Fire, Fury, and North Korea

Summary

---

The Political Scene | The New Yorker

Episode: Fire, Fury, and North Korea

Date: August 11, 2017
Host: Jeffrey Toobin
Guest: John Cassidy (New Yorker Staff Writer)

---

Episode Overview

This episode addresses the dramatic escalation of tensions between the United States and North Korea during the summer of 2017. After President Trump's warning of “fire and fury like the world has never seen,” New Yorker staff writers Jeffrey Toobin and John Cassidy break down what these statements mean for U.S. foreign policy, the risks of military conflict, and the broader implications for global security.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Parsing Trump's “Fire and Fury” Threat

[01:48–04:49]

• Trump's Statement: “North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.”
• Analysis:
  • Cassidy notes this marks a departure from longstanding U.S. policy, where past administrations ignored North Korean threats and focused on responding to actions.
  • Cassidy: “He seemed to be saying that the U.S. would, you know, launch nuclear attack just because it was threatened. And that was obviously, if he meant it, a huge change in policy.” [03:22]
• Ambiguity:
  • The phrase was not clear—did Trump mean nuclear retaliation merely for threats? This lack of clarity intensified global concern.

2. Mixed Messages from U.S. Leadership

[04:49–06:08]

• Official Clarifications:
  • Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Defense James Mattis both released statements attempting to clarify and temper Trump’s comments.
  • Cassidy: “Mattis was, in a way contradicting Trump by saying that we're not responding to threats, we're responding to actual actions... the crucial distinction was that this U.S. counterattack would come in response to not just a verbal threat, but some actual action.” [05:30]
• Result: The administration appeared divided, with language oscillating between extreme and measured.

3. North Korea Responds – The Guam Threat

[06:08–07:14]

• North Korea's Retaliation:
  • After Trump's warning, North Korea threatened to launch missiles towards Guam, a strategic U.S. military base in the Pacific.
  • Cassidy explains Guam’s significance as a “big US Base... home to some B1B bombers, which the US uses to fly over the Korean Peninsula.” [06:27]
• Escalation: Rather than backing down, North Korea raised the stakes further with a specific and provocative military plan.

4. U.S. Policy: Pressure and Engagement

[07:25–08:56]

• Current Approach:
  • The Trump administration promoted a dual policy of applying economic pressure (sanctions) while leaving the door open for negotiation.
  • Recent U.N. sanctions gained support from China and Russia—a diplomatic win for the White House.
  • Cassidy: “There was a sort of olive leaf out there that if North Koreans agreed to halt their missile tests, there would be the offer of negotiations… That policy didn't seem to have much impact.” [07:25]
• DIA Assessment: Reports surfaced that North Korea had likely miniaturized a nuclear warhead for an intercontinental ballistic missile—intensifying U.S. concerns.

5. The Limits and Risks of Military Action

[08:56–09:25]

• Military Strike Risks:
  • Toobin: “Any sort of American military strike will be met with missiles and artillery raining down on Seoul with catastrophic casualties.” [08:56]
  • The calculus of “fire and fury” is thus complicated by the reality that a U.S. attack would likely result in catastrophe for South Korea.

6. The Role of Sanctions and Chinese Involvement

[09:25–10:27]

• Chinese Leverage:
  • China’s agreement to stricter sanctions was a significant development, as prior measures floundered without Beijing’s support.
  • Cassidy: “The Chinese play a key role here… What was new here over the weekend was… the Chinese and the Russians agreed to vote with the US in imposing stricter sanctions.” [09:25]
• Perception of Success Undermined:
  • Cassidy notes surprise and frustration in the region, given the progress on sanctions when Trump’s rhetoric upended diplomatic momentum.

7. Kim Jong Un’s Strategic Goal

[10:58–13:12]

• North Korean Calculation:
  • Kim Jong Un’s primary goal is regime survival through acquiring a credible nuclear deterrent.
  • Cassidy: “The idea is that they just kind of carry on their own way, do everything they can to get a limited nuclear arsenal… Most people think they've actually been pretty successful with this strategy.” [11:12]
  • Offers to denuclearize have failed; North Korea is likely to remain a nuclear state.
• Policy Choices:
  • The U.S. faces a hard decision—either accept North Korea as a nuclear power and manage it like other nuclear states, or risk catastrophic conflict in a bid to force denuclearization.

8. U.S. Diplomatic Shortcomings

[13:12–13:34]

• State Department Vacancies:
  • No assistant secretary for East Asia, no U.S. ambassador to South Korea, and the top Beijing diplomat had resigned.
• Concerns:
  • Cassidy: “I think in the US Government as a whole, there are still a lot of people who understand what's going on here… The larger question is whether, you know, who's Trump listening to?” [13:34]

9. Trump’s Motivations and Style

[14:44–16:25]

• Why Such Inflammatory Language?

  • Reports suggest Trump’s remarks may have been off-the-cuff, not carefully coordinated with advisers.
  • Cassidy: “That was one of the bizarre things about this incident. He gave this very bellicose, militaristic statement at a summit on opioid addiction during his summer vacation, seated next to his wife and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, which made the whole thing look sort of surreal.” [15:13]
  • Trump later said his statements might not have been “tough enough.”

• Distraction from Russia?

  • Toobin raises speculation about whether Trump’s statements were intended to shift attention from the Russia investigation.
  • Cassidy: “If he was aiming to do that, he certainly was effective. But it only worked for a day…” [16:25]

10. What Happens Next?

[17:14–18:59]

• Upcoming Flashpoints:
  • North Korea’s announced plan to launch missiles near Guam, U.S.–South Korea military exercises set for the coming weeks.
  • Concern about possible escalation if North Korea fires missiles over Japan.
• Military Response:
  • Japan has signaled it may try to intercept missiles.
  • Cassidy: “These anti missile systems are still basically in the testing stage, so it could be that the US fire up these anti missile missiles and they miss and that would be seen as a great victory for Kim Jong Un and the North Koreans…” [18:07]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Changing U.S. Policy:
  • “He seemed to be saying that the U.S. would, you know, launch nuclear attack just because it was threatened…if he meant it, a huge change in policy.” —John Cassidy [03:22]
• On Diplomatic Confusion:
  • “The crucial distinction was that this U.S. counterattack would come in response to not just a verbal threat, but some actual action on behalf of the North Koreans.” —John Cassidy [05:30]
• On Risk of Escalation:
  • “Any sort of American military strike will be met with missiles and artillery raining down on Seoul with catastrophic casualties.” —Jeffrey Toobin [08:56]
• On Kim Jong Un’s Aims:
  • “Most people think they've actually been pretty successful with this strategy and they've succeeded a lot more rapidly than most Western analysts thought.” —John Cassidy [11:12]
• On the Uncertainty of Trump's Intentions:
  • “That's the problem with Trump. You never know for sure. He's actually come out again on Thursday afternoon and defended his own statement in another press available at the White House, saying maybe the problem with it was it wasn't tough enough. So, you know, he never admits that he's wrong.” —John Cassidy [15:18]
• On Consequences of Failure:
  • “Problem is it might not work. These anti missile systems are still basically in the testing stage, so it could be that the US fire up these anti missile missiles and they miss and that would be seen as a great victory for Kim Jong Un and the North Koreans...” —John Cassidy [18:07]

---

Timeline of Important Segments

| Time | Topic/Quote | |-----------|----------------------------------------------------------| | 01:48-04:49 | Parsing Trump's “fire and fury” threat | | 04:49-06:08 | Tillerson/Mattis responses, official policy confusion | | 06:08-07:14 | North Korea’s Guam threat | | 07:25-08:56 | U.S. pressure-and-engage policy | | 08:56-09:25 | Military options and risks explained | | 09:25-10:27 | Sanctions, China's role | | 10:58-13:12 | Kim Jong Un’s goals and North Korea’s strategy | | 13:12-13:34 | State Department vacancies and policy impact | | 14:44-16:25 | Trump's motivations and communication style | | 17:14-18:59 | What’s next: Guam, Japan, risk of escalation |

---

Summary

This episode highlights the volatility of U.S.–North Korea relations during a period of brinkmanship, focusing on the uncertainty introduced by Trump's rhetoric, the danger of misunderstandings, the enduring risks of military action, and the ongoing challenge of constraining North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. With strong analysis and clear-eyed context, Toobin and Cassidy deliver a sober warning about the risks of escalation and underscore the difficulties facing U.S. policymakers as they try to navigate these perilous waters.

Transcript

[Mint Mobile Advertiser]

As summer draws to a close and the kids go back to school, I know I'm going to want to keep in touch with my kids at a price I can afford. Back to school Shopping can be a hassle, but your phone plan shouldn't be. That's why I made the switch to Mint Mobile. For a limited time, Mint mobile is offering three months of unlimited premium wireless service for 15 bucks a month. So while other parents are sweating overage charges, I have a little bit more room in my budget for cool back to school threads. Say bye bye to your overpriced wireless plan's jaw dropping monthly bills and unexpected overages, Mint Mobile is here to rescue you. All plans come with high speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. Use your own phone with any Mint Mobile plan and bring your phone number along with all your existing contacts. Dish overpriced wireless and get three months of premium wireless service from Mint Mobile for 15 bucks a month. This year, skip breaking a sweat and breaking the bank. Get this new customer offer and your three month unlimited wireless plan for just 15 bucks a [e-mail] New Yorker that's that's mintmobile.com New Yorker upfront payment of $45 required, equivalent to $15 a month limited time new customer offer for first three months only. Speeds may slow above 35 gigabytes on unlimited plan. Taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details.

[Jeffrey Toobin]

This is the Political Scene, a weekly conversation with New Yorker writers and editors about politics. It's Friday, August 11th. I'm Jeffrey Toobin, filling in today for Dorothy Wickenden. The past week has marked an alarming escalation of tensions between the United States and North Korea. Over the weekend, the United Nations Security Council voted unanimously to impose strict new sanctions on Pyongyang. And on Tuesday, President Trump held a press conference from his golf club in New Jersey, where he is vacationing, to discuss the situation.

[John Cassidy]

North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.

[Jeffrey Toobin]

Last night, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, in a rare interview, was asked to clarify the President's remarks.

[Rex Tillerson]

I think Americans should sleep well at night, have no concerns about this particular rhetoric of the last few days. I think the president, again as Commander in Chief, I think he felt it necessary to issue a very strong statement directly to North Korea. But I think what the President was just reaffirming is the United States has the capability to fully defend itself from any attack and defend our allies, and we will do so.

[Jeffrey Toobin]

John Cassidy joins me to discuss the Trump administration's apparently mixed messages to Pyongyang and what this means for the country's national security and foreign policy moving forward. Cassidy, welcome.

[John Cassidy]

Thanks, Jeff. Thanks for inviting me on.

[Jeffrey Toobin]

Let's start by talking about the President's statement because, you know, I feel like we're going back to the campaign where people were saying, don't take him literally, take him seriously. Let's parse the statement. North Korea best not make any threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen. So let's take the first part of that. Responding to threats had not been American policy towards North Korea, isn't that right?

[John Cassidy]

Yeah, I mean, that's exactly right, Jeff. All administrations basically going all the way back to the Clinton administration in the 90s, had taken the attitude sort of, you know, North Korea can say anything it wants. It's the actions that count. The US Would respond to any attack, but a threat is a threat, and we're much bigger than them. We don't have to take any notice of just words. He seemed to be saying that the U.S. would, you know, launch nuclear attack just because it was threatened. And that was obviously, if he meant it, a huge change in policy.

[Jeffrey Toobin]

That's the second part of the sentence. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.

[John Cassidy]

The.

[Jeffrey Toobin]

The world has seen nuclear weapons used by the United States and Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So the implication you're saying was we will respond with our nuclear weapons.

[John Cassidy]

It wasn't clear that was the problem. It was completely unclear. If you assume that fire and fury in a world like the world has never seen before, that seems to be referring to a large scale nuclear attack. The US Obviously has got the capability to destroy Korea many, many, many times over if it chose to with its nuclear arsenal. So that he seemed to be referring to nuclear weapons. And then the second half of the problem was that he, you know, he seemed to be saying that we might use nuclear weapons in response to a threat. That is what prompted Tillerson and Mattes to come out with sort of clarifying statements later in the day. But the problem was that even they weren't particularly consistent.

[Jeffrey Toobin]

So Tillerson, we just heard the quote basically says no change, that American policy hasn't changed.

[John Cassidy]

Right. His message was nothing new here.

[Jeffrey Toobin]

Right.

[John Cassidy]

President is just reiterating our existing stance, but using more colorful language because Kim Jong Un wasn't listening to diplomatic language. Tillerson actually said he doesn't seem to understand diplomatic language. This was President Trump talking to him in the language he might understand.

[Jeffrey Toobin]

Secretary of Defense Mattis also issued a statement where he spoke very specifically about any actions by North Korea will be responded to, not threats.

[John Cassidy]

That, again, was saying that US Policy hasn't changed. Mattis was, in a way contradicting Trump by saying that we're not responding to threats, we're responding to actual actions. But he also gave the president some cover by using some very sort of aggressive language as well, saying if the North Koreans did take any action, it would lead to the end of the nation. And he sort of converted Trump's fire and fury language into what I called an opposed Pentagon ease. But the crucial distinction was that this U.S. counterattack would come in response to not just a verbal threat, but some actual action on behalf of the North Koreans.

[Jeffrey Toobin]

Okay, so the President says any threats will be met with fire and fury. After that, North Korea threatens Guam.

[John Cassidy]

Right.

[Jeffrey Toobin]

So we haven't seen the fire and fury yet, but why Guam? I mean, how did Guam get into the equation?

[John Cassidy]

Guam is a big US Base in the Pacific, and it is the home to some B1B bombers, which the US uses to fly over the Korean Peninsula. And the North Koreans don't like that at all. And there was an overflight of Korea on Sunday after the UN Sanctions were introduced, and it seems like the North Korean military were responding to that. And they said there were two different statements. The later one, which is particularly alarming, said that they're going to launch missile tests for missiles in a couple of weeks. These missiles would overfly Japan and then land just 30, 40 miles from Guam. That seems to be North Korea, far from backing down, raising the stakes even further.

[Jeffrey Toobin]

Okay, we've now more or less completed our close textual analysis of the various statements. John, can you tell me what American policy is currently?

[John Cassidy]

Well, the Trump administration's official policy was engage in pressure or pressure, and engage the pressure economic through sanctions, which they managed to get through. Actually, a big victory for the Trump administration. They got the Russians and the Chinese to support stronger sanctions at the UN They've been ratcheting up the sort of military pressure with these overflights. And. And in terms of rhetoric as well, obviously saying, you know, things like Trump said the other day. But the other side of this was engagement. There was a sort of olive leaf out there that if North Koreans agreed to halt their missile tests, there would be the offer of negotiations. Trump, you remember, at one point even said he'd be happy to meet with him have a hamburger with him. In fact, he even said it would be an honor to meet King Jong Un at one point. And they were relying on the Chinese to try and effect some changes, too. That policy didn't seem to have much impact. North Koreans have just carried on with their heightened schedule of missile tests. And then a couple of days ago, we got this report from the Washington Post that the Defense Intelligence Agency has concluded that they've already miniaturized a weapon which could be fitted onto an intercontinental ballistic missile that gives them the ability to strike at American cities on the mainland. But still, having said all that, the official US Policy still is pressure and engage. They haven't given up the engagement. And so you saw Tillerson, when he came out, made his statement after Trump statement. He did say, this is all intended to persuade the North Koreans to reconsider the course they're on and move towards dialogue.

[Jeffrey Toobin]

I think everyone is aware of the incredible difficulties of a military strike. Any sort of American military strike will be met with missiles and artillery raining down on Seoul with catastrophic casualties. All right? So I think everybody's aware of that. But is there something diplomatically or economically or in some other way that the United States and its allies can do that it's not doing?

[John Cassidy]

That's what's quite strange about this sort of sudden ratcheting up by Trump. They actually did get these new sanctions through the UN On Saturday. The Chinese play a key role here because it seems like the Chinese have played a key role over the last few years in procuring a lot of the advanced technology which the North Koreans have used to build those missiles. And the problems with previous sanctions is the Chinese basically didn't go along with them. So it didn't have much impact. What was new here over the weekend was, and Tillerson again made a big deal of this, was that the Chinese and the Russians agreed to vote with the US in imposing stricter sanctions. So you would think the logical thing to do after you've done that would be to give the sanctions at least some time to work. And that's what I think the Chinese and the Russians were inspecting. So what you've seen the last couple of days, a lot of anger and sort of mystification in the Far east about Trump's statement, because it looked like the US Policy was actually succeeding to some extent. But Trump has sort of jumped off that track and got into a sort of verbal escalation.

[David Remnick]

Right now, we are living through some of the most tumultuous political times our country has ever known. I'm David Remnick and each week on the New Yorker Radio Hour, I'll try to make sense of what's happening alongside politicians and thinkers like Cory Booker, Nancy Pelosi, Liz Cheney, Tim Waltz, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Newt Gingrich, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Charlemagne, tha God, and so many more. That's all on the New Yorker Radio Hour. Wherever you listen to podcasts.

[Jeffrey Toobin]

One of the questions that always comes up with North Korea. I mean, they are of course infamous for their rhetoric and Kim Jong Un is very young. What's his goal here? What's he trying to accomplish?

[John Cassidy]

I mean, obviously I don't know Kim Jong Un. What I do know that the people who follow this closely, diplomats, US Diplomats, and especially Chinese diplomats, they think this is a deliberate strategy. And the idea is that they just kind of carry on their own way, do everything they can to get a limited nuclear arsenal, establish a deterrent, and that will solidify the regime and make it absolutely clear that nobody can come in and take him down and that they're willing to do anything to do that. If it involves starving the people in Korea, they'll go along with it. If it involves even some limited military conflict, they're willing to go along with that too. And most people think they've actually been pretty successful with this strategy and they've succeeded a lot more rapidly than most Western analysts thought. I mean, the US Response has been the sort of demanding denucleariz and offering various sort of carrots to North Koreans to go along with it. But that policy unfortunately has just failed. The North Koreans didn't take any notice of it. So the big question is now, given that that policy has failed, what do you do? There only seem to be two options. One is to say, okay, we tried, it didn't work. Now we have to accept a nuclear armed North Korea and deal with it like we do with all nuclear armed states through arms control and trying to ensure that they have proper command and control structures, et cetera, so that proper communication. So there is no sort accidental nuclear incident. And a lot of experts in the field think that's where we're going to end up, that we don't have any choice, we're going to go down that path. The other option is to say, okay, We've still got 12 months or maybe six months or whatever. There's still room for a sort of last minute intervention which either would work because they would agree to stop their armament regime. I don't think that's going to happen. Or some sort of military action to stop them. The problem is it's very hard to see what sort of military action would be effective, at least without causing enormous casualties in South Korea and possibly Japan as well.

[Jeffrey Toobin]

One fact that's hovering over this story is that the State Department is very shorthanded. There's no assistant secretary for East Asia. There's no ambassador to South Korea. The senior diplomat in Beijing resigned in protest over the withdrawal from the Paris climate accord. Do you think that has any relevance to how this is all unfolding?

[John Cassidy]

I think in the US Government as a whole, there are still a lot of people who understand what's going on here and have been following it closely in the Pentagon, the State Department, and even the National Security Council. I think the larger question is whether, you know, who's Trump listening to? Is he listening to the voices who are saying, we've tried this policy and it's failed. I'm afraid we're just going to have to accept a sort of nuclear career, or is he, our people, the military especially, telling him, Look, Mr. President, there are still some options here, military options we could take, and it's at least, you know, worth going further down that route. That's what's not clear from the outside. If you listen to Mattis, for example, a couple of months ago, he gave that speech in which he said any conflict in the Korean Peninsula would be absolutely catastrophic and would be warfare on a scale that we've never seen before. Which, you know, that seemed to be suggesting that he was completely ruling it out as an option. But what he said yesterday about the US Wiping north, not destroying the regime and the people, et cetera, if there is an attack, that seems a lot more, somewhat more ominous. I mean, as I said, whether that was just meant to back up Trump or whether it was marked a change in US Policy, it's just not clear at this stage.

[Jeffrey Toobin]

And likewise, I assume it's not clear what precisely Trump was trying to accomplish with this very inflammatory statement.

[John Cassidy]

There's been various bits of reporting out of the White House on this. Initially, it seemed like he just sort of said it off the top of his head, that he hadn't discussed it with anybody else. That was one of the bizarre things about this incident. He gave this very bellicose, militaristic statement at a summit on opioid addiction during his summer vacation, seated next to his.

[Jeffrey Toobin]

Wife and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, which made the whole thing look sort of surreal.

[John Cassidy]

Yeah, exactly. It seemed to come out of nowhere. Subsequently has been reported that he did speak with former General Kelly, the new chief of staff. A short conversation, maybe, about how they'd respond to questions about Korea, because they knew they were doing a press availability. The understanding was that Trump would say something sort of firm, but I don't think Kelly or anybody else expected him to go this far. There are even some speculation that he'd been using similar language in other contexts, and he didn't really mean what he said or he didn't really know what he was saying. That's the problem with Trump. You never know for sure. He's actually come out again on Thursday afternoon and defended his own statement in another press available at the White House, saying maybe the problem with it was it wasn't tough enough. So, you know, he never admits that he's wrong.

[Jeffrey Toobin]

And toughness is, you know, one of the cardinal virtues in the way Trump talks. The other possibility which has been raised is, you know, before we conclude, we can't ever let a week go by without talking about Russia and the investigation. Do you think this was an intentional attempt to distract.

[John Cassidy]

That question is always there with Trump, obviously, and he certainly think a lot of his tweets about various things are attempted distractions. On this one, though, I don't know. There hasn't been any sort of independent reporting power of the White House supporting that. You never know what Trump's motives are at any one time. If he was aiming to do that, he certainly was effective. But it only worked for a day, because the day later, the news that the FBI had raided Manafort's house was all over the place. So I think even Trump at this stage must realize that he can't knock the Russia story completely off the headlines. And the fact is, the North Korean issue is a really serious, pressing issue, and he's going to be asked about it every time he appears anywhere.

[Jeffrey Toobin]

Okay, John, where do we go from here on North Korea? What happens now?

[John Cassidy]

Well, it looks like, you know, everything's heading towards Guam. The North Koreans have issued this statement you mentioned, saying that they're going to fire some intercontinental ballistic missiles towards the island in a couple of weeks. At the same time, the US Is going to be conducting its annual military exercises off Korea. So I think we're going to have a couple of very hot weeks, unfortunately, coming up, in which the rhetoric. I know it's already very hot, but it may get even hotter. The big question is if the North Koreans, I'm sure the US Administration, Japan, has already said that if they do launch these missiles, they wouldn't have a warhead. On? We don't think so. They're not going to blow these things up. If they fire it over Japan, they're going to respond in a strong way. The Japanese already said that today.

[Jeffrey Toobin]

What does that mean?

[John Cassidy]

Well, we don't know. Yeah, they have anti missile systems which they could, they could try and shoot one down, for example. The US hasn't really said anything yet about how it would respond to it, but the US Also has extensive anti missile systems on Guam itself and they have battleships in the area which are even more effective anti missile systems. So a lot of people think the US Would try and shoot down. Problem is it might not work. These anti missile systems are still basically in the testing stage, so it could be that the US Fire up these anti missile missiles and they miss and that would be seen as a great victory for Kim Jong Un and the North Koreans, I think. But anyway, this story is going to continue for at least a couple of weeks until we get these military exercises and the North Korean threat to Guam out of the way.

[Jeffrey Toobin]

John Cassidy, thank you very much.

[John Cassidy]

Thanks Jeff. Sorry for being so depressing, but it's a pretty depressing story like so many.

[Jeffrey Toobin]

John Cassidy is a staff writer and a regular political columnist for newyorker.com this has been the political scene from the New Yorker. You can subscribe to this and other New Yorker podcasts by searching for the New Yorker in your podcast app of choice. And you can find more political analysis, analysis and commentaryewyorker.com Feel free to rate and review the political scene on itunes. This podcast is produced by Alex barron for new yorker.com with help from Hannah Wilentz. I'm Jeffrey Toobin, filling in for Dorothy Wickenden. We'll be off next week, returning the week of August 21st.

[John Cassidy]

Foreign.

[Katie Drummond]

I'm Katie Drummond. I'm Wired's global editorial director.

[Jeffrey Toobin]

I'm Michael Colory, Wired's director of consumer, Tech and Culture.

[John Cassidy]

And I'm Lauren Good.

[Mint Mobile Advertiser]

I'm a senior correspondent at Wired, and our show Uncanny Valley is all about the people, power and influence of Silicon Valley.

[Katie Drummond]

At Wired, we're constantly reporting on how technology is changing every aspect of our lives. So each week on the show, we get together to talk about one of the biggest stories in tech, right?

[Jeffrey Toobin]

So whether we're talking about privacy, AI, social media, or a major tech figure, we will always explain the Silicon Valley forces behind these stories and how they affect you.

[Katie Drummond]

Make sure you're following Uncanny Valley in your podcast app of choice so you don't miss an episode.

[John Cassidy]

From PRX.