John Fugelsang & Corey Brettschneider: "Stochastic Self-Censorship"

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: The Gist x Oath in the Office

Episode Title: John Fugelsang & Corey Brettschneider: "Stochastic Self-Censorship"
Date: February 28, 2026
Host: Mike Pesca (of The Gist), guests John Fugelsang and Corey Brettschneider
Run Time: ~30 minutes

---

Episode Overview

This crossover episode features Mike Pesca’s guest appearance on “Oath in the Office,” hosted by comedian/author John Fugelsang and political science professor Corey Brettschneider. The discussion probes the state of journalism under political pressure, the rise of "stochastic self-censorship," and the struggle for independent reporting in an era of shrinking newsrooms and mounting regulatory threats. The tone is witty, intellectually sharp, and sometimes sardonic, with the guests reflecting on free speech, media intimidation, and maintaining integrity in the press—while poking plenty of fun at each other and their shared Long Island roots.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Media Intimidation and the Current Administration

• The FCC as a Political Weapon (05:06)
  • Brettschneider sets the stage by referencing the administration’s use of the FCC to threaten late-night shows critical of Trump. He asks Pesca for his take on “what’s happening” and how journalists (and comedians) should respond.
  • Pesca: Emphasizes that while comedy clubs and independent journalism are thriving to some extent, the decline of institutional newsrooms is dangerous for democracy:

    “Journalists...need [newsrooms], if nothing else, as launchpads for the future independent journalists of America. And we're seeing fewer and fewer of them.” (05:51)

    • Journalism lacks the "farm system" that helps comedians rise through clubs—a pipeline that inducts, mentors, and spotlights new talent.
    • Massive cuts at places like The Washington Post are bad for democracy since even independent journalists often come from traditional media.

2. Comedians vs. Journalists: Navigating Censorship

• Fugelsang on Political Comedy’s Risks (07:19)

  • Political comedians risk alienating half the audience and becoming “unbookable” on mainstream late-night TV unless they host their own show.
  • Podcasting is a new platform for comics to address social issues unencumbered:

    “Podcasting is allowing so many comedians to branch out and to be funny and yet talk about social issues… you always keep it entertaining first and preachy last.” (08:28)

• Pesca on Journalistic Entertainers (08:49)

  • Journalists are often critiqued by ombudsmen for lacking substance, but rarely for failing to be interesting:

    “You have to be informative, but you also have to be interesting. Now the algorithm just defines interesting in a way that… is more like a meth head would find things to be interesting.” (08:49)

3. Regulatory Pressure: Jawboning and Chilling Effects

• Jawboning Explained: The FCC and Late Night (09:43-12:56)

  • Pesca discusses FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr’s efforts to pressure networks into dropping Trump critics like Jimmy Kimmel.
  • He calls this “jawboning”—government officials using their position to intimidate media without formal bans. Pesca cites case law (notably a New York case involving action against the NRA) as precedent for this being unconstitutional.
  • Selective enforcement is particularly insidious; Carr didn’t apply equal-time rules to conservative radio, exposing his bias.

• Stochastic Self-Censorship (13:04)

  • Fugelsang introduces the term “stochastic self-censorship”—journalists preemptively avoiding controversial topics due to regulatory threats:

    “Regulatory pressure, even without a formal ban or policy, can create a really chilling effect. Mike, do you think soft censorship that we're seeing here...is this more dangerous than overt censorship precisely because it's so deniable?” (14:01)

  • Pesca compares subtle censorship to subtle racism: “One’s a ten, one’s a seven and a half,” but both are dangerous. The “drip by drip” effect yields the same chilling result (14:04).
  • Pesca challenges whether the administration genuinely strategizes about which Democratic Senate candidate to target, suggesting their motivations may be less sophisticated than some believe (15:26-15:55).

4. CBS, Bari Weiss, and Corporate Media Critique

• The Bari Weiss CBS Incident (16:39-18:53)

  • Brettschneider asks whether internal and external pressure is making journalists self-censor, using the high-profile case of Bari Weiss at CBS as an example.
  • Pesca’s take: The term “censorship” was misapplied. Edits were justifiable, if badly timed; the controversy emerged when a memo was leaked using the word “censorship.” The actual reporting didn’t substantively change—the public addendum was informative.

    “What Bari Weiss did or what CBS did in that incident was, I think, justifiable in terms of the substance of the piece. The timing was rather bad.” (18:53)

  • He rebuts accusations that CBS carries water for Trump, pointing out numerous adversarial moments with the Trump administration and arguing that all broadcast news is similarly cautious, not especially deferential.

• The Problem of Optics and Relationships (22:08-23:50)

  • Pesca defends the effort to maintain civil relations with public figures, even those as controversial as Trump or Stephen Miller:

    “No problem with purveyors of news trying to establish decent relationships with newsmakers… It's what you do with the actual coverage, not the optics.” (22:08)

  • He distinguishes between legal vetting and editorial/ethical diligence in controversial stories.

5. Objectivity, Neutrality, and the Current Crisis

• Can Journalistic Neutrality Survive Democratic Backsliding? (26:32-30:29)
  • Brettschneider suggests the traditional values of objectivity and two-sided coverage may not be suitable during a “full-out attack on democracy.” He points out Jake Tapper’s recent acknowledgment that it’s not a “both sides” moment, especially around attacks on civil liberties and democratic norms.
  • Pesca defends striving for objectivity:

    “I am still a believer in the ideal of objectivity. Not that it could always or maybe even ever be achieved, but… there's no such thing as objectivity, so let's just predefine the truth and report from there. I do not think that that is the best way to actually arrive at the truth.” (28:09)

  • He concedes that not all issues are equally debatable (e.g., the January 6 riots), but emphasizes fair analysis over ideological alignment.

6. How to Argue Without Dehumanizing the Other Side

• Practical Advice for Constructive Disagreement (30:55-32:24)
  • Fugelsang asks how Pesca manages to engage opposing views without resorting to dehumanization.
  • Pesca draws on Amanda Ripley's conflict-resolution approach: look for falsifying evidence, present counter-ideas respectfully, and appeal to the rational, open-minded side of your audience.

    “If I were to falsify that and as people who believe in the Enlightenment and the ability to falsify a thesis, that struck you as oh yes, yes, for something to be true… And then I said something like might I present to you some counter ideas?… Coming out with a blunderbuss of counter statistics… does get the most engagement in our algorithmic world. But… it’s all about genuine exchange.” (31:12)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the Pipeline Problem:

  “Without these both farm systems to teach people journalism... It's not a system like the comedy clubs where you kind of rise up and then...maybe you get a sitcom, maybe you just do a podcast and sell out an arena. The whole journalism model is pretty broken.”
  —Mike Pesca (05:51)

• On Chilling Effects via the FCC:

  “It is a violation of one's First Amendment rights to essentially threaten the use of federal agencies to come in and regulate without actually doing the regulation.”
  —Mike Pesca (10:25)

• On Stochastic Self-Censorship:

  “Regulatory pressure, even without a formal ban or policy, can create a really chilling effect… soft censorship that we're seeing here... is this more dangerous than overt censorship precisely because it's so deniable?”
  —John Fugelsang (14:01) “It’s just iterative and little by little, drip by drip, you get the effect that you want... one's a ten, one's a seven and a half.”
  —Mike Pesca (14:04)

• On Objectivity:

  “I am still a believer in the ideal of objectivity. Not that it could always or maybe even ever be achieved, but… I do not think… just predefining the truth and report from there… is the best way to… get at the truth.”
  —Mike Pesca (28:09)

• On Dehumanizing in Debate:

  “If I were to falsify that and as people who believe in the enlightenment and the ability to falsify a thesis that struck you as oh yes, yes, for something to be true…”
  —Mike Pesca (31:12) “Coming out with a blunderbuss of counter statistics… does get the most engagement in our algorithmic world. But… it’s all about genuine exchange.”
  —Mike Pesca (31:22)

• Comic Relief:

  “The equal time rule is the most sacred...to the FCC. Next to no nipples at the Super Bowl.”
  —John Fugelsang (12:56) “We found so many men who defecated in the Capitol that day, and we're listening to them.”
  —John Fugelsang (30:42) "Oh, that's the title of our show. How did you know?"
  —Corey Brettschneider, on clickbait episode titles (32:13)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 03:54 — Start of substantive conversation, Pesca joins the "Oath in the Office"
• 05:06 — Brettschneider raises media intimidation, asks Pesca about journalism’s survival
• 08:28 — Comedy as a more flexible form of political critique
• 09:43–12:56 — The FCC’s “jawboning” and case law on First Amendment violations
• 13:04–14:44 — “Stochastic self-censorship” and the chilling effect
• 16:39–18:53 — The CBS/Bari Weiss incident and media/political influence
• 26:32–30:29 — Should journalism jettison neutrality under democratic threat?
• 30:55–32:24 — How to debate without dehumanizing (Pesca)
• 32:29–33:48 — Closing banter and sign-offs

---

Closing & Where to Find More

• Mike Pesca: Listen to The Gist and How To at mikepesca.com or wherever you get your podcasts.
• John Fugelsang: SiriusXM, Substack, and book Separation of Church and Hate.
• Corey Brettschneider: Find on BlueSky (@DemocracyProf).

Summary prepared for listeners who want a sharp, in-depth recap of media integrity challenges in the Trump era, and how today’s comedians and journalists can survive the pressure—without becoming part of the problem.

Transcript

[Mike Pesca]

The gist is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Fiscally responsible financial geniuses, monetary magicians. These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds. Visit progressive.com to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states or situations.

[Docebo Advertiser]

For a long time, companies treated their learning programs like overhead. Nice to have, easy to cut. Not anymore. With tech, AI and skills evolving fast, learning isn't just about HR or mandatory compliance. Learning is a competitive advantage. It's how you keep up. Learning is how you enable sellers, onboard talent, educate customers and scale faster. It's how you act, adapt and evolve. And at Docebo, learning is what we do. So for learning that never stops, start with Docebo. Docebo Never Stop Learning.

[Mike Pesca]

Hi, it's Saturday. It's the Saturday show. And I was on a very good podcast this week. Let me tell you the origins of the podcast. There is a professor, a political science professor at Brown named Corey Brett Schneider. And there is a comedian, but also a political guy named John Fugal saying. Maybe you've heard of Brett Schneider on the show. Maybe you've heard of Fugal saying out there in the ether. And so Brett Schneider and Fugal saying came together and said, we must do something with our last names. We could have an Oompa band. We could possibly sell zithers on the corner. No, we should put Fugal saying and Brett Schneider, Brett Schneider and Fugal saying united in the podcast form. This podcast will be called the Oath in the Office. And we will one day invite Mike Pesca. And that all came to pass, as did the Oompa band. But that's another story for another time. For this time, on this day, Mike Pesca, that's me, Fugal sang and Brett Schneider on the Oath in the office. I'm wearing True Work right now. No joke. And it's not exactly because I was going outside on a winter job site, but I was mucking about in the snow. And TrueWerk builds performance workwear. I like it matters. Cause it matters. You want the history. There was a trade professional who's also a smart guy who knew fabrics and said if I wear these jeans, they just get soaking wet. And then if you compare it to brands like I'll name them Carhartt and Dickies, their traditional cotton based gear, it gets heavy when wet and it's just not the same. Or the case with Truewerk Advanced Performance Fabrics. Of course they have the moisture wicking. What do you think they're going to put you out there in the world without the wicking. The best wicking this way that comes and they're win resistant and they're insulated and I got to say they're good looking, they're cool looking. I wear a lot of true work all the time and I sometimes even break my rule, which is no two clothing items of the same brand. Then you say, oh, what am I playing for the team? At this point, I pretty much am. Don't let cheap gear slow you down this winter. Upgrade your day with workwear built like it matters. Get 15% off your first [e-mail] with code the Gist. That's T R U E W E R K.com the Gist is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Fiscally responsible financial geniuses, monetary magicians. These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds. Visit progressive.com to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states or situations.

[John Fugelsang]

Welcome back to the Oath and the Office. I'm John Feigl saying Professor Brettschneider, I am very excited about this guest. I am a longtime fan of of his podcasting prowess and we've also lived kind of parallel lives in the past too. Tell the kids who's coming up.

[Corey Brettschneider]

It's a thrill to invite Mike Pesca and there was of course a Long island reunion between the two of you both from Long Island. Mike Pesca is an award winning journalist. He's the host of the longest running daily news podcast, which of course is called the Gist. It was my honor to be on the Gist and to talk about the presidents and the people with him soon after it came out. And I'm also happy to announce that he's the brand new host of the award nominated podcast How To. So, Mike Pesco, welcome to the Oath in the office. It's a pleasure to have you.

[Mike Pesca]

Oh, thanks for having me. I know that one of you is from Suffolk county and I'm from Nassau county, so we're gonna have to get over that during this interview. That is a big barrier between the two counties of Long island, but I'm sure by the end we'll be able to find common ground maybe in Farmingdale.

[Corey Brettschneider]

I hate to pull out my trump card, which is that I'm Queens Bayside, so.

[John Fugelsang]

Oh no,

[Mike Pesca]

it's another geographic Long Island.

[Corey Brettschneider]

It does, right? That's right. Technically it is Long Island. So Mike, I mean we love to jump right in and ask you a question with your journalism. One thing that we're talking a lot about on the oath in the office is the various ways that this administration is trying to shut down the opposition. And some of that, of course, is being done through criminal indictments of political opponents. But we're also focused on the way that this administration's use the FCC as a kind of weapon, threatening opponents late night. So I would like to ask you just your thoughts about what's happening. And one of the themes we're also talking a lot about that I'd invite your thoughts on is how can journalists respond and fight back? How can comedians and those in entertainment,

[Mike Pesca]

comedians, I think maybe have the easiest assignment, right, make the people laugh. And there are a lot of great comedy clubs for that. Journalists, they kind of need. I mean, independent journalism is burgeoning these days, but I still think it's better to have actual newspapers, if nothing else, as launchpads for the future independent journalists of America. And we're seeing fewer and fewer of them. And then we saw huge cuts at the Washington Post. And that's pretty bad for democracy because if you look at, you know, you'll often hear the counterpoint. Well, look at all these people who are doing journalists outside the mainstream, but how do you even hear about them in the first place? You know, Matt Taibbi was at Rolling Stone or look at who's, you know, top 10 in substack, it's guys who are on CNN or if it's Jennifer Rubin from the Washington Post. So without these both farm systems to teach people journalism or these, like I said, launch pads, way to get people identified. It's not a system like the comedy clubs where you kind of rise up and then, you know, maybe you get a sitcom, maybe you just do a podcast and sell out an arena. The whole journalism model is pretty broken. We could fcc. But, you know, I was just wondering, like, since John is afoot in both worlds, does he have talked to a lot of comedians about this? I also have a show called Funny youy should mention it used to be the comedians were pretty sour on the ways to actually get noticed. And there was a big, there was a big, you know, the pipeline wasn't exactly open. But now I think journalists have a tougher time.

[John Fugelsang]

It's a good question because when I was starting out, you know, I was getting a lot of work doing dopey TV jobs that didn't really feel right for me. And I always wanted to talk about politics and religion as a comedian. And I'll always Give Bill Maher credit. He was the first person to encourage me to go deeper into politics and religion and alienate potential employers in other realms. So, I mean, for a comedian, you have to recognize that when you take it on, yes, you can have that superpower of talking about what's going on. You can travel to other rooms where just comics who joke about normal stuff can't. But when you decide as a comedian to take on politics, you're signing on for having half the audience potentially hate you, for having most of your material be dated in two weeks and for pretty much agreeing you don't ever wanna be on late night TV shows. Cause the only people who ever do political comedy on tv, you might notice, are people who have their own TV shows. It's really tricky outside of like CNN panels to go on TV as a comic and talk about this stuff. But that's why you're right. I mean, I think you have two feet in the same world as well. Because podcasting is allowing so many comedians to branch out and to be funny and yet talk about social issues at the. And I think you set a model for it, Mike. Not that you're a standup, but that you always keep it entertaining first and preachy last. Which is, I think you know what this is about. It's not just about delivering the information. It's also got to be highly listenable. And that's something I don't really think they teach at journalism school.

[Mike Pesca]

No, the ombudsman, which is, it's not a gendered role, this is a Swedish word. But when they had ombudsman, they would always weigh in on, oh, that wasn't well sourced or oh, you could have given more information. They always default to more, more. Give more information, you know, your 45 second news slot to, to convey facts tersely. No, no, put three minutes worth of information there. But they never prioritize. Be interesting. And I always said you have to be informative, but you also have to be interesting. Now the algorithm just defines interesting in a way that I think is sort of more like a meth head would find things to be interesting. Right. In the old way of being interesting as a journalist is maybe graph is compelling. Right. You don't start with statistics. But do people even have the opportunity to consider the lead graph or to consider a well crafted written piece? I think not. But to Corey, go back to your question and Brendan Carr and the fcc, I think it's important to talk about the two big forays he had trying to influence the discourse and late night talk shows. So a few months ago, he jawboned stations to essentially intimidate them to take Jimmy Kimmel off the air. Jimmy Kimmel, critical of Trump and a disfavored host. And so he made the point, especially with these station groups that are considering a merger before the federal government, oh, you might want, you know, will anyone rid me of this meddlesome priest? You might not want to put that wisecracker on the air. And there's a lot of case law that I think you could talk about. It's very interesting, you might say, One might say, well, well, you know, just talking out loud about things. Is that allowed? And the Supreme Court has weighed in on jawboning as an. If you're a First Amendment advocate, as I am, it is a violation of one's First Amendment rights to essentially threaten the use of federal agencies to come in and regulate without actually doing the regulation. There is a case, it's very interesting because it was a New York case called, I think Volo in New York, where she now teaches at Fordham Law School. She was a New York state administrator. She was jawboning to try to get certain companies to not do business with the nra. And the jawboning itself was deemed the federal government impermissibly overstepping its bounds. And so that's what I think Carr was doing there. But now when we come to the latest of what Carr was doing and try to maybe intimidate CBS from airing an interview with James Talrico, who's running for ding, ding, ding, ding, Senate, there's a question which is, was Carr overstepping his bounds or was he advocating for a more rigorous enforcement of what is within the FCC's ambit and purview for the first time?

[John Fugelsang]

For the first time.

[Mike Pesca]

That is true. That is true. But you know, if you have laws on the books and you decide to enforce them, that's allowed. If you decide to enforce them selectively, that's probably not allowed and it shouldn't be allowed. And we should also note that he doesn't like what these late night comics are saying. So he wants to enforce the law and he wants to enforce the equal time rule. He, however, does not want to enforce that with AM talk radio, where of course, everyone's a conservative. So we all know what's going on.

[John Fugelsang]

Greg Gutfeld's guest list is safe. You're so right.

[Mike Pesca]

I mean, for so many years, I got to say. And he actually filleted a senator from Nevada about this when she was like why don't you weigh in on Fox? He is correct in saying because they're not a broadcaster. I can only weigh in with the broadcasters and that is antiquated and old. But that's the world we're living in. He sees himself as I have a lever. I can shut up Colbert or at least make his life hard. Or at least convince the CBS lawyers that if he interviews Tel Rico, he also asked to interview Jasmine Crockett. And that might not be an outrageous interpretation of what Carr was saying.

[John Fugelsang]

Well, yeah, I agree with everything, except we have to remember that the equal time rule is the most sacred. Sacred of all rules to the fcc. Next to no nipples at the Super Bowl. Oh, that equal time rule is so sacred to the FCC that they never thought to bring it up until last week because they don't want Talarico getting the Democratic nomination for Senate because they're terrified of all this Jesus talk. And you know, you're right about Kimmel, the unsung hero there was Monday Night Football threatening Sinclair. Okay, you don't need us either. And that's what made Sinclair back down. But what's amazing to me, and I ask both of you, cuz your brains are much bigger than mine at this point, how do we distinguish between legitimate oversight and intimidation? As corporate media is finally, finally learning what stochastic terrorism is, we're learning this new stochastic self censorship. I mean, regulatory pressure, even without a formal ban or policy can create a really chilling effect. And Mike, do you think soft censorship that we're seeing here with Colbert, with Kimball, is this more dangerous than overt censorship precisely because it's so deniable?

[Mike Pesca]

I think that it's not, but it is dangerous. And I always come back to, you know, isn't this subtle racism worse than when it's out in the open? And we used to say that when it was subtle and then it got really out in the open. One's a ten, one's a seven and a half. Stochasticity. That is a really interesting frame to put on this. I do think it's actually more apt than the terrorism thing because what it means is that it's just iterative and little by little, drip by drip, you get the effect that you want. And there is a censorship or there is a shutting down of speech that the FCC is engaged in. They have an interesting theory of the case which is that Car will say I can't. Well, he won't say I can't regulate, but he knows it's very hard for him to regulate the networks. And when people think of abc, they think of Kimmel or Monday Night Football. When they think of cbs, they think of Colbert. But the networks aren't licensed by the federal government. The broadcasters are. So he looks at the end users and he knows that he could use that lever there. I do wonder, however, if his I use this phrase before, but I'll say it again, if, if his theory of the case was so detailed that he literally, or the Trump administration literally thinks that they want Talrico not to be the nominee, they'd rather have Jasmine Crockett because maybe that's a sophisticated analysis of who is best to win that Texas race.

[John Fugelsang]

I don't think so, but.

[Mike Pesca]

Well, I can't see Trump weighing in to help Jasmine Crockett.

[John Fugelsang]

Exactly.

[Mike Pesca]

Exactly about it.

[John Fugelsang]

Yeah, yeah, because they think, they think the people of Texas would never go for her. They think that Talarico is so riskier because A, he's fluent in Jesus and they don't want to hear that at all. And B, they assume that Texas is so bigoted that a black woman in the Senate would be impossible, whereas they're both great and she could be the most transformative Texas politician since Ann Richards.

[Mike Pesca]

And in a minute, more with me talking to Brett Schneider and Fugal saying on the Oath in the Office. The gist is brought to you by Progressive Insurance, fiscally responsible financial geniuses, monetary magicians. These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds. Visit progressive.com to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary, not available in all states or situations. So let's return now to the Oath in the Office conversation as hosted by Corey Brettschneider and John Fugelsang.

[Corey Brettschneider]

I was going to ask Mike to bring it back to your original point about journalism and sort of the way that it's falling apart. I mean, even if these things that Brendan Carr turns out to do are illegal, I mean, is there a worry, the way that you're looking at the landscape, that people are getting intimidated that you're not seeing journalists stand up? I'm thinking of Bari Weiss and CBS and a lot of the traditional ways that journalists came up, rather than being a cbs, for instance, being a bastion of independent journalism and fact checking, it looks like it's anything but. I mean, are they winning in that sense, even if what they're doing is illegal and ultimately they have to back down?

[Mike Pesca]

Well, I know you guys are open to debate and counter opinion, so yeah, I'm going to lay this on you. I wrote a piece called why is no one Nice to Barry Weiss? It rhymes. So I went with the headline was that it is true there are a couple of high profile incidents that were alleged to have been some example of interceding to help Trump or to help the Trump agenda. However, I talked about those incidents. One was she got in there, she told CBS is 60 Minutes that a couple of hours, or not even 24 hours before air, that she had problems with a piece on Cecot prison. And Sharon Alfonsi, who is the reporter on that piece, didn't go public, but wrote a widely circulated memo that as a sophisticated person in the news, she knew would go public. And she used the word censorship. I do not think it was censorship. I made the case that but for the fact that it was so close to airtime that it had the effect of not spiking the piece. And that's an important distinction. But holding the piece. Many of the edits were legitimate. And then the piece that did air a few weeks later was unchanged, the actual body of the piece. But there was a long addendum afterwards that I really thought, as a news consumer, gave worthy and excellent information. Like there was a question about if tattoos would have warranted inclusion in a prison. And during the piece they talked about this one guy's tattoos were the Jumpman logo from Michael Jordan. And he didn't have any tattoos that would, you know, flag an investigator. However, the guy did have a swastika tattoo and he had a 666 tattoo. And then, and then 60 Minutes, I think they noted that that's all you need, really.

[John Fugelsang]

That's, that's all you need to put somebody in a gulag.

[Mike Pesca]

No, it's wrong. You're right. There's absolutely no justification for that. But as an explanation, I would just say if you want to strengthen and if you want to make a piece as airtight as possible, you even include the portions that don't open you up for critique on the back end. So I would say during the piece they could have talked about the swastika as a. He did have this on him, however, and he doesn't even know what it is. And in many cultures it doesn't have the valence of Nazism. Okay. So there's a long way of saying that what Bari Weiss did or what CBS did in that incident was, I think, justifiable in terms of the substance of the piece. The timing was rather bad. Then there is the bigger question of, you know, is she trying to turn CBS into some Trump water carrying network. And there are a couple of high profile examples, including Tony decouple, the new anchorman saying we salute you, Marco Rubio. And you don't want an anchorman saying that. However, if I, my sister was saying this to me and I said, okay, how can I falsify that thesis? Right? Because if the thesis is true, it has to be falsified. What other evidence might I be able to introduce such that you would say it's not a water carrying network? What if I pointed to 100 or 200 incidents of their anchor people asking extremely tough questions to and of the Trump administration since Weiss took over and that has happened and they gave, they did one of the best interviews with Homan right after the ice shooting. And Margaret Brennan has been great on Face the Nation and other 60 minute pieces have absolutely filleted the Trump administration. So if you watch what people say about cbs, it's I think become a pile on. If you actually watch CBS and there's too much time to watch everything, I do think that it would be indistinguishable to most viewers. If you put up the CBS Evening News and ABC World News Tonight and Tom Yamas's news, you wouldn't be able to say which one's the supposedly pro Trump one. I do not believe.

[Corey Brettschneider]

Yeah, I mean, I guess to push back, one thought might be that all the networks are to some degree not doing the kind of reporting that you would want to see when you have an assault on civil liberties, including what we started with. I mean, one, here's just a follow up question about Weiss in particular. And one, one piece of reporting suggested that she was really criticizing the show for not interviewing Stephen Miller and giving him his full due. And I guess in that case it was a normal official. I might see the point. But Stephen Miller of course is known for lying, for just acting in a way that words don't seem to connect to truth necessarily. And I guess I wonder about that. Also the other worry was the sort of affection that she showed for Trump in person at one point. And so I mean, do any of those concern you? And also broadly, I mean, what about the thought that yes, they might not be that different than the other network players, but maybe we're in trouble and that corporate media more generally just isn't, you know, and it's not, it's not, I don't think, disconnected from our other discussion because there is a chilling effect going on when you see Trump threatening his critics as he has across the Board.

[Mike Pesca]

Yeah. I have no, I have no problem with purveyor of news trying to establish decent relationships with newsmakers. This happens all the time. It happened when, and there was this kerfuffle when the host of Morning Joe went down to Mar a Lago. And I think a lot of people talked about bending the knee and I don't know what actually happened there. But this is just a tried and true tactic of you talk to the people you're going to be reporting on and say they've been very critical.

[John Fugelsang]

You're right. And Bill Maher too.

[Mike Pesca]

Oh, yeah. People fellayed Bill Maher for taking that meeting. And you know, Bill Maher has a quasi news show. It's what you do with the actual coverage, not the optics of if you're nice or not or seemingly nice or kiss someone on the, you know, then again, many of us might say, I think my lips might melt off if

[Corey Brettschneider]

I try to kiss him, but if

[Mike Pesca]

I had kisses, you know, then again, don't take the job of running a news organization because that's what a news organization has to do. And to convince the people that you're reporting on that you're going to be fair, I think is fine. Now, as far as getting a reference or a quote from Stephen Miller, if you can't do that, the piece would probably be better if you get one of his classic fiddle flecked invectives. I don't know. But I think she also tried to get home and you know, and she has or that organization has shown that it has a decent in with Homan because he was on the evening news right after the killing, the second killing in Minnesota. So I'm saying it's worth a try. It's probably wasn't worth a try at that last moment. But Sharon Alfonsi said if we allow the administration to have the last say in this and they could spike a piece, then we're not engaging in journalism. That is true.

[John Fugelsang]

Yeah.

[Mike Pesca]

That's not what happened.

[John Fugelsang]

But the 60 Minute piece had been legally vetted and finalized for broadcast when

[Mike Pesca]

legal vetting isn't the same. Right. Legal. I mean, I've had many pieces. You probably have the equivalent of, yes, this passes muster, we won't get sued. It doesn't mean that, you know, it wasn't the best piece it can be.

[John Fugelsang]

Right. But, but I think Sharon Alfonsi's whole critique was that this was political, this wasn't editorial. This was because it was yielding political pressure because Trump was publicly complaining about 60 Minutes and now Anderson Cooper apparently has more free time on his hands to be a dad. I mean, you know, seem to scream to be connected, right?

[Mike Pesca]

They seem to be. I'm not saying you're wrong. And there's certainly there's something going on politically in that Paramount and Skydance do seek approval. If I was Alfonsi, I'd be unbelievably upset. She did the piece in the way that 60 Minutes, which is the most highly regarded broadcast news program out there, they have like a murder room of, you know, a murder board, which is a phrase where people ask you the toughest questions and the pieces past that and the regular process of a 60 Minutes piece, which is like the gold standard, had been passed. So she doesn't want to have to fly back from Texas and redo a piece. And she got upset and it's understandable. And she made allegations like censorship. And she said that it seems political. I can understand her being upset about that. I don't think the process was great, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was political. There are many other explanations for what it could have been. Then again, I can't disprove that there wasn't some political motivation. And it could be broader. Like, here's the politics of it. We're redefining CBS as something different from what it had been. And everyone at CBS will say something like, well, that's horrible because what CBS had been is. And they'll reach for Morrow and Harvest of Shame and the greatest thing CBS has done. But if you look at the ratings, what CBS is, is a last place network. And if you don't and kind of by a lot in a lot of its news. And I'll also add that 60 minutes is still a highly rated new show after football. And when it doesn't air after an NFL game with its lead in, it's a mediocre news show. It doesn't even do as well as 48. Not mediocre in quality, but if it's watched. And so these broadcast networks want viewers and they want money and they want to maybe take a few more Hail Marys than the people within CBS who think that they're the guardians of this great institution that cannot fail.

[Corey Brettschneider]

Can I, Mike, just pull back a little bit to the big picture and ask. And, you know, this is a really interesting discussion. You're giving a defense of journalism as it's, you know, traditionally practiced in a normal time. I would say absolutely. But I guess I think what makes this moment different is that the president of the United States is in an all out attack on free speech and on our institutions of democracy. And so my question to you, thinking about all these journalistic principles, is whether or not the sort of traditional balance and neutrality that we might associate with journalism has to shift a little bit. Maybe you think it doesn't, but even we had Jake Tapper a few weeks ago and I was surprised that by the end of the, the discussion he really just came out and said, yes, it's not a two sides moment, even for me, even for traditional journalism, because when you have an attack on democracy, you have to cover it as such. So I guess that's my. I don't know if it's a pushback as we abstract from the Bari Weiss case and pull back from that specific example. But I mean, what do you think? My sense is that it really isn't a moment in which we hear equally from two sides or we consider Stephen Miller's view alongside its opposite, that we have to, to do a kind of coverage of the moment that understands the historical place that we're in, which is that democracy is fragile and that all the institutions that we've for a very long time taken for granted are under attack. As you said, quite rightly, there was a lot of talk in previous decades about subtle forms of racism and now white supremacy is so overt. You know, we're facing a different kind of threat, different magnitude. And I guess I think that too about, about the president. So just invite you to react to that.

[Mike Pesca]

Yeah, I most identify with Marty Barron, who was then editing the Washington Post. And there was this discussion in the newsroom right after Trump was elected the first time. And what Barron said was, we don't go to war, we go to work. That's what I think you should do. You shouldn't issue fairness, you shouldn't issue. I am still a believer in the ideal of objectivity. Not that it could always or maybe even ever be achieved, but this notion in journalism circles of there's no such thing as objectivity, so let's just predefine the truth and report from there. I do not think that that is the best way to actually arrive at the truth. So, yeah, Jake's absolutely right. There's no two sides to, hey, maybe the January 6th rioters had some really good points or were some really good people or shit on Nancy Pelosi's desk in a really good way for their ballots. Right. There's no way, there's no way to do that. And there are so many stories like that. But when you can and I don't think the C cop prison is some example that we have to orient ourselves around ground. You should consider the sides, the accurate sides of an issue not come predetermined. There are some things, there are some points that even the Trump administration makes correctly. And then I think your discernment or a journalist discernment doesn't even necessarily come from let's give Trump his due or the Trump faction their full due. It's more like of the people correctly who are upset or up in arms about what Trump is doing, what is the best and most rational tone or analysis? Right. So I'm just thinking of this recent Supreme Court case and beforehand there was a lot of analysis saying the Supreme Court is illegitimate and we're in a constitutional crisis. So you can report on it like that. You could report on it as if that's your assumption, or you can say, well, what's a constitutional crisis? Let's define what that is. What are the costs of calling the Supreme Court illegit? The Supreme Court then comes and strikes down something like the tariffs, if we already define them as illegitimate, doesn't that give Trump a lot of room and leeway to act as if that ruling was illegitimate? So I think that that is where it's not both sides, but it's a full analysis and a fair analysis of different ways of interpreting all the phenomena that's going on in our society.

[John Fugelsang]

I just want to say the New York Times has a great series that's starting about how we need to listen to the economic concerns of people who defecate on Nancy Pelosi's desk. I highly recommend it. Mike, you've been so generous.

[Mike Pesca]

I went to Midwestern diners and they've defecated.

[John Fugelsang]

We found so many men who defecated in the Capitol that day, and we're listening to them. You're so generous with that.

[Mike Pesca]

We can only put it in little boxes and ship it into that company where we could find out if they have bowel disease.

[John Fugelsang]

I wanted to just ask you one last question, if I can drag you here for a little longer. Your new show, how to your work is really known for engaging people you disagree with to an admirable extent. And I'm just curious on a how to level, what have you learned about arguing without dehumanizing?

[Mike Pesca]

Well, the last one of the last hosts of that show is Amanda Ripley, and she wrote the best book on this about how we spin out into conflict that we can't pull back from. And so what I try to Do. What I said to you is something like if I were to falsify that and as people who believe in the enlightenment and the ability to falsify a thesis that struck you as oh yes, yes, for something to be true, that is it something we have to engage with. And then I said something like might I present to you some counter ideas? And then, you know, this probably tickled your self conception of men who are open minded. So that was. I don't know if it's a tactic. I fell into it quite logically. But that's the sort of thing that I try to do when disagreeing and coming out with. Coming out with a blunderbuss of counter statistics. It actually, it does get the most engagement in our algorithmic world. And all these headlines like Fugal saying owns Pesca.

[Corey Brettschneider]

Oh, that's the title of our show. How did you know?

[John Fugelsang]

Oh please spell it with a P. Corey, please spell owned with a P so I could pay it A millennial, please.

[Corey Brettschneider]

Oh my God, you really guessed it.

[Mike Pesca]

The Pwning of Pesca. Oh my God, that'll break all those down.

[John Fugelsang]

But I find my good, my friends who like the Confederacy really like the concept of owning people. Wow, Mike, what a pleasure. Thank you so much for joining us today.

[Mike Pesca]

My pleasure. Thank you guys so much for having me.

[John Fugelsang]

Mike, what is the best way to follow you and to keep up with your brilliance all the time?

[Mike Pesca]

You know, my show is the gist. It's on every day and then I have the show how to. So the recent one is how to emigrate to the Netherlands as a throuple. Dan Savage has that question. He's actually more than a throuple. It's polyamorous. So you can check out those two shows wherever you get your podcasts or go to mikepeska.com right on.

[John Fugelsang]

Thank you so much.

[Mike Pesca]

Thank you.

[Corey Brettschneider]

Thanks so much, Mike. What a pleasure to have you on the alt in the office.

[John Fugelsang]

Much gratitude to Mike Pesca. Corey, great booking. Thank you so much. You get the best guests. And professor, what's the best way for our listeners to keep up with your brilliance the other six days of world the week?

[Corey Brettschneider]

Well, you can find me on Blue sky is Democracy. Prof. Of course you can review us wherever you get your podcasts. We're on Spotify, we're on Apple, we're way beyond 530 now and almost all five stars. So thanks for that. And you know, tell your friends, send an email, let them know what a great discussion we had today, including the great discussion about journalism with Mike Pesca, following up on other discussions and of course, good to have people that we don't always agree with with.

[John Fugelsang]

Right on. Well, thank you, Professor. You guys can hear me on Sirius XM five nights a week on channel 127. Corey joins me live every Monday and we do take your calls. I got a substack. My book is Separation of Church and Hate. And professor, thank you so much once again for another great episode. We'll see you guys next time on the Oath and the Office.

[Mike Pesca]

And that's it for today's show. Corey War is the producer of the Gist Kathleen Sykes. She edits the Gist list. She puts it together. She slaps it up there@mike pesca.substack.com Jeff Craig edits so much of the show. You know, he's the editor of how to all those words are chopped together by him. He does our videos as well. Ben Astaire is our booking coordinator and Michelle Pesca oversees it all. Improve and thanks for listening, Sam.