Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:00]
A
Here are the three signs of the coming political apocalypse. What Trump has now told you, MAGA is really about the Platner paradox and what's going on with 60 minutes. These three things hold within them the potential of what could change everything. Now, when I say apocalypse, you assume I mean end of the world, right? Right. Why? The Greek gave us this word, but it really means uncovering, unveiling. The original meaning was a revelation, a disclosure of something hidden. And that's the way I'm using it. It doesn't have to mean disaster, but these three properties, these three dynamics, these three things will combine to mean everything in our political reality. And I can explain. I'm Chris Cuomo. Welcome to the Chris Cuomo Project. First is the easiest one to understand. If you. Unless you are somebody who believes that the reason that multiple prosecutors, dozens of plaintiffs and accusers, multiple former business partners, multiple political players, multiple media outlets, that all of this scrutiny of Donald Trump is proof of a conspiracy to conceal his greatness. Unless you are perverse enough, unless you have TDS deeply enough, because that's what TDS is. TDS is real Trump Derangement Syndrome. It's real. It shouldn't be in the dsm, which, by the way, I could have added to another sign of the apocalypse, the fact that these people in the administration want to add TDS to the dsm, to the, to the book of diagnoses of actual medical things anyway. You don't care about science. You don't care about anything, by the way, because science is truth. That's what the word means again from the Greek. It means to know and what it takes to know something. Now, unless you are someone like that who has Trump Derangement Syndrome, meaning you just can't see past your choice to accept him, because you don't want that to be the wrong choice. You don't want to take the blame because emotionally you believe you were right about what's wrong. And by the way, I agree with you. Unless you're a bigot, if you just wanted to hold down brown people, then fuck you. But if you voted for Trump because you believe that he would disrupt the things that you want to see change, the two tiered economy, the two tiered justice system, the deep state, the swamp, as he would call it. I get it, you weren't wrong about that. You were wrong about him changing it. But he deceived you. So I say let's put all that in the past and let's focus on what's wrong now. The biggest thing that we have to see that's wrong. Is that the deception? Is that all MAGA means to Trump is him going after his enemies? And he says that's working for you. So China fucks with him. Tariffs. Foreign leaders don't give him the right thing. Tariffs. That's where tariffs came from. From him looking for a quick solution to do two things at once. One, attack his enemies and two, pretend he was helping you with prices. He did neither. He made it worse. Why? It was stupid. It was not well thought out. Like everything he does. It's a great sell, right? He's a great marketer. But the product. Poo. Poo. So that's what MAGA is. He just told you this. We'll put up the tweet or whatever you call it on that bullshit platform. He has truth, which is like killing what the word truth means. He said, I'm 38. 0. Getting rid of pundits, getting rid of political people, getting rid of media, getting rid of comedians. I'm so happy to be working for you. That's working for you. You voted. Maybe you did vote for Trump so that he could, like, go after left wing media. That's making your life better. How's that going for you? This is a sign of the apocalypse. Why? Because MAGA has imploded. MAGA is not what it was promised to be. And that is sad on some levels, and it's good on other levels based on how you decided to construe that. But it is not what you thought. If you voted for change to what matters to the many. It ain't happening unless you voted for change for the worse. And MAGA will die. But it will be replaced by a populist movement that takes that disappointment, that desperation, that disaffection, the economic realities, the animus towards government and the political class and the ruling class, especially the oligarchs, as Bernie calls them, the big corporations that seem to win no matter what, because that's how it's set up. That is just as real as it was when Trump duped you into maga. But there are more who feel it. They feel it more deeply. And there are more faces in more places that feel the same way. And it's going to be bigger and it's gonna be born in part of a reaction to what Trump has not done as well as, you know, what he's done and what he said, but what he hasn't done, what he hasn't said. And it's going to be a big and crushing wave of change when I don't know, but it could be in the midterms, could be. Or that could be a catalyst of it that comes in the next cycle. But it's coming, and it's gonna be made manifest at the polls by a lot of people who we're done with having the minority dominate the majority. It is a sign of a death of what is right now. And I don't mean that in a traumatic way or dramatic way. The last thing we need is more violence. Now, unfortunately, I believe we see more violence. Why? Well, despite me, because there are a lot more voices that are pushing extremism than exposing extremism as what should not be pushed. Nothing good comes out of extreme anything except kindness. Okay? Extreme political ideologies give you extremism, which is almost always borne out in violence. And, you know, unless that. Look, why is there one Jesus? Why? Oh, there isn't. You have Muhammad. Muhammad ain't fucking Jesus, okay? And I'm saying it that way on purpose. No, he isn't. Even at their own reckoning, he was a prophet, all right? He's not the son of God. He's not. Now you can say, well, there is no son of God. Fine, but if we're going to go into the land of what you believe is a fiction, you better get your fables straight. Okay? There is one. Why? Because that's how powerful the example was of what it takes to be that good, to really love mercy. Trump is anathema to that on so many levels, which is why MAGA lost me forever when the Christian conservatives said that they were voting for Trump because of his Christianity. I mean, that was just so bullshit that I couldn't take it. Couldn't take it, can't accept it. His exercise of his power to settle scores for himself is a sign of the apocalypse. Politically, it will create massive change and undoing of how things are now done. Absolutely. No doubt about it. How do we know that? Gets tricky. It's not science we're doing here. Political science is, you know, a little bit of an oxymoron. But what we see is not only his numbers going down, but the level of disaffection among those who voted for him. The disappointment, the shock, the calling it out, the movement within the electorate, all of it is suggestive. That look, the rebound on the. And recoil at the slush fund. It's just too much. It's not just all about him. It's all against you and making things better. The corruption in your face, the lying in your face, the knowing he can get away with it. The taunting of your attachment to him, his demands for fealty, his punishing people who don't say what he says all the time and the punishing of people who say things that are true, that need to be said. The GOP is gone. It's just Trump. It's not even maga. Because this isn't about making things better for the many and dealing with the economic disparities. He's exacerbated them. And anyone who tells you otherwise is just lying to you. It's just how it is. They just lie. Why? Because that's the example. He said whatever you think was wrong with politics, he's more wrong on the same levels. And that doesn't mean that you're wrong and you're bad and you are to blame. Unless you're in power and you consistently ignore what he says and what he does because you want to stay in that position and not have him come after you in a primary, then you own it and you should be called out for it and you should be judged for it at the polls. The way he is practicing what he calls politics is a sign of the apocalypse and his score settling and him putting it right out there in your face that this is what he thinks is working for you is not working for you, it's working for him and it's working against you. And it's going to create a catalyst for major change. Support comes from Ridge. Gotta tell you, I like what Ridge is about. I like that it's made here. I like that it's made tough. I like that kind of semi industrial look. It has to it and it's very, very functional. The Ridge wallet is a great Father's Day gift. He's going to use it, he's going to like it. He's going to recommend it to other friends. Because that's what dads do, right? Why? Unique, slim, modern design. Holds up to 12 cards plus cash. Premium materials. Aluminum, titanium, carbon fiber, durable. Guaranteed for life. All the right boxes you gotta check for pop up. Okay? Now you've got this 90s capsule collection which is very cool. Hot rod, Lone Wolf Thunderbird. It's kind of kitschy for Gen Xers. They're going to love it. I know I do. So losing your wallet sucks. And guess what? If you got the Ridge tracker card, you're going to know where your wallet is. You can't lose it anymore. That's nice. And it's not just about wallets. They've got everyday, you know, carry essentials they Got power banks, they got cases, suitcases, rings, all built with the same sleek, durable design. So no matter what you pick, you're going to get free shipping, you're going to get a 99 day free trial. I mean, how do you lose? You get a lifetime warranty on all their products for a limited time. Ridge is running their huge Father's Day sale. You get up to 40% off their best gear. Let me tell you, this is a phenomenal deal. Okay? Just head over to Ridge, r-I d g e.com Cuomo, okay? And you can get up to 40% off. All right? But use the code Cuomo and tell them I sent you. Second. Let's start. Let's keep it with politics centered. The Platner paradox. Why is it a paradox? Well, what is a paradox? It's two things that are difficult to reconcile with one another. Right? That's what a paradox is. So what is the Platner paradox? Graham Platner running for Senate in Maine. The first reason it's a paradox is that Graham Platner should not exist. Graham Platner, even within the Democratic Party, they are the canceling party. Okay? They will. I say I'm anti partisan, okay? I'm against the two party system. I think we need more or we need them to have a lot less control, especially on the state level of primaries. But I don't think they're even or equal either. I think they both have offensive qualities to them, but I don't even think there's a comparison. I've never seen anything devour any legitimacy of anything approaching conservative politics the way MAGA has. Trump has never. Nothing has ever happened like that on the left. They have their radicals, they have their fringe, they have their. Their minorities have an outsized platform because of social media and then the state of play of politics, which echoes social media, not society. Overall, that's all true, but not to the same degree. No way. No way. Nothing is like what we see on the right. Sorry, not sorry. The paradox is contrary to expectation. Okay? That's where it comes from. Para beside, beyond doxa opinion. Belief beyond belief. Can't believe it. It seems to be something that's happening that seems to be against what's supposed to happen. Graham Platner is not supposed to be where he is. No pedigree, said stupid shit. He's got a weird tattoo. He's got kind of a muddled work history, real military service, just got caught in a stupid marital scandal. I mean, usually the left will kill you for all of these Things, any of these things, and they didn't. Why? Ah, because what we now know about the current state of our politics and our populism is if the many believe that you or ride or die on what the bothers them the most, they will forgive anything about you, anything else, if you are a real one to them, just like Trump was. What is the answer to the vexing question of how? How all these women, all these allegations, all this proof, all this corruption, all this lying, all this denying, the hair, the skin, the this, the that, How? Because they believe that he is about what bothers them most. So they'll forgive all kinds of things in him that they would never forgive in anybody else, certainly not in me or any media figure or any other political figure, period. Why? Because we're not one of theirs. Oh, yeah, but Trump isn't. They believe he is about the enemy that they identified and he was going to disrupt what needed to be disrupted to give them what they wanted. So they'll forgive anything. Same thing with Graham Platner. What would usually disqualify you and get you in trouble, especially with the Democrats, did not apply to him. His main mainstream Democratic opponent had to suspend her campaign. Why? Because she was not identified by the populist resistance in Maine as what they want, what vengeance they want, what retribution they want. What rectifying they want. They want an outsider, too. They want a disruptor too. And you cannot be a sitting official or someone who's identified with the establishment and be an outsider and be a disruptor. You can't. It doesn't work for people inside, cannot be outside. Look, Trump is trying that and his appeal goes down, down, down, down, down. Because every time he talks about the system, you're in charge of the system. You are the man. There is no they. You are they. Platner is proof of this proposition. Mamdani. You'll never convince me that Mamdani, on any level to what he's shown or what he has said, even makes him a better steward of the people of New York City than my brother. He's better than Sliwa. Sliwa's an asshole. And Sliwa may have given him the race, but why did Andrew lose twice? Well, there's a personal side to Andrew's popularity, but more than anything else, he's an insider. He's an establishment guy. You want disruption, you want outsider, so you pick somebody who identifies with what you believe is wrong and must change. And as an outsider, there's more of a sense. Let's call it that he'll be more likely to do that than someone who comes from that system, who's been in it before. And they can argue, as Andrew did, that I've changed it from the inside. And look, maybe you can do more as someone on the inside than what we see from outside disruptions, but it's not as satisfying politically. You know, Pop used to borrow from Edmund Burke when he would say, you campaign in poetry and you govern in prosecutor. I think the new and delicate way of saying that is that during the campaign, you talk as much shit as you can and make everybody as angry as you can, and then you get in there and you do as little as possible. That seems to be the recipe for staying in there these days. Opposition is a legitimate position. I'll stop them is enough. Even if you are them. Mamdani. Now, Platner. Platner will not succumb to the ordinary levels of scrutiny. Why? Because the people are angry about something that matters more, and they have identified him as someone who can help their cause. That is the Platner Paradox. He should not be where he is. He is not qualified. You see this in Spencer Pratt. He's right about what was wrong. They fucked up during the fires, and Karen Bass was completely inept during that. Add in a spoiler. Right. Who is the woman running against? Bass is taking up a big part of what Bass's base would have been. Running a good campaign, by the way. And now you got Pratt, who is just, I'm an outsider. I'm a disruptor. The people inside have fucked it all up. How can I do any worse? Now, I believe that's a specious premise, because I think you can do worse. And I think he may, because I think that's a really big job and he has absolutely no skills. And I think Trump has made them worse. I think that he's proof of that premise, that just because you want to break it doesn't mean you know how to fix it. Another thing Pop used to say, just because any jackass can kick down a barn doesn't mean that they can build one. It takes a good man or woman to build a barn. Anybody can knock one down. True. The Platner Paradox is something you got to watch because it is the next wave. I told you, the anger, the populist outrage at the state of play, at the status quo, at the establishment, is real. That aspect of MAGA was real. And the Democrats not tapping into it lost them a lot of their own people. True. But it's still real. And it's bigger and it's deeper and it's broader. And no, it's not fueled by as simple of an animus as the xenophobia, as the race baiting, as the white fright that went into maga. This is not about that. This is some reaction formation to that, that this is a pluralistic society. This is e pluribus unum. Okay? This is one out of many out of many. One. Okay? And yes, some of it is middle finger to the idea that if you're brown, you're less. If you came here illegally, you must be a murderer, a rapist, a bad hombre. And there's also something, a connecting thought, the hypocrisy of not punishing the people who seduce, solicit and help pay for illegal immigration. They never get prosecuted. Why? Because they're part of the power structure. Right? But they're the ones who are telling them to come. They're the ones who are allowing them to come, helping them come, paying them when they get here, keeping them in substandard wages that cripple the whole low skill job sector. And they have them pay into a system where they get nothing out of it and abuse them, they're never punished. It plays into people's not only the hypocrisy of the righteousness alleged by the right about being about what's right and wrong, when you only demonize the people who are brought over here by opportunity that someone's willing to give them, but you never punish the people who are providing the opportunity. And it plays into the two tiered system. Why are you punishing the little guy and not the big guy? Just like you do with big corporations all the time, even versus small businesses, when small businesses provide every bit as much as GDP and employment as big businesses, sure, they're 99% of the businesses are small businesses and only 0.9 are large ones or 0.1, whatever, it's like a small little fraction are big businesses. So yeah, they are, you know, relatively much more dominant, but they get all the benefits. Why? Because it's a choice of the government to create that advantage, that preference, and people want it to change. Because you only got it because you were supposed to be taking care of people. And if you're not going to pay workers, if the two largest employers have a significant percentage of their workers that are on government assistance, then you don't deserve the preference that you got for paying them in the first place because you're obviously not paying them enough. If we have to subsidize Your wages. Right. Just makes sense, doesn't it? That's not socialism. It's a tweaking of the same choice structure that was seen as capitalism. This is a sign of the political apocalypse, the Platner paradox. You are now going to see on the left, they're going to have their own trumps. Hopefully they won't pick assholes the same way and people who are coming in only for their own glory. But that's why Platner not only exists, but looks like he could beat Collins. Now, you gotta be careful. Collins is wily, man. She's won a lot of races that people thought she was gonna lose, but I don't think she's gonna get the big push from Trump. And I don't think it might matter anyway, because it's not a primary. It's a general. He's got power in primaries, okay? Not necessarily in generals. And look, he took a couple of losses in the last primary slate. Why? Because there's an erosion of his support because of everything. I told you, it's coming. Change is coming. The first point I made about Trump's moves and what he's revealed about what MAGA really is. First sign, the Platner paradox. It's the second sign. I could have said Mamdani, but he's already in. And I think that Platner is more germane to more people's politics in America. Yes, economically, they're in very similar spaces. And again, I'm not labeling it because the label is irrelevant. People want the system to change. That's socialism. That's communism. You know, the guy, this kid who ran Mamdani's campaign is now working with Platner, and he gets this and, oh, but he's a commie. And look, that's just a word, okay? If you say, here's what I want, I want the companies that get a lower tax rate than the rest of us because they hire so many people to not get that tax rate if they don't pay those people enough so that they don't need government assistance. Is that communism? Does that bother you? It's just a bullshit thing. It's just a term. It's just a boogeyman. No, I'm not pro communism. No, I'm not pro socialism for America. Social democracy is something else. I think that's pretty much where we are anyway, to a certain degree. But that doesn't matter. It's all distraction. And I think that people are starting to wake up to that and that. It's not a death sentence to have the government look, do you really believe that government shouldn't have any role in the control, if not the ownership of these AI companies with what they're going to impact us on? Haven't we learned our lesson from the social media companies and their algorithm and what it's doing to our politics? Should they really be free from regulation? Really? These are the first two signs. Support for the Chris Cuomo project comes from Quince. Okay. Getting dressed should be about classic good looks, clean lines, quality garments, okay? Especially for guys. And that's why I like quints. Okay. And I keep coming back to them as an advertiser and as a source for shopping. Why? Quince uses quality fabrics, well made at an affordable price. Quint's European linen pants and shirts are perfect. They're a warm weather upgrade to add to your rotation and they start at like 35 bucks. I've got some new stuff coming from Quint, specifically their flow knit Breeze performance tees. Why? I like the fitted look, but not obnoxiously so. And I like the breathable fabric. I like the moisture wicking, I like anti odor. That all works for me. A lot of different colors and I'm going to get a few of them. I'm going to see how well they wear, see how long it takes my son muscles Marinara to steal them and I'll tell you all about it. Elevate your summer wardrobe. Go to quints.com cuomo and you'll get free shipping on your order. And 365 day returns. Can't lose, right? It's now available in Canada too. Q-U-I-N-C-E-.com free shipping. 365 days return. Quince.com Cuomo the third sign of the apocalypse is a little subtle, a little nuanced. 60 minutes now just a reminder of me. Almost 30 years in this business. Started at Fox News, was there couple years, got my feet wet. Went to abc, was there over a decade. Correspondent, breaking news magazine work. Long form. I was an anchor. I was a news anchor. I was the anchor of 2020. I was the chief of the law and Justice Department. And big responsibilities, big role in a lot of big stories. Seen it all. Competed for a space occupied by 60 minutes as the preeminent. Always was. No longer. Why? Many reasons. Somewhat of a stratification of media. But how is it a sign of the apocalypse? Because media ownership cannot play to power the way other corporate entities do. Cbs, Paramount, whoever it is, settling with Trump on a lawsuit that I believe 60 minute wins all day long. Why? Everybody edits their interviews unless it's a live broadcast. I mean, look, now that's changing. You guys want it live to tape? Okay. Everything's going to be a lot longer and a lot less focused and arguably not as interesting, but we'll see. I'm fine with it. But everybody has always edited, certainly 60 minutes. So the idea that it was edited to help her, you really think any jury or judge was going to go with that? But they did it anyway. Why? Sense of survival. Now, look, you could blame it on Trump that he's created such a toxic environment that they had to, and they wouldn't have done that under any other circumstances. And truly, we've never seen a media company fold in litigation against the government like this before. Usually we fight back. And they should have. There, I believe. Same thing with cnn, same thing with abc. Did they have George Stephanopoulos a little bit more? I don't know. I mean, it was a closer call. Because of what? That ruling was tricky. It was civil, not criminal. It wasn't rape. But the judge indicated that it was tantamount to it. Was George pushing it and provoking it? Yeah, which was atypical for him because he's a pretty mild guy. Nobody sees George Stephanopoulos as a hammer. Right. And he's nothing if not politically savvy. I mean, he, at root is a political operative. Right. That's how he got into this business. He's been in this now longer than he was in that. But, you know, it's not like he was known for his field work or, you know, that kind of stuff. So. So I get it a little bit more there. And yes, you can blame this on Trump and how menacing he is and how much he can hurt you and how much he's trying to chill. Free speech, all of that. Yes. But I do think that there was a responsibility to fight back also. Easy for me to say. I wasn't the one in the barrel that time. But why is 60 Minutes? Well, first of all, I don't know that it is. Changing faces is not changing the show necessarily. We'll see. Scott Pelley says, I was told to inject bias. They're letting people pick the correspondence. They want me to put out allegations that are unverified. Two of those three. I think Scott is giving a lot of weight when they've always existed. People have done interviews with Scott Pelley and asked for Scott Pelley to do it. Oh, no. But that's different than them saying, do you Want Scott Pelley. I don't know that CBS wasn't doing that. I don't know that CBS didn't do that. In my experience, that is the way it seemed to work, at least from the outside, just like it did at ABC News and CNN and everywhere else I've ever worked. When you're trying to book someone, you say, hey, do you want to do the interview with us? Oh, well, who would it be with? Well, you tell me. I mean, we have a lot of different people inherently. What's wrong with that? Well, you're letting them pick their interviewer. What difference does it make if they're going to do the job? What's the point of having people who are likable and desirable by the audience if you don't get to use that to your advantage? It's a big part of booking. It's one of the reasons I'm a lousy booker, is that I say to people all the time, you sure you want to go on TV about this? Because if you're going to say what you're going to say, I'm going to give you the opportunity you want, which is to make your case. But I don't know how it's going to go for you. I don't know how many minds you're going to change Now. Is that being too honest? Maybe. But it makes me feel better about it when they say yes and when they say no, because at least I know I was being straight with them. And I couldn't have said something that I would have felt good about that would have made it different. And other than Amanda Knox, I've never had anybody go bad on me for what I said an interview would be. And I don't know why she did that. I haven't been able to talk to her about it, but it's just not true. The interview I did with her was after Diane Sawyer's interview at abc. I did it at cnn, and I did exactly what she asked me to do. She said she wanted to do another interview because she didn't like the way Diane Sawyer's interview played out, because she didn't feel she got to take on the accusations enough. And then it looked like she was hiding from them. And she said what she wanted was a chance to respond to everything that the prosecutors put at her. And I said, okay, I'll own their positions and hit you with their allegations. And that's what I did. And she thanked me for it afterwards and actually defended me when the first wave of unfair scrutiny of that interview came out of me seeming to be misogynistic. And in fact, we discussed it during the interview that it would seem that way. But she felt it was really important for her to be able to rebut every assumption that they had made about her and what had happened. Now she says that I manipulated her. Nobody connected to it, saw it that way, or sees it that way today. But she's free to have her opinion. She's been through enough. I wish her well. I signed up for this job. I'll take the shit that comes along with it. That's what it is. But the idea of booking being about who people like and who they want and who you can offer them, that's always been part of it. Second, they asked me to allege things that are unverified. 60 Minutes never has anything in their pieces that is unverified. What is a question, then? The reason we ask questions because of things we haven't been able to verify. Otherwise, I don't have to ask you a question. It's called a fact. Right. So those two. And if those are true, that takes us to the third one, which is they wanted me to inject bias. And he says, and until now, I've been able to just avoid it. Well, here's my concern about that. Why didn't you tell us when it first happened? Because you wanted to keep your job. Because you were being a. A good worker, because you like the lifestyle, because you were okay with it. Because it's always been that way. No, no, no. I put it off as long as I could, and then I couldn't. And now I'm making my witness. Okay, let me ask you if and when, because this happens all the time. We hear about something like that happening somewhere else, something that is inarguably corrupt. Don't we want it to come out as soon as we hear about it, as soon as we learn about it. But you waited in your case where if it were someone else, you'd want to expose it as soon as you heard about it. Interesting, right? Why Peli has to explain that. Do I respect Scalpelli? Yep. Do I think he's good? Yep. Do I think that losing him will hurt? Depends. Why? Because Peli was successful. Because of 60 Minutes. I don't know how much 60 Minutes was successful or not because of Peli. He's never been a standout anywhere else. I was actually with him at embed training in Fort Benning, Georgia. I talked to him a little bit, bumped into him a few times over the years. I Don't know him. We're not friendly. But I have a lot of respect for his work and his work ethic, as I understand it. And I think that a lot of the media glorification of him and the other people being let go by 60 minutes is a little opportunistic. I think everybody is opportunistic these days. Even like Bernie Sanders coming out and saying, this is what happens when you let the oligarchs make the decisions about the da, da, da. I don't think that. Look, I mean, he's just seeing his agenda wherever he can, right? And I think that 60 minutes changing is a sign of the apocalypse, not just because of the corporate side of the calculations, but because media has to change. There's room for all, okay? But independent media has to evolve. It has to have standards, it has to have accountability that it doesn't have right now. It's all about clicks, and it's all just about provocation. And it's hard to sue because the people don't have any money. And the defamation laws here are very generous. And I think that's a good thing. But sometimes I don't. But in general, I do. And the media platforms, we need people to be a hammer again, not gratuitous. Not harshness, not attitude. But what 60 Minutes used to be at its best. I think you have to distill it to the Mike Wallace. That was 60 Minutes at its best to me. That's who I wanted to be. I loved meeting with Mike Wallace. I loved that he saw me as having potential and inclinations and instincts to have his tenacity and his insistence and his subtlety. You know, he could be a hammer with moving the glasses. Do you mean to tell me, and he has the piece of paper, you know, bad shit's coming your way. I love that. I love the theatricality. I loved all of it. But he was a very, well, socially connected guy, and that was really important. Why? Because when you're going after powerful people, it's good to know people who know them if you don't know them yourself. Now, I'm not saying you gotta be cozy with them, but they gotta be able to be like a phone call away, you know, like one degree of separation from someone who could say, look, I know Mike. He's gonna be fair. He's gonna be tough, but he's gonna be fair. And that's a real thing. And if you're straight with him, he'll be straight with you, and you're gonna get what you asked for. And Mike was really aware of that. And he knew and knew how to get to, like when he did the Shah of Iran and so many others. Countless interviews, whether they were corporate, public positions of power or foreign, where it was his social network that gave him credibility and currency cachet, if you will, to get those interviews. And then he did the job. And it's interesting, you know, Mike Wallace started off on TV selling cigarettes in his shows. And, you know, we're getting back to that now. And I always thought that that was a much more authentic and real transparent proposition for news business. News business is no longer an oxymoron. It is what it is. So how you do the business, I think matters. And if the guy smokes Chesterfields and he's doing a Chesterfields commercial, I'm okay with that. It's when you pretend that you don't know your advertisers, but you just have a tendency to avoid anything that any of them won't like. That's what bothers me. That's the real influence. If I tell you I take vital factors, it's because I take vital factors. And if I don't use it, I'll tell you that I vetted it and that's why I'm advertising with it. And if something changes about that, I'm not going to advertise it anymore. And if I get called out about it, I'll explain it. Am I going to go out of my way to tell you why I'm not advertising it anymore? Depends. Maybe not. Why? Because there's such a gotcha gang out there that just wants to tear me down or tear anyone down over anything that I don't want to make it easy for them. But Mike Wallace did it. Walter Cronkite did it. Walter Cronkite used to do a morning show where he talked to a stuffed animal, a lion named Charlemagne. Edward R. Murrow used to do editorials right into the mic. Big time opinion pieces. See? So the idea that, well, it used to be objective and this and that. No, no, no, not true. It was just different. And 60 Minutes is changing and it's a sign of the political apocalypse that it must change. And how will it change? I don't know. I'm not one of these. It's all Barry Weiss's fault. I don't believe that. CBS has sucked for a long time. If you judge it by the traditional metrics, 60 minutes isn't what it was and hasn't been for a long time. It's not part of the national conversation rarely is. You don't know the people on it the way we used to. And for good reason. Even Pelly, he's not a household name. He's not Mike Wallace. He's not Steve Croft. He's not morally safer. He's not Leslie Stahl. He ain't Ed Bradley. I'm in Ed Bradley's backyard right now. It's a big reason I wanted to live here. They got to get back to that. They got to get people with really identifiable and charismatic personalities who can bring the heat, who have a fastball, not some simpering small internally and externally. You know, Ed had that physicality. Mike had that physicality. You don't have to be big to have stature, right? But if you're small, you better have a lot of stature. And I think that that's what they should get back to, because that's one of the signs of what we need, what has to change. It can't just be that people. Yes, all of these, you know, little telegenic qualities and asking things the right way. Do you mean to say listening, shot. That's what people don't give a shit about anymore. Production, quality, theatricality. We want authenticity. We want rawness. We want real. We want people who test power. I want you to ask them to talk to you about it. And when they deny it, I want you to make it clear that this isn't where it ends. And then you go find that motherfucker and you jump em. Excuse me, sir. Excuse me, ma'. Am, Chris Cuomo here. You wouldn't answer our questions, but they demand an answer. Why haven't children been made aware? Why didn't you let parents know? Why did you deny that's what we need? Not faked, not stilting it so that you think Somalians are the problem when it's like some white lady was the mastermind of the fraud. Not when you blame all Jews for what Bibi Netanyahu and his most right government in modern, if not ever, Israeli history do. You got to be straight and you got to be fair. And you've got to be tough. Not play tough. Tough take on tough targets who hit back and show you can take the hit. Now, look, everybody's going to play it to opportunistically motivate their own agenda. And the people they're getting rid of at 60 minutes, I don't even think you know who they are. And if they got rid of them for bad reason and for doing the job the right way, then they should say that. But they should prove it, because they're not martyrs otherwise any more than, like, Don Lemon. He's no martyr. He made a choice that if he were working for CBS News, he wouldn't have made. Now, I don't know that. I've never worked at cbs. I've never even really entertained it. Talked to Susan Zarinsky a little bit about it, talked to some of their other bosses over the years, but I always felt they took themselves too seriously for the wrong reasons. I don't like arrogance. I like competitiveness. I loved getting bookings that they wanted. Look, I mean, you should know the people who are on 60 Minutes, you should know what they're about. They should be relevant, not because it's about them, but because it's proof that they're connecting with you about what matters. You should see them as the agents of your interests. Absolutely. Absolutely. And if you don't know who they are, there's a reason for that. And I have not been impressed with the show or the people on it for a long time. And, you know, you can say, well, who are you? Well, I anchored 2020. I've won a lot of awards that people on those shows haven't. And I did it without the shiny 60 minutes that, like every other piece they do, gets nominated for an Emmy because it's such an insider club. But even that has changed to a degree. Why? Because they're not who they were. And if Barry Weiss wants to get back to that, more power to her. I don't give a shit that she doesn't come from television. It's not chemistry. It's not, you know, rocket science, what we're doing here. Do you know how to tell a story? Do you know what matters to people? Do you know how to be fair? Now, there are other things that she has to figure out that I would never want to do, and I don't know, which is how to manage all the resources and where you put them and the hr and, like, everything is HR now, and staffing and motivations and money, influence and ratings and clicks and how do you get it? And it's tough. Everybody's going to get paid less. Everybody. Was that part of the Peli decision? Maybe. Maybe. I'd be. I would be shocked if he was going to get a contract there or anywhere else where he was making anything close to what he was. Not because of him, but because of the market realities. Getting rid of Anderson Cooper or him saying he won't work there anymore. Whatever it is, I think he moved first and good for him, but I don't think he's what that show needs. I like Anderson. I like his work. I think the same thing's going to happen at CNN with the new leadership. They're going to look and see what they're paying people and see what's being made and saying, no way. Everybody needs a haircut. And if they don't want to take it, fuck it, replace them. I don't think any of them break us, and I don't know that they're wrong. That's how I live my life in this business. Like at News Nation, obviously, I carry the podcast. There's nobody else on it. I own it. Right. Cuomo. Crime time, which I hope you guys sign up for. If you're true crime people, I own it. I'm accountable to me and a little bit to my kids because, like, if I'm not making the money that I need to make to do it, then I'm taking time from them and I'm taking resources from them. And that's not. That's. That's my boss. But at News Nation, I carry that primetime lineup. I carry it now. I'm not saying that out of arrogance. I'm saying it out of ratings. And by the way, I. I would be happy for there to be other people there that are boosting the numbers and giving me a great lead in or building off my lead in or whatever. Why? Because it's better for me. More success, better numbers, more money to pay me. Great, great. I think I'm good value for them, but that's a business decision for them to make. And I am what that brand says it wants to be. I am show that everywhere, everybody is welcome and everybody is tested. And I try to do the disagreement with decency. Why? I don't think the hot histrionics are getting us to a better place. I can be fucking tough. I can be a hammer. I can get into a fight and I can win a fight. Yes, I can. And I can do it deftly. Yes, I can. But that's not always the best thing. Debate as sport is dangerous. Competitive banter is dangerous. I actually think you should have a TV show that scores political pundits. Like that roundtable at cnn. I think that the host of that Abby is better suited to scoring it with a clicker than actually moderating it or controlling it or motivating it. I don't think she's great at any of those things. I don't even know that that's why she got the job. But I think that they should score it. Why? Because that's all it is, is competitive banter. These people are all pros. They're all making money for points. You know what I mean? They're all making points for money. So score it. Oh, that was good. Mockler was good. Oh, Jennings, though. Jennings was good. Oh, Jennings, you're such a jerk. Take points away. Give them point. Just like around the horn on espn. Why not? Oh, no, that cheapens it. Too late. No, I actually think it would elevate it. I think it would be more transparent about how you feel about what's being said. And then the audience could vibe off of that. I think it's a great idea. I pitched it. Nobody ever likes it. Pitch it at cnn. Nope. Pitch it at News Nation. Nope. Start it yourself. I got enough. And I don't know that I want to do it, but I think it would work. These are the three signs of the coming political apocalypse. The way Trump has made MAGA nothing more than all about him and petty vengeance. And he has made the things that matter to the many worse. The Platner paradox. And how the left is going to take the populist outrage if they play it right. And it is bigger and deeper than MAGA ever was. And their outsiders and their disruptors are going to be flawed in ways that nobody else would survive. But that's because they're not anybody else. They're owned by the movement, just like Trump was. And the Third is how 60 Minutes is playing out and the outcry about it and how the high priests in the media and the haters in the media, they're reacting to it and they're trying to find a way to hurt Barry Weiss and hurt cbs. Why? Because we like to tear down. But beyond that artifice, because that's just commercial behavior, is why they're changing and how they decide to change. As a statement of what these big platforms need to be to serve the many. 60 minutes can be great again. It is not great now. The people are on it. Are not great. And that's okay. You can work with talent. You can make somebody great. And they should be seen as the people's advocates. That's what that show was at its best. Wallace, man, just the man. Head and heart and balls. These are the three signs of the coming political apocalypse. Meaning things are going to change. They will be revealed. They will be manifestly different. How? I don't know, man. But you know, the Asians have an expression. May you live in interesting times. They just never qualified what kind of interesting. And this is scary and it's depressing and can easily make you despondent. But I am an irrational optimist and I believe that change is always afoot and it's up to us what to make of it and how to feel about it. And we'll see. But I'm telling you, these are three signs that things are going to change and it's going to happen sooner than later. And we will watch it together. Thank you for subscribing Following Branding yourself with your independence by getting the merch showing you're a free agent, a critical thinker, that you are different. You are an independent. You are not part of some bullshit party. You're a critical thinker. I'll see you on SXM in the morning. Or you'll hear me here. The Chris Cuomo Crime Time Podcast. Very cool. Getting traction. Dig it. Love growing something. Love the grind. And of course, at News Nation every weekday night from 8 to 9. The challenges are real. My brothers and sisters, let's get after it.