← Lunch with Jamie
Loading summary
Transcript59 lines
- [00:04]
A
On today's episode of Lunch with Jamie, I sat down with a journalist I've long admired, Stephen Sachar. He spent decades sitting across some of the most powerful and fascinating people in the world, from Mikhail Gorbachev to Bill Clinton to Desmond Tutu and countless others. He's known for his sharp, fearless questioning, for pushing leaders and cultural icons to answer the tough stuff. He built a reputation as one of the most formidable interviewers in journalism, always prepared, always direct, and never afraid to
- [00:29]
B
press for the truth.
- [00:30]
A
Now he's fresh off a nearly 20 year tenure at BBC's Hard Talk, and we spoke candidly about the network decision to axe the program. We also discussed his perspective on the state of American affairs, whether or not there should be limitations on free speech, finding shared truth, and the angle he would take if he ever had a chance to interview President Trump. Plus, Stephen even gave me some feedback on my own interviewing styles. So now I can cross that off my bucket list. This one is a can't miss conversation. Now here's Steven Sacker on Lunch with Jamie, somebody that I've been a huge fan of for so many years and has been just excited to get a chance to talk to him and to meet him. He's interviewed everybody from Gorbachev to George W. Bush to Desmond Tutu to Annie Lennox, and he was on what I would say was one of the greatest interview shows of all time, which makes sense as he is one of the greatest interviewers of all time. Hard Talk, which is no longer on the air, which we'll get into. He's currently writing a book. He's also got a few events coming up with Boris Johnson and AI Weiwei. So we are really lucky to have him on this series and this conversation, and I'm just honored that he joined us. So, Stephen, thank you. Welcome for joining us.
- [01:42]
B
Well, that's quite the buildup, Jamie, thank you very much indeed. I really appreciate the comments. And you know what, I'm actually delighted that the show that I presented for so many years, Hard Talk, which was on the BBC, both the TV and the radio on the BBC, it did have actually a really lovely solid base of viewers and listeners in the United States. And that meant a lot to me.
- [02:05]
A
Well, it deserved an even bigger audience and I was just glad that I got to see it and catch it. I'm going to start off with the toughest conversation in question, as I always do, because this is called Lunch with Jamie. So when I come see you in London, where are you taking me to eat? That is that you Think shows who Steven Sacher is and shows the best of London.
- [02:31]
B
Well, you know, I'm going to take you outside your comfort zone because we've never dined together, Jamie, but I'm guessing that you've seen a lot of very fine dining in Mayfair and the West End and the nice parts of central London. I'm going to take you to a beautiful little Italian place in South London where I live. There's a neighborhood called Peckham, which 10 years ago I would not have taken you to because it was sort of a bit low down and dirty, but is now gentrified. It's got a whole thriving restaurant scene. There's a little Italian called Artusi. And I'm gonna take you there. I can picture you enjoying it.
- [03:09]
A
I can't wait. I'm gonna take you up on that. All right now, down to some of the serious stuff. So let's just start briefly at, you know, Hardtalk, as I said, you know, was a gold standard in interview shows and that, and that really was because of you, you know, and it came to a bit of abrupt end. And I am curious to just hear a little bit about, you know, what, what you think the, you know, that really was about and why it came to an end now that you're a few months away from it.
- [03:41]
B
Sure. Well, for those watching or listening who aren't familiar with the show, it was a very simple format, you know, know, I guess the name says it all. Hard talk. It was a. Supposed to be a. Just a, a rigorously researched one on one intense, challenging interview with people, men and women wielding power in our world, shaping our world today. So it was primarily politicians, but not just a diet of politicians. We'd also Talk to be CEOs, business leaders, religious figures, leaders in the artistic community, whether they be novelists or filmmakers or whatever idea was that these people mattered. And I would have half an hour to give them, as I say, a forensically researched, accountability style interview, trying to get them to explain the motivations for what they did and challenging them on their record. I felt it was a really important part of the BBC's overall commitment to sort of rigorous, impartial journalism and holding power to account. I presented the show, anchored the show for almost 20 years. Before that I was a foreign correspondent, so I had a lot of experience of reporting from all over the world. And we forged a reputation, I think, because, you know, many presidents, prime ministers and others agreed to come on the show. We forged a reputation for being both very well researched and fair, fair minded in our approach to these leaders. And as I say, it was a long form interview. So unlike the stuff that you see on most of the, the sort of networks and the streaming shows today where interviews might last, you know, five minutes, 10 minutes at most, we had a full half hour to really dig deep into the issues at hand with each of our guests. Why did it get closed down by the BBC? Well, I, frankly, it's part of a media story where I think media executives at the top of organizations, even to my mind, great and respected organizations like the BBC, they are, I would say, floundering desperately to find new ways of reaching particularly younger audiences. And I think my bosses, the execs who run BBC News at the moment, lost confidence in the idea that an audience had an appetite for a pretty high fiber, rigorous, intense, one on one interview format. And in that, I think they were wrong. I think there's still a huge appetite, not least amongst young people, for that kind of challenging conversation that requires the audience to bring quite a lot of attention and intellectual effort to the table. Because if you're going to, you know, watch or listen for half an hour, you've got to really engage with it. I think there is an appetite for that. My bosses, I feel, began to doubt that and frankly they, they chose to look elsewhere and to change formats and to abandon that commitment to long form interview journalism. I wish they hadn't. I think it was a mistake. I told them so, I was very public in telling them so, which ruffled a few feathers. But the decision was made and I'm now moving on. I've got lots of other things going on in my journalistic, professional life and you know, I'm sort of looking at the next chapter.
- [07:05]
A
You really, you really have been one of one for many years now. I mean, I think if you look back in the history of interviewers and you look at maybe at David Frost, maybe a Mike Wallace, maybe a Barbara Walters in some way, but even in those situations, David Frost, you know, notwithstanding, you didn't have those 30 minutes, one on one conversations. I mean, today I can't even really point to that. I mean, I'm sure they exist in the podcast world, but the unique thing about you is, you know, I have a thought that I may run for political office at some point. I would have been scared to go on your show. I mean, you know, and I, and I, and I would have gone on because I, you know, I believe in honesty and facts and truth. But you know, you, you didn't let up for anybody and you Never really showed a bias.
- [08:02]
B
That, that is, what you've just said is interesting and we can talk more about your political sort of ambitions. I'd be interested to hear more. But, but from my point of view, it was always interesting to consider why people chose to come on the show and why some people, some leading politicians, and I can name a few, one would be Tony Blair, you know, whom I'm sure you guys know very well in the States, but, but was Prime Minister in the UK for a decade and one of the most successful prime ministers we had in terms of election victories. He was one of the few who refused to come on the show. And I think that was because he knew I was going to grill him very hard, for example, on the motivations for his decision to go into Iraq war with George W. Bush. And I don't think he really wanted to face that kind of rigorous challenge on that particular issue that I, I talked to him at various events off the record, when he always said, oh, Stephen, Stephen, I'm dying to come on the show. But he interestingly, never actually agreed to do it. But why did so many others agree? Well, you know, there are various motivations. One thing which many public figures have, not least in politics, but other spheres too, is ego. And, and you know, is a driver for people who know, they knew across the world that my show had an audience of 70 million people on TV and radio across the world. So your ego kicks in and that's a platform that gives you an amazing reach internationally. So they like that. There was also, you know, for example, authoritarian figures like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and the longest serving dictator in all of Africa, Teodoro Obiang, the sort of deeply corrupt president of Equatorial guinea in West Africa. These guys agreed to come on the show and, you know, you would scratch your head and think what's in it for them? But, but for them, in a way, was showing the world who the big man was. You know, they were quintessential strong men, authoritarians. And taking me on was, I think, a message they sent to the world about their confidence in themselves. But the other thing I would say about the interview platform that we offered, and I'm glad that you referred to the sort of both the rigor and the fairness of my questioning. The other thing I concluded was that politicians or other public figures who are truly confident of their case and really believe in their sort of mission, they are not fearful of facing my kind of rigorous challenge because honestly, they, they truly believe that what they're doing is the right thing. To do. And I always said to people who came on the show, you know what? This is a terrific platform. Yes, my questions may well be tough. Yes, I will follow up and follow up and follow up again. If I'm not satisfied with an answer, or if you're obfuscating or you're simply avoiding a straight answer to a straight question, I will chase you. But if you truly believe in your case, you are confident of what you are saying, then this is a platform that's second to none, both in the seriousness and with which we take our guests, the respect we offer you, to give you the 30 minutes and the space we give you to give a proper full answer and explanation for what you're doing. So that's why, you know, to me, I was always impressed by those politicians who wanted to take on the challenge and who believed that it would be in their interest to do so.
- [11:36]
A
Yeah, you know, it's interesting when you talk about some of the, you know, dictators or leaders who came on, you know, I actually understand them in many, in many ways clearer because they want the acceptance of the BBC, the international audience world, and they want to get their message out to them and they believe, as you said, very, very clearly in what their beliefs are and they're not shy about them.
- [12:05]
B
And you know what, the other thing is, which we should remember when we're comparing sort of democratically elected leaders with leaders who simply seize power and then maintain it by use of force, we should remember that they don't really need to worry too much about public opinion. I've never interviewed Vladimir Putin, but I have interviewed his long serving Foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov a couple of times. And so I've got a sense, you know, I went to Moscow to interview Lavrov in the, in the Soviet former Soviet Foreign Ministry, now the Russian Foreign Ministry. And you get a real sense there that, you know, this is not a regime which worries too much about how this will play in sort of Novosibirsk or, or Volgograd. You know, they are playing political games, you know, which do not hinge upon constantly monitoring opinion polls and the feedback they get from, you know, grassroots party activists on the ground. So authoritarians can take the show on and they can be confident that their media will tell them that they did a great job, their advisors will applaud them, however poorly they may have performed. And of course, that's very different if we're talking about, about well established democracies and what leaders, you know, have to go through in, in those, although having Just said that I'm thinking about the Trump administration right now and I'm wondering how much that applies to the current team in Washington.
- [13:46]
A
I thought that Russia had free and fair elections. You're blowing my mind right now. One of the things I'm curious about, the BBC and more in relationship to America, the BBC is, I think, my understanding, is a relatively. It's funded by the government in a significant amount. Correct. It's not a totally for profit endeavor.
- [14:08]
B
It's not funded by the government, although it's a little complicated shorthand version. Every single person in the UK homeowner who owns a TV has long paid a TV tax. We call it a license fee. I know it sounds archaic, but the BBC is funded by this license fee, which you basically have to pay if you have a TV or indeed if you consume the BBC online. You pay about equivalent dollar, equivalent about $170, $80 a year. And that money is, is paid to the BBC. So the BBC is not funded through general taxation, through government. You know, in that way, it has a particular right granted to it by the government to commission this annual TV tax. That money goes direct to the BBC. It's not handed to the BBC by the government. And I know that sounds like a fine distinction, but to us, or as was me as a former BBC employee, that really mattered because, you know, I've traveled around the world, you know, and talking about Russia, I know what it means when you work for a state broadcaster, the BBC has a relationship with the state, but it is not funded directly by the state. It's funded directly by the people, and it's a public broadcaster in that sense. So I, I don't know if that distinction makes a lot of sense, but it does.
- [15:40]
A
No, that does. And I think that's an interesting way of funding something. I mean, I, you know, I guess my question was related to once for profit became the number one goal of kind of media companies and news companies, it obviously changed a lot of the dynamic. So having that public funding in some capacity, you would think it was really more about what is for the best of the public good and not just about what's the show that's getting the highest ratings or whatnot. And I'm curious on how you look at that versus kind of how you see the major networks in America and, you know, how they're kind of how they navigate their coverage and how that factors in. And anyway, so I'm curious on those thoughts.
- [16:29]
B
You know, the BBC is publicly funded and doesn't run commercials on its Main networks in the uk, whether they be TV or radio. And of course I've lived in the us. I was the White House correspondent for the BBC for almost six years. So I have a sense of how the US media worked. Of course, things change very fast. The media landscape has changed since I lived in the US which was in the period from about 1997 to 2003. And I obviously consumed a great deal of US media in those years. And that was a different time. We're talking a generation ago at the turn of the century, the beginning of this new millennium, when people, Americans large, did sit down of an evening and watch the nightly news on their TVs. And you know, the main networks were pretty dominant in the news landscape in a way which you know is certainly not true today. The media landscape has changed enormously. So if we're talking about how commercial news differs from public broadcast news, I would say up until maybe the turn of the century the US had news, mainstream news networks that had an ethos that was pretty much committed to truth telling and investigative journalism. It wasn't always great and of course ratings mattered a great deal. And even within the sort of main networks, some were up, some were down. And if you were down, you would fire your anchor and try and get a better one and try and find more entertaining ways to tell stories to up your ratings. But US journalists, whether it be on TV or whether in the main newspapers, the big city newspapers like the New York Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post, you know, they were very serious minded journalists and they had a real sense of public service. I think despite, you know, the presence of the profit motive, they were committed to truth telling journalism. I mean, I use the past tense not because I don't believe there are very many US journalists today working for different organizations who are still committed to truth telling journalism, journalism, investigative journalism. But the media landscape has shifted so much that a lot of that journalism doesn't make money. And if it doesn't make money, then frankly it's going to lose its place in, in that media landscape. And that's what we see happening right now. And we see a more and more fragmented, more chaotic media landscape where the desperation is for clicks and for eyeballs. And a lot of that takes people away from fact based truth telling, independent journalism and much more into a sphere where it's driven by opinion, it's driven by emotion, it's driven by sort of tribalism and what I would regard as the foundation stones of journalism, that is facts, evidence, bearing witness, basing your Argument upon truths, that is in a state of crisis, I would say, and not just in the United States, but across the world. And that's because I think the truth telling, fact based journalism that I was raised on and believe in is struggling to find a place in a commercial marketplace.
- [20:09]
A
Do you have any hope that we are going to get back to a form of, you know, truth based journalism from, on the major media scale? Are we just entering a new era or what's your take?
- [20:23]
B
We're definitely in a new era. And even when you and I, you know, talk about truth based journalism, there'll be many people who may be listening or maybe wouldn't be inclined to listen to a conversation like this who would say, yeah, but you know, your version of truth, what you see as truth is pure BS as far as I'm concerned. You know, stop assuming that you know what the truth is, Mr. You know, small l liberal guy. Who the hell are you to tell me what the truth is? And that that's, you know, the mindset that dominates so much of this fragmented media world that we now live in. There is so little that is shared and consensual about, you know, basic notions like what is a fact, what is the truth, who do we sort of respect enough to believe? Who can we regard as truth tellers? All of this has changed so much in the last 25 years that, you know, the, the media world I, I was trained in and lived in for so long frankly no longer exists. And, and that's why, you know, I'm actually writing a book, Jamie, right now, which, building on my own experience and those of many other journalists, is going to really challenge us all to think about how we receive information, who we trust, why we trust them, and whether there is any consensual space left where we can all gather and agree on some sort of basic ideas. And if we can't, if trust is broken down, that sort of consensus is broken down. I, I'm really struggling to see how our democracies work. And I'm sorry to be so doom laden. I know this is supposed to be a sort of a lunchtime conversation and I don't want to put anybody off their lunch, but I, I think this isn't just a question of journalism being in trouble, it's a question of our democratic systems being in trouble.
- [22:23]
A
No, listen, I, I think you're spot on there. I mean, I, you know, a small section of the world of the United States especially gets their news from cable news Networks and the 24 Hour Networks and you know, it's hard to argue that a lot of what you're hearing on those networks, especially in the nighttime hours, is news. Right. It's opinion, but it's presented as news. And that's a real problem. And if you can't get shared facts out to a democratic society, it's hard to make it work.
- [22:54]
B
Right.
- [22:55]
A
I mean, I don't, I don't. And I think there's something really interesting about this new era of journalism that I think is very exciting. I had a conversation with Kara Swisher recently and she's a real big proponent of the exciting things that are happening when you see somebody like an Oliver Darcy or you see what Jim Acosta is doing, or she's a fan of what Don Lemon's doing. And not to state the obvious, what you're doing in some way, shape or form as you go forward, but the issue I see is that, that, you know, if you have a hundred thousand loyal, dedicated fans and followers of one news source, well, when you have a country of 300 million plus people and every hundred thousand getting different news, it doesn't really matter.
- [23:40]
B
Absolutely. I mean, first of all, that, that scenario you're painting of certain sort of trusted guides that people have whom they believe and whose take on current events they like, that's fine. And it's happening all over the world, but puts people into silos. You know, it's become a cliche to talk about people living in their own echo chambers and, and therefore, you know, their belief systems becoming more and more sort of one dimensional. But that, that's happening, it's happening on the left, the right, in the center. It, it's more and more the case that people are inclined to listen to folks who are delivering information to them that fits with their worldview, their preconceived worldview view. And that's not a world, I think that is healthy for a democracy. So. But the other, the other point about all of this is, let us be very clear about what journalism is. You know, to me, fact finding journalism is not easy to do. It challenges power. It requires forensic research, it requires a lot of teamwork. It isn't just about the high profile former anchor from a big network setting up on substack and just sort of giving you a daily take on what he thinks about the news around him. He or her. Him or her. That, that, that there's a place for that that's kind of interesting if you want to hear it, but, but that's not news gathering and it's not investigation. And it's not challenging power in the way that I want to see it continue, because as I say, that's expensive, it's difficult, it requires a lot of teamwork, and also it raises legal jeopardy. And all of these folks, you know, who are setting up on substack and doing their own thing and opining about the world, they're not people who are in a position to take huge risks, to take on the big corporates or the government office and challenge them, claim that they've, you know, uncovered abuses of power, reveal those abuses of power and take the legal flack that comes with all of that because, because that's really difficult to do. And it involves having somebody back you with the legal sort of backing that you need, if necessary, to support you. That's journalism that used to be done in the US by the Washington Post, if you think of Watergate or the New York Times, in all sorts of investigative reporting, Pulitzer Prize winning stories they've run over the years. But what I worry is that that kind of hugely important news gathering, independent investigative work is becoming more and more difficult to do. It's much easier just to have a daily opinion on the information flow that is on your laptop screen when you open it up in the morning.
- [26:41]
A
Yeah, I mean, I think it's a real challenge to have these types of conversations where you get, get to go back and forth with someone and try and get to the real basis of truth and facts. And I don't know, I'm not optimistic either. I mean, I think, you know, PBS NewsHour does a, does a great job in America, but nobody watches it. And as it happens, I'm talking to
- [27:08]
B
a few folks in the US at the moment about whether I might work on a podcast, which wouldn't be yet another talking head podcast where, you know, a couple of, of reasonably well informed folks just give their opinion on the news, but would continue the tradition that, you know, I've had for so many years on hard talk of actually going into the offices of people with real power in this world with hugely well researched forensic sort of evidence at my fingertips and trying to hold them to account. Because that kind of accountability journalism, I think really matters. And I don't see so much of it in the podcast space at the moment. I see a lot of opinion, a lot of, you know, sort of chat, but I don't see that much of power being held to account.
- [27:57]
A
The challenge. And you know, I, I pray that you start that podcast and you do it and I, and I really hope that we get good people to come on them because, you know, you, you had an interesting conversation with Anthony Scaramucci recently. You are able, in your style to push back on people and not let them off the hook. I mean, that's the thing in America. I mean, that's just, that's. It may be around the world too, but. Right. It's just someone says something, they say something that's a lie, you push back, they say it a lie again, and then you just move on to the next subject. And that's the problem with someone like, let's say a Joe Rogan, for example. Like, I actually think Joe Rogan is a really entertaining, charismatic podcast host. He's obviously one of the best in the world. I think the big challenge with him is he has people on who he puts on a pedestal, allows them to sort of just say what they want and, you know, maybe pushes back a little bit, but kind of just moves on and just, you know, oh, yeah, the election was stolen, or, oh, yeah, you know, this, you know, the tariffs are good for people or, you know, and they just go forward. You have such a unique way of, of. Of getting inside things. I'm curious if, if you'd be able to get, you know, people who are from the MAGA movement to some say, or the.
- [29:16]
B
Yeah, yeah, I think that's a really interesting point. Who, in the US Context right now, who, who would agree to the hard talk experience? I mean, I can tell you how, how it has worked over recent years as we've, you know, because the show has only been closed for six months. So until very recently, we were coming to Washington and different parts of the US Interviews, and we, you know, I'm trying to think of who we've had on, who really represented the sort of the MAGA ideology and who, who fronted up to, you know, defend Trump on the BBC. Because, of course, you know, the, The Trump perspective is that organizations like the BBC are part of the sort of the, the, the mainstream media, which is an enemy, really, of the movement. So some would go on, I mean, we would talk to Congress, men and women who were loyal to Trump in the Republican Party. We would talk to some more ideological people outside of Capitol Hill who were absolutely, you know, MAGA in their outlook. There was a guy not so long ago, I think he's, I think he's involved with the Trump team now, but he was one of the arch advocates of, you know, removing the, the sort of the books from school libraries that the MAGA movement didn't like. He he was very strong on sort of ending the, the sort of, what he regarded as the obsession with sort of civil rights history and black history in American universities. That kind of ideological conservative, Trump, MAGA supporting person, you know, would front up for a half hour interview from time to time. But many others in the same movement would just regard me as the enemy and, and wouldn't be interested in it having a discussion. So it, it really depended on the
- [31:24]
A
personality, I guess if you, I'm not going to go through this role playing with you because I will fail. But if you were having your interview with Donald Trump, how would you frame a dialogue that you think would be able to get some elements of honesty and truth? In fact, I think Scaramucci said, I think on that podcast that the prediction is that Donald Trump will have said, said 40,000 lies by the time he gets out of office.
- [31:57]
B
The Washington Post famously, I don't know if it still does it, but it for a while had a light counter, didn't it? So every day it would sort of ratchet up a couple of dozen more lies that, you know, some of them extremely petty that Donald Trump had told in that particular day. And it did reach the tens of thousands that was in the first term. Goodness knows if the light counter is still running where it's at right now. I, you know, if I were to try and interview Donald Trump, and it has to be said the idea that Donald Trump and his team would agree to go on a show like Hard Talk, it's pretty fanciful. But if in this hypothetical Trump had agreed, I, I would, I would try to, to dig a little into something a bit more philosophical with him. You know, this, this whole idea of the normalization of untruth, I think is something that I would like, I'd like to ask him about his going back through his business career, you know, before he even entered politics, whether he felt that, that it was okay to be, you know, the famous British phrase used by some politicians to be economical with the truth and that whether he felt that it, you know, if he could in business, let alone politics, if he could convince himself that telling a lie was for the greater good of his business and his bottom line, whether that lie would somehow be excusable. I'd like to understand more at a greater depth his relationship with truth telling and honesty, because I think it's no good just sort of criticizing Trump and getting more and more enraged by Trump. It is quite important, given that he's got three more years in office, to try constantly to make sense of what he's doing. So it might be a fruitless effort and journey, but I would like to. To dig deep into that with him. And then there are sort of certain very specific things I'd like to talk to him about. I mean, not least just because it's in my mind right now, and I'm sure it's probably in your mind, too, having seen him sort of tell the world that he's forged this historic peace between Israel and the Palestinians and that he's bringing peace to Gaza. I'd like to, again, try to understand. He thinks that he can be the world's great peacemaker. And I'd like to get into what motivates him, whether there is some sort of humanitarian impulse deep in there somewhere, or whether, again, this is transactional for him. You know, he sees that some sort of peace deal brokered by him is going to yield all sorts of investment opportunities for him and Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff and all of that, and whether his justification in the end comes back to the deal, to the transaction.
- [35:09]
A
I sadly don't think we're gonna get a chance for you to interview Donald Trump. So I think all of this is
- [35:16]
B
just sort of fantasizing about. People say, well, who have you not interviewed that you would love to? And of course, there's an enormous challenge. I mean, I have interviewed Bill Clinton and George W. Bush in the White House. There is an adrenaline and a thrill and a challenge that comes with. With getting that interview with the world's most powerful person inside the Oval Office. So I'm not going to pretend I wouldn't like to do it. But you're right, the chances of it happening are slim to. Well, they are zero to less than zero.
- [35:48]
A
Well, you are definitely my number one draft pick of who I'd want to interview Donald Trump if we got that chance. Who are the other people you haven't gone to interview that, that you would have liked to living, you know, not,
- [36:05]
B
not deceased, per I, I, I was very lucky. And, and I did get to interview a whole lot of people. I. For some people listening, this might be a little left field, but he, he was a huge figure in, in Britain, partly because he became the president. Colonial post British colonial. Zimbabwe used to be called Rhodesia, and that's a guy called Robert Mugabe. He was one of the great sort of leaders of black African liberation movements. He led a guerrilla war against the white rulers of rhodesia in the 1970s, won that war eventually, and took power in Zimbabwe. And the new country of Zimbabwe in 1980. And he became a sort of totem for the ambition and aspiration of the. The countries of Africa to, to forge a sort of post colonial independent future. And also he became a totem for the. The disappointment that came to many of those countries after liberation from colonialism, with rampant corruption, impoverishment of people, and a failure to realize some of the grand hopes that black Africa had at that time. So Mugabe had this kind of love hate thing with Britain because he'd been educated partly in Britain. He admired the British in many ways, but he also hated the British and he hated the white farmers who still dominated the post colonial economy. So I always wanted to interview him and he always said no. And now in my book, I'm writing a chapter about journalism in Zimbabwe and how difficult it's been for black journalists to sort of tell the truth and hold their leaders to account in this post colonial period. So I'm saying Robert Mugabe is one I would love to have interviewed simply because right now he's at the top of my mind. And it raises so many interesting questions about the legacy of colonialism and the ability of countries to sort of throw off the shackles of that and forge independent futures. And that applies way beyond Africa.
- [38:26]
A
Do you think the. You have an unusual ability to be able to kind of have these conversations with people where you're trying to get to a shared truth and fact? And I think, think we're having those same challenges in our daily lives and be able to have shared kind of conversations where you can come at a subject that's a tough subject and get to some place that is not seen as combative. What do you think is the most important thing? I always like to find things, people to take away from these conversations. But what do you think is the most important thing to think about when you're having a conversation with somebody? Coming at it from, from two totally different sets of facts, beliefs, information. How do you come to a shared truth?
- [39:17]
B
Well, I, I don't think you necessarily have to. To end up a conversation, you know, with somebody who brings to the table very different perspective and views from your own. You don't have to sort of meet in the middle. You don't have to find a common position. But what I think you have to do is, is, is bring to that table an open mind and a genuine curiosity to learn about the other and their perspective and why they think the way they do. And, you know, without wishing to sound all sort of kumbaya around the campfire, I think curiosity and empathy are hugely important, you know, human emotions and, and qualities to. To have have. Whether you be on the left, the right, in the center, or whatever. Your politics, curiosity and empathy apply to all in, in the best of all worlds. We would all be empathetic and we would all be curious about those who think things different from ourselves. And I think if you, you know, if, if you can conduct conversations and have disagreements with those two qualities in mind, it makes the outcomes much more sort of mutually acceptable and much more humane.
- [40:46]
A
Yeah, I think I learned about the principle of charity not that long ago and this concept of thinking the best of what people have to say and not the worst. Right. And I think that's something to me, that is a critical tool we could all use. And I think that idea of coming to conversations with an openness is really important. I didn't watch this interview, but Governor Cox and Governor Grisham had this joint conversation on 60 Minutes where I think they use this term about we have to disagree better and we may not agree on sort of, you know, the, a big, the big picture, but at the same time, if we can come to a place where we're open and understand that we want to come, we believe in just basic decency and basic human rights, that we can potentially come to some sort of more shared conversations.
- [41:43]
B
I think, yeah, there's a phrase learning to disagree, agreeably, which I think captures the same sort of spirit. And I would always want people, you know, talking to me to bring sort of respect and, you know, a fundamentally sort of open mind to the conversation. I should also say, though, that I think, and this comes back to the role of journalism, I think, and truth telling. If one, in the course of attempting to sort of dig deep, find the truth of, of a situation, if one does uncover wrongdoing, abuse of power, deception, lies, dishonesty and criminality, even if one discovers those things, you know, one shouldn't, in the spirit of being agreeable, one shouldn't cover those things up or refuse to sort of confront them. We have to confront them, them. So, you know, this is, this is difficult territory. One, one wants to see a discourse which is agreeable and where people are empathetic and open minded. But equally, we still live in a world, I believe, where there are truths, there is fact and there is lie. And frankly, people who lie do need to be held to account.
- [43:14]
A
I agree completely. It's interesting. Charlie Kirk sent a message to Van Jones right before he was assassinated, where they ended it with we can disagree about the issues agreeably. I think that is something we need to kind of figure out. Where do you think free speech stands today? I mean, it's become such a, the lightning ride of a topic and a conversation obviously all around the world. It's what America is sort of based on, but it's become something that is. Nobody even understands what it is anymore and what you should be allowed to say or shouldn't be allowed to say. You should be allowed to say everything. Do you have a perspective on, I
- [44:00]
B
think on free speech. I'm on the sort of libertarian end, end of the spectrum in that I'm loathe to proscribe speech, whether it be, you know, from the left or the right. You know, what I tend to find in the debate about it at the moment is that, you know, people on both sides, both extremes tend to want to cancel what they call what they frame as hate speech from the other side, which is really not so much oftentimes hate speech as speech that they hate. And I don't think we should be refusing to hear or allow expressed opinions which we personally hate. I mean, there are lots of opinions I hate, but, but it doesn't for me mean that I should be looking to cancel them or drown them out or simply silence them. So, you know, I think both on the left and the right there is an inclination to want to silence the voice that is hated. And I think that's a danger. So I, I guess I'm a guy who really wants to let as much of that speech be heard, even if deeply disagreed with as possible.
- [45:29]
A
So an example, and I'm not an expert in the German penal code, but I'm pretty sure that it's illegal to deny the Holocaust. You can't share images as swastikas or wearing an SS uniform or support Hitler. Is that just a slippery slope that we shouldn't get ourselves into?
- [45:51]
B
Well, I mean, I understand why Germany has that particular. Obviously anybody would understand why Germany has that particular sensitivity. But the definitions of hate speech are obviously a gray area. I mean, I think inciting violence is a crime in most democracies and most criminal codes. And that makes sense to me if one is specifically trying to stir up and incite violence or race hatred. In most criminal codes there is legislation to deal with that. But short of that, I'm pretty inclined to let you know extreme thought exist. I just hope that a democratic, stable, well rooted society has the ability to show the citizenry why extreme opinion often is deeply misguided and dangerous. You know, and that's where the organic sort of Flow of opinion and conversation. Media in a democratic society, I hope, works to expose the inadequacy of a lot of extreme thought.
- [47:16]
A
I want to end this on a very optimistic note. So we have about 10 minutes left, so I'm gonna make it very challenging for us. Cause in our first conversation, we started talking about where America is today in the world opinion, and it's not in the best place possible. And I know you believe that's been on a slide for a long time, and it's not just related to the Donald Trump regime. So I'd be curious to get a little bit of your perspective of that. But before we finish up.
- [47:50]
B
Yeah, well, I, you know, I hesitate in a way to sort of pronounce from the other side of the Atlantic about how much trouble the United States is in, because I can imagine how many eye rolls that will yield. But as a guy who loves America, lived in America for, as I say, more than five years, who had two kids born in America, who still have their U.S. passports and. And are very proud of those passports, I do care a lot about the United States. And there is no question in my mind the United States still matters. It matters hugely to the rest of us who watch what happens in your country and who, of course, still acknowledge, you know, your primacy as an economic and military power in the world. So, having said all of that, I am deeply concerned. I think, you know, there is a deep dysfunction in American democracy right now. Your institutions are under huge strain. Your population is sort of ill at ease with itself. You know, we've been discussing the. The polarization, the tribal nature of much political discourse. That's certainly true in the United States. There are levels of sort of mistrust and distrust between communities in the US that really worry me. And you're not generating leaders, and this isn't just about Donald Trump, but you are not generating the quality of leadership right now in the US which is able to overcome these stresses and strains. And, you know, frankly, the current administration is simply making them worse, exacerbating the polarization. And I hesitate to suggest that, you know, democracy itself is at stake in America, but it is certainly under severe strain.
- [49:46]
A
My optimism is gonna be actually some of those leaders. I mean, I do think you're seeing some exciting voices appearing. I'm biased. I'm a proud Democrat and progressive and liberal. And I think you're seeing some really interesting voices from the Wes Moores of the world or Josh Shapiro's or. Or Gretchen Whitmer, or, you know, the governor, New Mexico Or, I mean, there's, you know, there's a lot of interesting people out there.
- [50:15]
B
Well, you say that, but. But do you, at a national level, do you see any of the names that you've just mentioned really cutting through, really capturing people's attention? You know, I don't see that. And, you know, Donald Trump, love him or hate him, has a sort of an ability to cut through and, And a sort of base charisma. And charisma is a really dangerous thing in politics oftentimes, but he has it. And I don't see people with a different world view offering the same sort of base appeal to a large number of Americans across the nation. You know, some of the names you've mentioned definitely win plaudits in. In small l. Liberal homes across the country. But. But, you know, I, I need to see leadership that doesn't just sort of reach the activist community, but reaches really across the country communities, you know, people who are not political and not hugely well educated. But I want to see people who can reach those Americans.
- [51:37]
A
Well, we're gonna listen. We're gonna see how Gavin Newsom continues to do on that front. I mean, he's obviously the person who's doing it the most right now and seems to be cutting through.
- [51:47]
B
He's cut through on. On social media, and he's a smart guy, and, you know, he can be funny and, and he knows, he certainly knows how to push MAGA's buttons to get them enraged, and, you know, that's effective politics. But is Gavin Newsom and the whole sort of California liberal take on America's future, is that really gonna win him genuinely cross community, national support? I don't know. I mean, this isn't an easy thing because, you know, America is becoming a much more fragmented, polarized country. And therefore, to find leaders who can cut through the tribalism and the polarization is extraordinarily difficult. And it's not like, I mean, Donald Trump is a truly national figure and he has a base charisma which does sort of appeal to people from the golf club to, you know, the coal mine. But, but outside of. Of Trump, I, I'm. I'm struggling to see people who found a formula right now. And it's interesting to consider looking back. You know, it's. Barack Obama was president, you know, only. Only what, how many years ago? Guess 10 years ago or whatever. Obama found a way. I mean, it wasn't like he was a universally popular president, but he found a way to forge a national constituency for a really radical thing which was America's first black president. I want to see another leader emerge who can forge a national movement alliance that can take America in a different direction from the one it's in right now.
- [53:47]
A
I think even more than ever, we're in a place where people who we don't even know can kind of cut through and reach out and reach a wider audience, can do it on a quick manner. I mean, I think you look at Obama as a great example, right? Obama, two years before he was president, probably had 1% of America probably knew who he was. And so I think with some of those people that we've talked about, I think it's just, you know, who's gonna. To your point, who's gonna cut through, who's gonna reach it?
- [54:18]
B
You're right. And, you know, I. When people ask me who is the most impressive politician, just as a. As a professional sort of retail politician, who was the best at it that you've ever interviewed? I. I would always say Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was a master politician, and I was lucky enough to interview him one on one, and I kind of felt that charisma. But I also saw him in sort of group events and out on the campaign trail and, you know, all the old cliches about a guy who could just walk into a room and immediately attract, you know, the sort of attention of a crowd who had that animal sort of magnetism to make people want to listen to him and want to like him. You know, Bill Clinton just had that. And I saw him alongside our. You know, I've mentioned him already in this talk, Bill. Tony Blair, who was far great sort of retail politician in the uk and when I saw the two of them side by side, I always said to myself, tony Blair's good, but Bill Clinton is better. And, you know, America. I'm not saying America needs another Bill Clinton, but it needs another leader who can appeal across communities, across classes, across educational levels, in. In the way that Bill Clinton.
- [55:40]
A
You're not going to have any pushback here on that. I think that is spot on. And I like to live by the Bill Clinton quote, which is, there's nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured or what's right with America. And I still believe that to my heart. And I'm going to wake up and think that every day. Okay, before you go, your interview style is, again, I'm going to say it again, second to none. You know, you're our LeBron James or our Michael Jordan. So I'm not gonna try and even, you know, if I could get 1/100th of percent of what you do. You're famous for your interruptions. I don't like to interrupt people. You're famous for so many different things. You know, I'm gonna put myself out there, now that we've spent an hour together, what are some constructive criticism you can give me to improve on my, my skills here?
- [56:33]
B
I'm going to be constructive, but I'm going to be low on criticism. I love talking to you, Jamie, because you listen and you know, one of the most important things in any encounter, call it an interview, call it a conversation, whatever is that ability to listen. You know, if you're not using your ears really well, then whatever comes out of your mouth is not going to be the best it can be. But I think you are a good listener, you're empathetic, which is also important because even when you're going for the jugular, you know, even when you're well briefed and you've got a fact sheet which you can, you can use to, you know, second guess and do the follow up and the follow up of the follow up to really, you know, challenge and hold to account your, your guest, your interviewee, you, you need at all times, I think, to, to, to be, you know, human, to be humane and not, not to be the. And I think interviewers sometimes slip into that thing where they mistake being forensic and well briefed and well researched. They mistake it for being sort of aggressive and disrespectful and, and I think that's counterproductive, but I can sort of tell you're not that guy. So I'm being constructive, but I'm not coming up with too many criticisms. I think conversation is terrific fun. It should be fun as well. And if you can make a conversation both illuminating and entertaining, then you're winning. And I hope Lunch with Jamie is a winner.
- [58:10]
A
I appreciate that you had asked me early in our conversation about my new movie. I have a new movie coming out called Roofman, which is the incredible true story of a man who robbed almost 50 fast food restaurants, got arrested, broke out of prison, and then lived for six months in a Toys R Us as he was evading the police. And I bring that up not just for self promotion, but the director of that's a guy named Derek San France. And he always said that the, you know, the vision of the director that we had in our mind was Cecil B. DeMille yelling from a megaphone at the top of some sort of know, structure. And his style of directing was about turning that megaphone to the ear and making sure that you were listening to what people were saying. And so I guess I've employed that a bit in my interview style. So I'm going to take the comments there. So thank you very much. Well, Stephen, I can't wait to see you in person in London. I'm going to come find you. You for some Italian food or not?
- [59:20]
B
I promised you a trip to the restaurant, but if you can't make it to South London, we can at least meet in the middle.
- [59:25]
A
Yeah, exactly. All right. Well, thank you all so much. And Stephen, thank you for your time. And I can't wait to listen to your podcast, read your book, listen to you on the radio, maybe read your substack or Beehive.
- [59:39]
B
Well, yeah, just to say, if I may just do the tiniest bit of stuff, self promotion. My book, which is about the sort of past and the present and the future of independent investigative journalism. It has to be finished by the spring of next year. It'll be in bookshops in the US as well as the UK in the autumn of 2026. And it actually, the first chapter, without going into too much boring detail, the first chapter opens up with Watergate, because I knew Woodward and Bernstein a little bit when I lived in, in the US And I talked to them plenty about, you know, their reporting and what unfolded in America between 1972 and 1974, with the eventual resignation, of course, of Richard Nixon. And, you know, what seemed to me really important about that story and why I wanted to retell it today, in talking about the state of journalism is for all of us to ask ourselves, not just in America, but particularly in America, you know, what has changed in 50 years to mean that in the early 1970s, when it became clear after so much journalism and so much investigation by congressional committees, that Richard Nixon had indeed committed crimes. He had lied, he deceived, he'd misled the American people. It was no longer tenable for Nixon to stay in power. His own party ultimately would not countenance backing him, you know, when it came to the potential impeachment vote and he had to resign. What's changed so much in 50 years that we can live with a criminal president? We, you guys in the United States can live with a criminal president, A man who has been convicted, a man who has clearly been exposed as a liar on repeated occasions, important occasions, over important stuff, and, you know, to this very day, in many people's minds, would have indulged in behaviors far in excess of what Richard Nixon did. But far from disbarring him from office, for many people it seems simply to add to his appeal. What has changed so much in a political culture in 50 years that I think is one of the things my book is going to try and address.
- [61:54]
A
Well, I can't wait to host a book party for you in Los Angeles in autumn of 2026. So let's sign the date now. Now. Stephen, thank you very much. I know it's late for you, too. I really appreciate your time.
- [62:06]
B
It's been a pleasure, Jamie. I hope to see you soon.
- [62:08]
A
Thanks.
- [62:09]
B
Okay, bye bye for now.
- [62:11]
A
Thanks for tuning in to this week's episode of Lunch with Jamie. As always, be sure to subscribe to my newsletter@jamieslist.com for my thoughts on all things food, pop culture, politics and more. And remember to join these online conversations and ask my guests questions in real time. Sign up to get a paid subscriber. You can listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or Audible and be sure to leave a review. Thanks and see you next time.