Responding to the Death of Journalism with REAL Journalist, Sharyl Attkissonn

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Charlie Kirk Show Episode: Responding to the Death of Journalism with REAL Journalist, Sharyl Attkisson
Date: March 11, 2021
Guests: Charlie Kirk (Host), Sharyl Attkisson (Investigative Journalist, Author of "Slanted")

---

Episode Overview

In this probing and at times urgent conversation, Charlie Kirk and renowned investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson dissect the decline of mainstream journalism, exploring how it devolved from a pursuit of facts and accountability into a tool of narrative manipulation and censorship. Drawing on Attkisson’s decades-long career and her book "Slanted: How the News Media Taught Us to Love Censorship and Hate Journalism," they examine when and how journalism lost its way, the influence of corporate and political interests, and the cascading societal effects of a compromised media. The episode closes with practical advice for consumers seeking trustworthy news.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Transformation of Journalism

[02:26 - 06:10]

• Attkisson’s Diagnosis: Journalism has shifted from fact-finding and presenting multiple viewpoints to "something that is used instead to shape public opinion by people who set out to accomplish a narrative and then collect facts and information that support it and deny or disregard anything that's against it." (Attkisson, 02:44)
• The firewall between news and opinion has largely eroded, especially post-2016, through coordinated campaigns by political and corporate interests to dominate both traditional and online news.

2. The "New Woke Times" and Internal Dissent

[06:10 - 10:59]

• Naming Names: Attkisson discusses the rebranding of the New York Times as the "New Woke Times," a nickname originating from its own insiders.
• She describes a "tyranny of the minority" within newsrooms—many journalists dislike the narrative-driven slant but remain silent out of fear for their jobs.
• Censorship and narrative enforcement have become so entrenched that even non-political stories are avoided.

"Even if the majority of people think differently, they are so drowned out...that they stay silent. Or it can be as simple as they want to keep their jobs."
(Attkisson, 08:38)

3. The Alliance of Corporate and Media Interests

[12:30 - 14:51]

• Self-censorship is rampant: Reporters learn over time which stories will be killed and stop pursuing certain investigations, particularly if they threaten powerful interests.
• Attkisson points out this creates a tacit alliance: “They know where their bread is buttered and they know they're wasting their time if they pursue certain stories.” (13:28)

4. Irresponsible Journalism and Media Mistakes

[15:08 - 19:33]

• Rise in “media mistakes” mostly targeting one political side, notably against Donald Trump.
• When the narrative, not facts, is the goal, false stories are tolerated, and accountability for significant journalistic errors is rare.
• Kirk and Attkisson discuss high-profile examples (Brian Williams, Brian Ross) and the normalization of errors that historically would have ended careers.

"The narrative is the goal, even when they make ... embarrassing mistake[s], irresponsible journalism relying on sources that were false...that's okay because they accomplish their goal."
(Attkisson, 16:08)

5. The Mission and Ethos of Journalism

[19:33 - 22:16]

• Attkisson: The media's mission should be "to bring to light facts and information, particularly that which powerful interests are trying not to have you see.” (19:33)
• Journalists today see themselves as active participants in social change rather than impartial investigators.

6. Conflating Journalists with Pundits

[22:16 - 24:35]

• Younger journalists increasingly blur lines between reporting and opinion, often arguing it's permissible to inject their views into stories if "supported by facts."
• Former norms discouraged this, with editorial oversight punishing opinion in straight reporting.

"Who cares what I think?...Yet this sort of opining that used to be discouraged...is obviously all changed and now that behavior is rewarded."
(Attkisson, 22:16)

7. The Education Pipeline and Activist Journalism

[26:56 - 29:07]

• Journalism schools and fact-checking organizations now often receive funding from activist foundations, further warping objectivity.
• Aspiring reporters are taught objectivity is outdated, a stark break from previous generations' emphasis on neutrality and fact-based reporting.

"Objectivity and neutrality are fundamentals of journalism. They're basic tenets."
(Attkisson, 26:56)

8. Media Fragmentation, Censorship, and Societal Impact

[30:55 - 33:43]

• The 2016 push for curated, censored information online originated from orchestrated campaigns, not organic public demand.
• The shrinking space for legitimate dissent and exposure to alternative viewpoints imperils the "open society" model, drawing parallels to Orwellian scenarios.

"People are cheering on...the narrowing of the information landscape in such a way that George Orwell couldn't have been more on point."
(Attkisson, 30:55)

9. Solutions and Practical Advice

[33:43 - 40:08]

• Seek individual, trustworthy journalists (e.g. Glenn Greenwald, David Martin, Pete Williams) rather than entire outlets.
• When information is controversialized or banned, it's an indicator you should seek it out yourself.
• Don’t remain silent or bullied; diversify your information sources and spend significant time off the "box" (internet/social media).
• Encourage open, face-to-face conversations and critical thinking, especially with younger generations.

"The whole goal...is to make you feel like perfectly rational and logical and non hateful thoughts and ideas are off limits...Don't fall for it."
(Attkisson, 38:01)

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On newsroom culture:
  "It's almost like being ruled by this mob... tyranny of the minority." (Attkisson, 08:38)

• On the collapse of journalistic standards:
  "Even by the way, when we have two sides dueling over a certain issue, you're still talking to the propagandists on each side..." (Attkisson, 19:33)

• On the advice to news consumers:
  "When anybody tells you that information should be banned or controversializes a source of information, you should seek out that information or that person or that news source." (Attkisson, 34:13)

• On internet information control:
  "Prior to September of 2016, nobody in the public by and large was saying, 'Please fact check and curate our information and ban stuff that we don’t want other people to see.' Nobody was saying it, but the propagandists... understood they had to create a market..." (Attkisson, 30:55)

---

Segment Timestamps

• [02:26] - Attkisson’s overview: How journalism became narrative-driven propaganda.
• [06:10] - The New York Times’ internal struggle and transformation.
• [13:28] - How journalism aligns with corporate power through self-censorship.
• [15:08] - The prevalence and one-sidedness of irresponsible journalism.
• [22:16] - Commentary vs. journalism; the norms and their abandonment.
• [26:56] - Role of journalism schools and activist funding in shaping the media.
• [30:55] - Orchestrated calls for internet censorship and its consequences.
• [33:43] - Concrete advice for finding reliable news and resisting information control.
• [38:01] - How to empower yourself and your family in the current media climate.

---

Conclusion

This episode delivers a thorough critique of the modern media landscape from a seasoned journalist’s perspective. Kirk and Attkisson challenge listeners to think critically, seek out unfiltered information, and resist the weaponized conformity of today’s journalism. The conversation is a rallying call for media literacy—urging Americans to become proactive, skeptical news consumers for the survival of a truly free society.

---

Transcript

[A]

Hey, everybody. Today in the Charlie Kirk show, the legendary Cheryl Atkinson is with us, author of Slanted how the News Media Taught Us how to Love Censorship and Hate Journalism. This is one of the most comprehensive conversations we've ever had on the Charlie Kirk show about the broken news media, where we went wrong, and how we can fix it. If you want to support our program, go to charliekirk.comsupport email us your questions freedomarliekirk.com if you want to get involved with Turning Point USA, the nation's largest student organization fighting and advocating for free markets, limited government, the Constitution and pro American ideas, go to tpusa.com Cheryl Atkinson is here. Buckle up, everybody. Here we go. Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.

[B]

Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus. I want you to know we are

[A]

lucky to have Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks. I want to thank Charlie. He's an incredible guy, his spirit, his

[B]

love of this country.

[A]

He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point usa. We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country. That's why we are here. You never thought the Chinese coronavirus could cost your home, right? It might just be because Cybercrime is up 75%. And by far the most serious cybercrime to worry about is home title theft. That's right. Cybercriminals, foreign and domestic, are now after our homes. And it's easier than you might think. The title documents to our homes are online now. The thief finds your home's title and forges your signature on a what? A quit claim deed stating you you sold your home to him. Then he takes out loans on your home and leaves you in debt. You won't know until the late payment or eviction notices arrive. Insurance never covers you, and neither do common identity theft programs. That's why I protect my home with home title lock. The instant home title lock detects something going on, they are able to shut it down. So go to hometitlelock.com, use the promo code radio. That's hometitlelock.com, promo code radio. Hey, everybody. Welcome to this episode of the Charlie Kirk Show. With us today is a very special guest, Cheryl Atkinson, who is the author of a new book that we want you all to go buy in big quantities called how the News Media Taught Us to Love Censorship and Hate Journalism by Cheryl Atkinson. Cheryl welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show.

[B]

Thanks for having me, Charlie.

[A]

So, Cheryl, what makes your perspective on this unique is you have been in journalism basically your entire career. Can you talk about just from the beginning, just to start, what has changed in journalism, especially in the last couple years?

[B]

I think the most dramatic change has been, as probably a lot of your viewers have noticed, the transformation of journalism from at least what we tried to make to be a fact finding endeavor and to reveal various viewpoints and facts and studies and information to something that is used instead to shape public opinion by people who set out to accomplish a narrative and then collect facts and information that support it and deny or disregard anything that's against it. So I feel as though our business to some degree has been turned into a propaganda tool used by the interests that we used to report on and try to make sure that we didn't just take their information and put it out straight without looking at, you know, vested interests and how it fit in context. Now we're just being used in many instances as propaganda tools.

[A]

I think that is perfectly put. And there's almost an idealism in the journalist community, at least there used to be, where journalists will be the ones that keep powerful people in check. They will pursue truth. They will try and break the big story. You know, we think of Woodward and Bernstein, we think of people that really dive deep into these different stories. And it seems now that the reporting class is much more determined to try and use their positions of authority or their followings to try and impact a certain desired social change or political change. Where did you see this change? Where did, like basically I want to start with when did you start to see this change the most? Was there a specific turning point? Was there an event? Was it Donald Trump where it just made things worse? When did this really start?

[B]

Well, there's always been an element of reporters that seek to, you know, accomplish a certain narrative, whether intentionally or not. And I put myself in that category as a young journalist. It really took a lot of self examination for me to separate myself from a story and, you know, think about what my job really was and to put information on television that sometimes maybe I personally disagree with and to understand it's not about me. And you know, human nature is, I think as a reporter, even as you train yourself to be unbiased, you find yourself putting your own thoughts and feelings into a story. So it takes, I think, a lot of training and introspection to divorce yourself from that. But at least as you said, Charlie, we tried to maintain the semblance of a firewall between news and opinion. And we tried to present various views and facts, whereas there was a stark sea change I see around the 2016 time period. And it coincides with a very organized campaign on the part of certain political and corporate interests to do exactly what they did to take over, in a sense, the Internet information landscape in much the same way they had successfully dominated the news landscape the prior 15 years through a successful organized propaganda campaign that's accomplished by LLCs and nonprofits that actually are for vested interests and super PACs and all kinds of methods and methodologies that these interests have figured out to influence the news and now influence what you see online.

[A]

And so I have some excerpts here from your book. Again, it's called Slanted. And you had a New York Times bestseller called the Smear. And now this is your new book called Slanted. And I just love the title and the graphics are terrific. How the news media taught us to Love Censorship and to hate journalism. So you go into depth here about the New York Times, and I have to compliment you, I will be using this all the time. You call it the New Woke Times. What a great term that you have here. What do you mean by that? And was the New York Times always this way?

[B]

Well, I have to tell you, the New Woke Times, that nickname was provided to me by a New York Times insider. So these are people affiliated with the New York Times who called it the New Woke Times. And I think that everybody has always considered the New York Times liberal leaning but still a paper of record with some great journalism conducted. It still does some great journalism. But we've seen a drastic change in the era of Trump that I've outlined, whereby now on the front page you will see as if it's straight news reporting, something that reads very much like either an opinion piece or a novel where a reporter is opining and theorizing about what's in the mind of somebody with no evidence or proof or sourcing in the story, but sort of just talking as if an omniscient viewpoint, writing a novel. This was not seen commonly at least five years ago. So it's been hugely transformed. That whole chapter about the New York Times discusses the embarrassing transformation of what was once a really great newspaper of record into what is often a laughable joke today, I think on the part of even people who used to consider it one of the best newspapers in the world.

[A]

So you call it, and I believe this is the excerpt, all the narratives fit to print when they say on their front page all the news that is fit to print, which I love that twist on it. I have a question, because you've talked to a lot of insiders and you talk to those insiders in this book. Do the people in the New York Times have any form of self awareness? I know Barry Weiss did, and she left very publicly. But do the vast majority of the people in the New York Times realize that they've become almost a version of a propaganda arm of a very specific narrative and worldview?

[B]

Well, I can't claim to have talked to enough people at the New York Times to know how most of them think. But there is an element at the New York Times, people who understand what's happened and they're horrified, but they don't feel like they can do much about it. It's almost like being ruled by this mob. I call it, in a way, tyranny of the minority or tyranny by the minority. And what I mean is, even if the majority of people think differently, they are so drowned out in ways that are so frightening or onerous to those who may be in the majority of thought, who may not like information being managed the way it is, but they are so scared to color outside of the lines in this environment that they stay silent. Or it can be as simple as they want to keep their jobs. I spoke to a lot of colleagues, including top top executives at every network, current or former, and they share much of the concern that I discuss that others have in the book. And you might be surprised because you say, well, then why are these same media outlets seeming to do the opposite? And it's that same reasoning that there is so much control over narratives and there's so much power behind these interests that people are afraid to lose their jobs if they speak otherwise. And unlike me, I mean, I really. To walk away from my job at CBS Mid contract took a lot of contemplation. And I figured I could afford to do that. I wasn't going to walk away and be wealthy, but I was also able to walk away and get by financially. A lot of people, they have kids in college, they feel like they can't walk away from their job. So they just stay quiet and do what they can. And I'll tell you, Charlie, my last couple of years at CBS when this information was being so controlled by some in the editorial process in an inappropriate way, I tried because I loved my job for so many years at Circle cbs, love what I do. I tried to find stories that they didn't try to shape or dishonestly slant. And I went in many Directions. There's a lot of stories one can investigate, but it got to the point where they didn't seem to want anything. Didn't matter whether it was political, not political. You know, looking at corporations, looking at almost any trend, they just didn't want it. And this is a very powerful thing that's interceded in our news industry.

[A]

So we all know about conservatives getting kicked off social media. Why exactly are we choosing to give all those big tech companies all of our personal data? Now is the time to take a stand. Protect your personal data from big tech. With a VPN that I trust for my online protection. ExpressVPN, you see, every device, whether you're on your phone, laptop or television, has a unique string of numbers. It it's called an IP address. When you search for stuff, watch videos, or even click a link, big tech companies can use that IP address to track all your activity and tie it back to you. When I use ExpressVPN, my connection gets rerouted through their secure encrypted servers. So these companies can never see my IP address at all. My Internet activity becomes anonymized and my network data is encrypted. The best part is you don't need to be tech savvy at all to use ExpressVPN. Just download the app on your phone or computer, tap one button and you're protected. Protect your Internet activity with the VPN that I use every single day. Visit expressvpn.com charlie to get three extra months free or a one year package that's E X P R-E-S-S vpn.com charlie to get 3 extra months free. Expressvpn.com charlie I think you would agree this is just news is not as interesting as it used to be. And there are so many stories that aren't being told right now. And the kind of citizen journalists that have the bravery to tell them are getting rewarded online. I mean, whether it be the opioid crisis, big tech tyranny, the fact that the wealthiest Americans have got $600 billion richer. You know, it's really interesting, Cheryl, and maybe you can help explain this to me. The liberals that dominate news media, and I'm not trying to overly politicize this, but that's just a fact. It seems as if a lot of their views, they're not even, they're either afraid or they're not able to even press. Some of the most powerful people in the country, for example, I do not see the robust type of journalism after Amazon, Google and Facebook, Goldman Sachs that I did against the Trump administration, or it's. I remember a time when journalists really went and did investigative reporting towards. Corporations are the most powerful people in the country. Is there almost an alliance between the news media and the most powerful people and corporations in this country?

[B]

Well, yes, and sometimes it is a formal arrangement and it's conscious. And sometimes I think you're seeing the result of what I call self censorship. Because you learn after proposing stories over a period of time and having certain editorial intervention, you understand that a certain story is not going to make it. The last maybe five to six years that I worked at cbs, I heard from many colleagues and many new sources that I worked with and did stories on the same story, that there were many reporters who wanted to pursue certain stories, and we're not just talking ones divided along political lines, but that those stories were killed up the line over and over again. Really good stories, really strong stories, really stories that would be very popular from a viewer and readership standpoint, and they're getting killed. And you understand that I better not go in that direction. So it doesn't even have to be somebody stepping in and saying, don't do a story on X. I rarely have that happen. It's a very subtle thing where you put two and two together and you start to understand. So I think many journalists, you know, they know where their bread is buttered and they know they're wasting their time if they pursue certain stories, as good as they may be, so they. They do something else that's going to get them promoted and, you know, on the front page and a story that gets circulated and job security, basically.

[A]

And so that's one component of your criticism and your indictment, if you will, of the news media. And I completely agree with it. Another part of it which I really want to get into is irresponsible journalism. What do you mean by that?

[B]

Well, because there are so many forces at play inside news journalism now that seek to accomplish a narrative at all costs, regardless of the facts, we have seen a skyrocketing of irresponsible journalism. I call them, you know, I call them media mistakes in the era of Trump, because most of the ones I tracked had to do with false information reported about Donald Trump. And I never found a mistake. Maybe there's one out there. I'm not saying there's not. But I never found a mistake made in favor of Donald Trump that was later, you know, found to be wrong. I found all mistakes that were against Donald Trump. Outrageous mistakes by some of our Formerly top, most well respected news organizations by the same groups over and over again, often with no repercussion. And I explained that by saying, when you understand that journalism is not the goal anymore at organizations that have been propagandized, that the narrative is the goal, even when they make a mistake, an embarrassing mistake, irresponsible journalism relying on sources that were false, that gave false information, that's okay because they accomplish their goal. If the goal is the narrative, not the facts, that's where what we're left with today.

[A]

A great example of this is Brian Williams, who hosts a show on MSNBC who is just a pathological liar. He said he saw bodies in the. Katrina in the water. He just. I'm off the top of my head trying to remember all the different things that came out against him.

[B]

Well, remember he said he was on a, some sort of military flight that had been shot at, maybe he even said had been hit. And it turned out that wasn't the case either. There were, yeah, there were a number of things.

[A]

So he found a place where the narrative is really important, msnbc. But he had a soft landing there. And there was another guy and I don't know what happened and you would know he went on during a breaking news event and said that there was credible evidence, it was either NBC or something. My memory, it was in 201718 that there was credible evidence against Donald Trump and it moved markets. The news was so significant. Who was, was that Brokaw? I might be misremembering it, I don't

[B]

know which one you're referring to, but there was an important CNN story. There are so many of them, but there was an important CNN story. There was a story that supposedly that Donald Trump's bank had been subpoenaed or had received subpoenas for his personal records, which was not the case. I mean there were a lot of, yes, you know, false reporting incidents by the media. And I do think like you said, one of them moved the markets. I know in one of the CNN cases, I think two or three reporters that were involved either resigned or were let go. But by and large these things happen without so much as an apology for the mistake that was made. And I think that's one of the most startling tells out of all of this is that those reporters often end up promoted and heralded and they continue to do their assignments. When I'm telling you 10 years ago or maybe six or seven years ago, the kinds of mistakes that we see, have they been committed? The reporters wouldn't, wouldn't have a job in our industry again after that, let alone at the same news organization on top beats.

[A]

That used to be a career ending decision. It was abc. It was Brian Ross. I don't know if you remember that one. It was ABC apology jazzed around December 2017 with serious error in Trump report. That was the one where they came out and they said that there is now evidence that Trump had directed Michael Flynn to make contact with the Russians and then just kind of went on a month long vacation and then came back. So I want to ask you a question more broadly. What do you think the mission statement of the American media should be? What should their mission be? Because if you ask that to a reporter, I don't think they could tell you. I think that a young reporter would say, well, my job is to make America in a leftist image. What should a reporter actually be? What should be the ethos of the American journalistic community?

[B]

I think to go uncover facts and information. Well, you know, I do mostly investigative journalism, but as a reporter, you want to reflect the facts of what's happening on the ground. As an investigative reporter, what I try to do, particularly in today's environment, I think it's a good mission statement, is to bring to light facts and information, particularly that which powerful interests are trying not to have. You see, instead, you know, we're basically taking what everybody's putting out as they say, you know, special interests and political figures, and we're vomiting that into the information landscape, acting basically as PR agents for those who want to get the message out. Even by the way, when we have two sides dueling over a certain issue, you're still talking to the propagandists on each side who are talking about the issue they want on the table. And as you said, there are so many important legitimate stories that are not being covered, that are being kept off of television and out of the press because we're being kept busy by these same three or four stories that these powerful interests have us on narrative to talk about. So I think we should be looking for stories that are not being put out there or angles on stories that are not being put out there by special interests and bring that information to the public. I also would say, Charlie, that I just try to. I talk to people in my daily life. I ask rational, normal questions about things that seem unexplained and those bring up the best stories that are there, in my view. And I don't know why these are so ignored by many others in the press. Aren't they too looking for original information about stories and questions that ordinary people have that aren't being answered in the media otherwise.

[A]

I totally agree with that. And most young reporters, which I'm going to ask you a question about this in a second, would not be able to answer that question. They wouldn't. They'd give you some meandering question answer about social justice or environmental justice or how they actually see themselves as a participant in a desired social change. And I don't say that lightly, not as if they're a fact finder and a spectator, but instead they think of themselves as a player on Team Left. And so I'm not a journalist, I'm a commentator. We explore big ideas. I never mislead my audience, but I definitely have opinions where, as some people, they will say, oh, I'm a journalist, when in reality they're no different than I am. Can you talk about the great conflation? This is what we talk about a lot between pundits and journalists and how they're almost the journalists are now able to act as pundits while still saying that they're journalists.

[B]

Well, the funny thing to me about that trend is in general, nobody hired you as a reporter just out of college, as if you're an expert on anything. Your job is to go find what experts say, what people believe, what the facts say. But instead, it seems as though reporters now have appointed themselves as some sort of expert pundit on whatever issue it may be they think they're covering. We are experts on very little, in my opinion. I would call myself semi expert on a few things that I've done deep, deep dives into. Other than that, who cares what I think? And yet this sort of opining that used to be discouraged. I mean, when I worked at cbs, I worked at CNN back when it was a news organization. We knew not to insert our opinions and our stories because, A, who cares what you think? B, you would have somebody call you in management if you were just opining about things. That's not your job. That's obviously all changed and now that behavior is rewarded. That's part of the change that occurred around the 2016 time period. And I think it's the antithesis of what I feel as though our job is. And what I feel is I've trained myself to do. But it's become a very popular thing now. I recounted in this book or one of my last books, a story told to me by somebody who works, who worked at ProPublica and they talked about a conversation going on via email between some of the more traditional, older established journalists and some of the younger journalists. And they were arguing over this trend, which was fairly new at the time some years ago, of reporters putting their opinions in pieces and the young reporters were arguing on this email chain with the older reporters, that it was okay to put your opinions in your stories as long as your opinions were supported by facts. You know, it was just sort of, he thought, the person who told me the story, it was just a crazy rationalization of the changing of news and its mission. But I think that's kind of what you would hear if you asked a reporter today who puts their opinion off throughout their stories. They would say, well, as long as it's fact based, that's okay.

[A]

If you're a college basketball fan, the NCAA Tournament March Madness is your favorite time of year. Game winning, buzzer beater shots, Cinderella programs knocking out Dynasty programs. March Madness is known for drama and I love every minute of it. In recent years, one of the little known, inspiring March Madness stories was the rise of UConn's basketball program under hall of Fame coach Jim Calhoun. Born to Lead is the newest film on Salem now showcasing Jim Calhoun's and University of Connecticut's story from losing his father at a young age, instantaneously becoming the man of his family as a teenager, to his rise through the coaching ranks and eventually leading UConn to three national championships. Born to Lead features interviews from Mike Krzyzewski, Jim Boeheim, former UConn and NBA superstars Rick Hamilton and Ray Allen. Get ready for March Madness by watching Born to Lead, available now@salem now.com that's born to [e-mail] and use the promo code Kirk for additional savings. Can you talk about how young reporters are completely different than how young reporters were in the 70s, 80s and 90s? And you touched on this briefly, but I'm really interested in this. It seems that reporters used to have to go work a local news desk, learn what it's like to get sources, check those sources, be able to build trust and they might get a less than desirable, let's say part of a newspaper or news operation for the first couple years. They might have to work the local beat. They might have to go prove that they have the hustle and the grit where it seems now you graduate from the Columbia J School or you go to. I think it's Medill. Is that right? Is it Medill at Northwestern?

[B]

Medill, I think it's affiliate with Northwestern. But yes, there's Medill here in Washington. D.C. that has a lot of internships and clout and so on. Yes, training young journalists.

[A]

And now it seems they graduate there and they go work for some news organization, Huffington Post or whatever. And that's a journalist now, I guess. Can you talk about how that process has been, has changed actually for the worse?

[B]

Well, do you know that even whether we're talking about journalism schools, Columbia, the Columbia Journalism Review, all of these groups now get substantial funding from these very activist foundations and groups that are, that do funding to accomplish certain propagandist goals, they take a lot of money from them. So do these fake fact checks that I call, you know, this explosion of the fake fact checks and the curating efforts and all of that, you know, I've done stories on how those are funded by the same handful of very, very wealthy, powerful players that have very specific agendas at heart. So the best fact, the best fact checking organizations you can think of, at least what some people rely on as accurate and fair. Most of those, if not all of them, are taking big money from these groups. They are hardly independent. And their fact checks always come down on the side of those paid interests, although they claim they're independent from them. But if you look at young journalists and how the mission has changed, there's a quote from a journalism professor in the book Slanted that talks about him praising when the New York Times first called Donald Trump a liar in a headline. And he actually said, this journalism professor, that objectivity and neutrality in journalism are overrated. And it was wonderful that this was coming to an end. And if this is what kids are being taught in journalism school, it's no surprise that they graduate with that sort of an agenda. But I say objectivity and neutrality are fundamentals of journalism. They're basic tenets. And saying they don't matter or that they're outdated is like going to your medical doctor and he tells you that diet and exercise are overrated. That's actually the foundation for everything. But this is being changed. If you look at accomplishing a narrative and propaganda is taking hold of our information landscape, that's exactly how they want you to think. So if a young person is being taught this by Poynter Institute and Columbia Journalism Review and their journalism professors, who blames them for thinking that's exactly what they're supposed to do?

[A]

Totally. And so a email, we get a lot, or a note, I should say we get a lot, is where do I get my news from? And you have a great show with Sinclair. You do a great job. And I think that we should just promote it. It's really good.

[B]

It's called Full Measure.

[A]

And you were just on the border, right?

[B]

Yep. I have part two of my border investigation coming up. I've been there eight times for Full Measure with the goal of no agenda. And when I set up the story, people we call say, well, what's your angle? What's your angle on the wall? What are you looking for? And I know it's hard for them to understand, but I say, I just want to come and find out what's going on. That's always the best story. It's usually a different story than, for example, reporters who are talking about the border who've never been there. But, yes, we try to do that. And if you don't mind me saying, if you've missed the stories, you don't know where to find full measure on TV. You can go to FullMeasure News anytime and watch last week's segment. And next week's segment will also be posted there, too.

[A]

It's wonderfully done. It's fact first, and it's not narrative driven. It represents all sides on the border, from the humanitarian side to the refugee side. It's just very good. And so I want to ask about that, and before I do, I want to make a point, which is that this problem is more serious than I think people realize. And I think you get this. So looking at the big picture, what you've outlined, what we've talked about right now is in some ways kind of annoying, in other ways very frustrating. But this is also civilization ending type stuff. And I don't say that lightly, and I know that you agree with me. Can you talk about how big the implications are here if you actually don't have a functioning media?

[B]

Well, it's being expanded. Not just that the media is largely controlled, in my view, but you've seen this expand to the basic of everywhere, of the place. We get all of our information. The Internet is now controlled. And I traced that to a very clever propaganda campaign in 2016. Prior to September of 2016, nobody and I know this is hard to remember or believe, nobody in the public by and large was saying, please fact check and curate our information and ban stuff that we don't want other people to see. Nobody was saying it, but the propagandists who felt like it was dangerous that we could still get unfettered access to information online, they didn't want us to have and see. They understood they had to create a market or a perception of a need for the curation of information. And they did so successfully. They made people think that certain information is harmful and dangerous and akin to violence and sparking violence. And in a country that's always protected free speech, except a very narrow slice of that which is illegal, we now have young people today. According to an ACLU lawyer I spoke to, she is constantly having to tell young people that hate speech in America is not illegal, that it's protected. And I think young people are not being taught why that's the case. They think intuitively, why would hate speech be protected? Because they're not taught about what happens when we go down a slippery slope and put the control of information in the hands of third parties, be it government or corporations, which can be one and the same. But this is a slippery slope we're going down where people are cheering on, including journalist organizations and professional journalism groups, cheering on the shaping and the narrowing of the information landscape in such a way that George Orwell couldn't have been more on point. They don't read these books anymore. In School in 1984, in Animal Farm, if you look at what he predicted would be the control of information and the control of language, whereby in the end we would have such a narrow parameter of how we can speak as dictated by powerful interests, we would cease to become a free and open society and certainly not no longer able to express communication freely. I know that sounds, maybe not to you, but to some people, as if it's far fetched, but we are not so far, in my view, from going off the deep end. Sort of a point of no return where we look a little bit like North Korea. I imagine for people who even have a TV set in North Korea and can even watch news that they're told every night on the news how wonderful things are in North Korea and how terrible it is everywhere else, people sit at home and know that's not the case, but are not free to say otherwise and they just have to take it.

[A]

So let's talk in the time we have remaining. And again, the book is called how the News Media Taught Us how to Love Censorship and Hate Journalism. And I've just loved this conversation. On solutions, we always try to be somewhat solution oriented. So number one, a big complaint people have is where do I get my information from? They can watch your program, but just looking at the landscape without. You can plug names if you want. It might be helpful if you do. Is anyone getting this right?

[B]

Well, yeah. I mean, there are a lot of people that just don't have the outlet or nowhere to go in this controlled environment, I will name Glenn Greenwald. You have to find individual reporters. And I named some of them in the end chapter of my book. There are some that are citizen journalists, that yes, they're far from nonpartisan, there's some on the left and some on the right, but they're exposing stuff that ordinary journalists used to do. There are, there's good journalism to be found by reporters at many national news organizations. You have to find the topic and the reporter and, and, and say to yourself, well, I can trust this reporter on this topic to be giving something that's fair and unbiased. David Martin at cbs. Pete Williams gets high praise from his colleagues when I asked at NBC. So there's a lot of recommendations like that on certain topics. But I think one of the best guides that can pierce this horrible trend that we're seeing now is to say when anybody tells you that information should be banned or controversializes a source of information, you should seek out that information or that person or that news source. It doesn't necessarily mean that person's telling the truth. But in today's environment you should say to yourself, powerful interests don't want me to hear from that person or don't want me to hear this viewpoint or this scientific study, I better get to know it. And in that way it can defeat the goal of the propagandist by if you say, I'm going to give more of my attention to the very things that they don't want me to see. And in a slight bit of hope, I have a 25 year old daughter. A couple years ago I was asking her whether this sort of trend is effective among young people. I told her I was worried that young people today would be perfectly fine with their information being censored and curated. And she said something to me like, mom, the kids, I know when they're told not to read something or hear about something, it makes them want to learn about it more. And I actually think that's good advice and maybe a little bit of hope where the harder that they try to shape our information and tell us what we can and can't do, human nature, I hope will be to seek out that information.

[A]

I totally agree. And it actually plays into one of my three arguments for not banning hate speech, which is that it actually only further radicalizes people. And so your daughter is exactly right. So let's say you go ban some right wing identitarian. Well, you have just made him far more popular than he would have been in his own devices. And so you actually give a funnel of traffic. I actually believe if you were to try, if you, if someone was trying to create radicalism, you do so in the society we currently live in by actually not allowing those people to speak. Number two, hate speech is unbelievably subject, unbelievably subjective. Everyone has a different definition. Therefore it all is on the enforcement, so therefore it will be abused. Number three, I actually think the best way to defeat those ideas is more speech is better. I'm always a believer that the more ideas, the better. Those are three things we try to bring to young people. And your daughter is exactly right in the sense that when you shut down XYZ person, you're actually going to make them more popular unintentionally or maybe intentionally. And so I want to just ask one more question about the solution side of this, which is what should people who have Twitter accounts, they have children, they have energy, right? What can I do? What can I do? What can they do on this? Can they put pressure on their local newspaper? Can they stop subscribing, not go to certain websites, go to certain websites? In an ideal world, if all of a sudden 100,000 people did something differently when it comes to consuming news and information outside of buying your wonderful book, what would that be?

[B]

I think that not staying silent, not being bullied into silence. Because the whole goal of this astroturf and managed information landscape is to make you feel like perfectly rational and logical and non hateful thoughts and ideas are off limits to make you not seek or not believe scientific studies. That may be perfectly true because powerful corporate interests don't want you to see them, don't fall for it. And I also tell people to trust their cognitive dissonance. Don't live in what I call the box. If they completely control the information landscape online and you live there, you're subjected to it. But if you do as I do for work, I have to travel around the country and around the world. And it's a whole different perspective than what you see on social media. In fact quite the opposite. And of what you think is going on is actually happening out there. I would teach my young child today to live off of the box, to spend a lot of time thinking about, talking to and listening to people outside of the Internet and to understand how managed that information landscape is online and to try to make them get off of it as much as possible. I know that we do so much business, we're so reliant on the Internet today, but the more we can diversify our information base and not make it be all online. I think that's even better.

[A]

I agree completely. And I think that there are so many forces at play from the Apple news push notifications to the curation on these social media channels that the more time you spend on screen time, the more you're playing into this whole business model. But I actually think their business model is far more fickle than people realize. And I think you would agree they're on borrowed time. They only could do the Donald Trump is Benito Mussolini thing for so long to justify their exorbitant overhead. You're already seeing with Huffington Post. And I'm not wishing harm upon people. Losing a job is a terrible thing, but I think a lot of these business models are gonna go through a lot of disruption. They can only get so much subsidies from the nonprofit world. I'd love your thoughts on that.

[B]

Well, even if you look at Twitter and Facebook that are cracking down on basic information, vaccine safety information is being banned, certain political viewpoints, certain scientific studies, even people who want the banning will start to understand, I think, that they can't get full information on these forums and it puts them. Maybe they'll still have a market because people want to use these social media outlets and big tech to censor. But people will understand that's not where they can get their information because they'll be censoring so much. Who wants to go there for that? It's almost like they're putting themselves out of that market. The more they do it and the more people understand that they're only gonna get a certain slice of what's really out there.

[A]

Yeah, that's exactly right. The book is Slanted how the News Media Taught Us to Love Censorship and Hate Journalism. And Cheryl also didn't brag on herself, but she was an award winning journalist for years at cbs. I grew up actually watching some of your reports. You did a phenomenal job. And so your criticism of the news media is it carries a lot of weight and people have to understand and realize that you're a very serious journalist who took your job very seriously for many years and honored to have you on and everyone check out your new work. It's terrific.

[B]

Well, thank you for having me, Charlie. I appreciate it.

[A]

Great. Thanks Cheryl. Have a great day. Thanks so much for listening everybody. Email us your questions freedomarliekirk.com if you want to get involved with Turning Point USA, go to tpusa.com thanks so much for listening. God bless. For more on many of these stories and news you can trust. Go to charliekirk.com.