie, the teamwork. Everyone understood that literally your life depends on being able to trust the person beside you. And. And I think also I had great respect for the Army's ability to give people who didn't have a lot of focus a sense of purpose, mission and focus. And I saw that again and again. People who had gone into the army not sure what they wanted to do or wanted to be, and the army trained them and gave them a sense of mission. And I think the military's ability to do that is not fully appreciated by most Americans who haven't served or haven't been around military. Military people.
- [24:11]
A
I think that's right I think that's right. I mean, I have both friends and family members who, who served. And one of the things that I've, I've often heard is that, well, I had no direction. I, I went because I thought I was going to end up in jail or on the street. And this seemed like, you know, the, the surest path to a potentially pro social life. And they were all very grateful for the structure, the discipline, the direction, but also the soft skills that are in fact applicable outside world and the level of confidence that that gave them. You know, I think a lot of people, which I've noticed is a lead into a lot of my questions, I should work on that. But I'm trying to put myself in the mind of a lot of people. But, but I, I think one of the common responses to someone deciding that they're going to go overseas and embed with a military unit, you know, during a military conflict or a war, is, well, why can't you do this from here? Here, right. And one of the things that I've learned covering criminal justice and having done a bunch of ride alongs and spoken to cops and prosecutors and been in courtrooms, is that there's just something different about being on the ground. I mean, sure, you can read about things, you can watch them in two dimension, you can get secondhand stories, but nothing quite measures up to being there.
- [25:37]
B
To being there.
- [25:39]
A
Is that your sense?
- [25:40]
B
Very much so.
- [25:41]
A
Do you think that gets done enough in journalism to.
- [25:44]
B
I think what's happened to journalism is problematic. I mean, on one hand there's more news and there are more outlets than ever before. On the other hand, as we know, a large part of the country is now considered news deserts because they are now considered news deserts because they don't have local newspapers. You have to be trained to be a journalist in the same way that you have to be trained to do another job or a job in the military. And too few people kind of sitting at their computers typing out opinion, that's what substitutes for real journalism. The most important thing about real journalism is actually going out and being there and doing that. Doing what you do sit alongside the cop who's got that night watch or is now patrolling the subways or in the counterterrorism unit. And that's essential. There's no substitute for it. And, and when you look at our country and you look at all of the scores of people knowing less and knowing less about our country and how it works, you have to ask yourself, and I ask myself all the time, what's happened with all of these outlets and all of this news. Why are people dumber? Why do they know less?
- [27:04]
A
It is fascinating, right? I mean, we're living in what's called the information age and yet we're surrounded by ignorance in a lot of ways, which is frustrating.
- [27:12]
B
Yeah, it's very frustrating. Just listening to a luncheon speech by Rahm Emanuel who pointed out that 50% of kids in school can't read at their grade level. What are we doing? We're tossing these kids out. And you can't run a great country without it being an educated country. Especially today. Especially today when we're moving into an AI technological era which is going to change everything.
- [27:46]
A
Well, that was actually one of the questions I wanted to ask you about, which is what you think AI is going to do to or for journalism. I suppose depending on which word you use in that question frames it differently. But
- [28:00]
B
I don't know, I think we're just seeing the beginning of it. I find it very useful. I find Claude very useful as the outlet of choice, I think, but. But I wouldn't ask it to write a story for me yet. A lot of students are doing that in school. I think it's a double edged sword. AI is going to cut both ways. It's going to create jobs, it's going to deny jobs, it's going to make us smarter, it's going to make us less creative and we're at the very beginning of it. So it's really too early to tell. I think.
- [28:33]
A
I had a journalist tell me the other day that they believe nobody will be writing stories in the next five years, that they will just feed the AI the basic facts and the AI will write the stories.
- [28:49]
B
I don't know. I would worry about that as a journalist and as a writer.
- [28:54]
A
I would worry about it as a consumer of news, actually, to be honest.
- [28:58]
B
And also I've trained Claude. I mean, there are things you can do to say if you don't know, don't guess. Because the tendency to please of AI is really remarkable. These networks, they don't want to say I don't know, whereas I say I don't know all the time.
- [29:17]
A
Right. And sometimes they give you an opinion or a read that they think you want, but it's not actually.
- [29:26]
B
So it's going to have a huge impact, but we can't tell how. I'm more worried about the disappearance of local newspapers put out by people who really are trained journalists. I mean, because that is going to make us much more dependent on outlets that are less reliable and more. More.
- [29:46]
A
Yeah, I think that's right.
- [29:47]
B
More untrustworthy.
- [29:49]
A
So you. You probably have more street cred than almost any journalist I've ever met.
- [29:55]
B
Just because I fought for the First Amendment and went.
- [29:58]
A
Right. Well, this is what I was going to say. I mean, you know, in addition to the fact that you've embedded with US forces in a war zone, that you've, you know, been on the ground in multiple countries, you're developing a deep expertise, you know, doing the work, getting your hands dirty, so to speak, you also went to jail. Went to jail for how long?
- [30:18]
B
Let's say 89 days.
- [30:20]
A
Tell us about that. Because I don't think that's an experience that most of us can identify with,
- [30:27]
B
thankfully, for most journalists. Right. I'm the last journalist, I think, to go to jail or.
- [30:32]
A
And this was over protecting a source.
- [30:34]
B
Right? This was over protecting a source. And I would do it again. And I went to jail because I think the government was on a jihad against journalists to try and find the source of a leak, which is an issue we are now facing again today. And first of all, you'll be surprised. You won't be surprised, but it's very hard to figure out who leaks and why. So if you're the government trying to do that, lots of luck, you are not gonna succeed. But second of all, I had spok to people about highly sensitive national security information, a lot of which I would never publish.
- [31:18]
A
Why?
- [31:21]
B
Because it would harm national security. It would endanger individuals in the field or methods of collecting information, especially if these methods were not doing any damage. Some people just liked. Some of my colleagues like to write stories just to have a byline and break news. I'm just not in that category because after 911 I felt so strongly about, especially even before, but especially after 9 11, our responsibility as citizens first and then journalists second. But so when I was asked to reveal a source and I couldn't get my source at that point to give me a specific waiver to talk to the government, there were 12 journalists subpoenaed, and I was the only one who fought.
- [32:12]
A
Wow.
- [32:13]
B
So I went to jail. Jail was a very interesting experience.
- [32:18]
A
Please.
- [32:19]
B
And my jail had a preponderance of men, over 550 men. It was the Alexandria Detention center, which actually had two very important terrorists there who were awaiting trial. So I conspired to kind of try and get to interview them, naturally got into trouble over that. But I found the 75 women who were there extremely interesting, Their stories very interesting. And I concluded that a lot of them really shouldn't have been there, that what they needed was a kind of good marriage counselor before they picked up the ice pickers and stabbed their husband. But it was an eye opener. The jail I was in, Alexandria Detention center was very well run, but the food was horrific and there was no exercise. I was not in a Martha Stewart. We went to jail at the same time. I was not in a Martha Stewart facility where she could cook and jog. I got four hours of real air in three months because it was all encased. But once again, it was fascinating. There were women there whom just shouldn't have been there. One woman was there for kidnapping her own children because she had been separated from her husband and she believed that her husband's roommate was sexually abusing her children. So she had taken her child and fled to overseas. But because her husband was in the military, he was able to track her down and find her. And she led yoga classes in jail. Yes. So we had yoga classes. Other than that, we didn't have sports. There were no sports in jail. Were Prison Break, which was a great TV series I enjoyed, kind of got
- [34:19]
A
a little crazy after about three seasons. I couldn't quite wrap my head around
- [34:24]
B
and Oprah Winfrey, and those were the two. But I was fascinated by the institution, lost a lot of weight, and in the end my source agreed to give me a waiver. And so I wound up cooperating and testing.
- [34:41]
A
Wow. Wow what? Did you feel in danger at any point?
- [34:46]
B
No, I didn't. I knew there were lots of cameras all around, and I also knew that because I was such a high profile prisoner that people would be watching, but I was in a very small cell and on weekends, because that's when people would do the roundups or when crimes tended to happen, people were picked up and there would be two or three women in a very small area. So it was. It was not the most pleasant experience of my life, but it was not an uninteresting one. And I would do it again to protect the First Amendment, because without independent journalism, a democracy can't survive.
- [35:24]
A
Right. And one of the things I don't know if people really understand when the government is jailing a journalist for not revealing a sort of. That journalist has not necessarily been convicted of a crime, right?
- [35:41]
B
No, you're never convicted of a crime. In fact, there's nothing on my record that says that because as they used to say to me, you have the key to your own jail cell. But I knew it was the right thing. I just felt it was the right thing to do. And that's a very individual decision. And I'm not casting aspersions on anyone who made a different decision. But for me, especially working in national security, where people had to trust you with some very sensitive. I didn't see how I could continue doing my job if I didn't protect the people who had spoken to me.
- [36:17]
A
Yeah, I think that is probably the most important consideration given the work that you do. And I think that your career speaks for itself.
- [36:27]
B
Thank you. Though my husband might have. My husband might have disagreed.
- [36:31]
A
He missed you. But the stories and the legacy, I think, make it all. Thanks. Well, I thank you. I thank you not just for the work that you do, but for being such a great colleague and for joining us on the show for an incredible conversation.
- [36:49]
B
It's my pleasure to have shared office subjects with you. And I am a great admirer of your work, and I want you to go on doing it for a long, long time.
- [36:59]
A
I hope to. I hope to. Well, thank you so much, Judy, for joining us. And for those of you watching, I hope you enjoyed that conversation. Please let us know you know how enjoyed the episodes. Don't forget to, like, comment, subscribe. Do all the things ring the bell? Leave us a review on itunes or wherever you get your podcast so that we can bring you more fantastic conversations with the world's most interesting people like Judy Miller. Thank you.
- [37:25]
B
Thank you.