Loading summary
Transcript93 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign. Welcome to this episode of the to the Contrary podcast. I'm Charlie Sykes, joined by someone who needs no introduction whatsoever, Katie Couric. Katie, I've done your live stream, so this was kind of turned about, I thought was fair play. So thanks for coming on.
- [00:31]
B
Absolutely. I'm so, always so happy to see you, Charlie, and thanks for having me. You are, I think, one of those voices of reason and calm and not necessarily a predictable voice, but somebody we really need to hear from. I always so appreciate your perspective. So I'm going to probably ask you more questions than answer yours, but.
- [00:56]
A
Okay. I will take the challenge to remain calm and to say something unpredictable. I know that we should probably deal with some of the great cosmic issues of our time, war and peace and the economy. But as I sat down, I was thinking that what I wanted to ask you is, do you sometimes feel like we're in a cartoon world, that this is sort of a simulation? The reason I'm asking that is the first two things I have on my notes here are Alcatraz and dolls. Could we just start with that? That the President of the United States sitting around, too much time on his hands. Go. Yeah, let's. Let's open Alcatraz. You know, look, I.
- [01:41]
B
And use Alcatraz and Rikers. And, you know, I do sometimes I'm feel. I don't know if you ever saw the movie Bullworth with Warren Beatty back in the day. It seems like a kind of twist on that movie, which I thought was so funny. I think he was a Democratic presidential candidate. I want to rewatch that movie, but sometimes I feel like I am in this bad Lifetime movie or some kind of Seth Rogen or Judd Apatow movie, because I really don't think you could make a lot of this stuff up.
- [02:21]
A
Well, that's the challenge for satirist, right? I mean, if you were making a satirical movie movie, how could you top what happens on a daily basis?
- [02:30]
B
You couldn't. But I have found myself. I have found myself trying to understand why some of the things that are happening are. Are applauded or embraced by Donald Trump supporters. And I was thinking about when the official White House social media account posted the photo of him in papal garb and then sort of as a Star wars hero. And it's so outrageous. I think some people find it entertaining. I think some people are just also just loving the fact that we have an administration that doesn't respect anything or anyone. You know, it's so, so disruptive.
- [03:25]
A
And there's an excitement to that. Right. There's an appeal to that, that, you know, you're breaking barriers, you're owning the libs, you're doing something that's transgressive. I mean, let's face it, there's a certain romantic excitement, sexualized excitement to, you know, autocracy unleashed. And the scary thing about Donald Trump is that he surrounded himself with these sort of stunted adolescents who feel the same way.
- [03:55]
B
Yeah. It's so interesting psychologically. Right. What's going on? And, you know, the fact that I, you know, the fact that he has surrounded himself with. Yes. Men and women this go round who go through cabinet meetings, going around in a circle. I mean, it's just so bizarre. Wouldn't you be embarrassed? Like, anyone who has one scintilla of humility would feel like, wait, stop it. What's going on? This is so embarrassing. Like, people. People praising him and all this adulation and sucking up. It just. He. He likes it. And most of us would feel like, this is such bullshit. This is so embarrassing. Please stop. Right. But. But I think. I think what's so interesting about narcissism, and I think people don't really, truly understand narcissism. And, And I've. I've done a lot of reading because I had a. I dated someone who I thought had those tendencies, and it was very destabilizing for me because I had never, you know, I come from a really emotionally stable family. I had never dealt with people who have psychological issues that play out in their relationships, really. And I think people don't understand that. Narcissism is this deep feeling of emptiness. Right. You compensate. You know, Narcissus stared at himself in the water, not because, I think. Not because he thought he was beautiful, but I think there's this insatiable need to be filled up and you will never feel it. And so I think that most people who have a moderately healthy sense of themselves would be embarrassed in those situations and see it for what it was. But I think for the President of the United States, he can never get enough of that adulation, that positive reinforcement, that affirmation. And I find it both fascinating and really frightening at the same time.
- [06:12]
A
Well, it is certainly disturbing when you think that that's the central reality of our politics today is the emptiness, the narcissistic emptiness of the most powerful man in the world. Right. Who is constantly, not only looking for adulation, but just constantly looking for just the credit and the. And the way it's been, in a sense, kind of normalized because Everyone around him figures, okay, you know, in order to keep my job, right, I have to continue to praise him. You know, businessmen, world leaders, they all know that they have to come in and they have to kiss the ring or whatever they have to do because of this bottomless, a very erratic narcissism. So what is it that we also don't understand about narcissism? Because I do think that, you know, we're living in an era right now where the political scientists have a lot to say about what's happening, but I think that the psychologists perhaps have more because we have this government by whim, this government by id, going day by day. So what else do we need to know about narcissists?
- [07:12]
B
Well, I'm really not an expert, but I just think that Donald Trump must have been very damaged as a child, and I think he must not have felt that unconditional love from his parents that I think is so necessary to your formation and your sense of self and your sense of, of who you are and belonging and all that. That. And so, you know, I guess maybe.
- [07:49]
A
Maybe he only had two dolls. I mean, maybe that's what it is. You know, that's. That, that, that, that, that let us two or three. Yeah, well, yeah, he's, he's, it's, it's escalating. But maybe, maybe they only let him have five. Five pencils and two dolls. And he's been traumatized by it. Never got the pony.
- [08:06]
B
Who knows, right? Who knows? I mean, I think there have been a lot of books written about his father and how demanding he was. I think it's also interesting the parallels between his relationship with his father and Elon Musk's relationship with his father. And if Elon Musk really sees, you know, again, I'm not a clinical psychologist, but if he sees Donald Trump as this kind of father figure that he never had, which I think is so interesting too, but it is kind of like watching childhood trauma play out in a very destructive way on the world stage.
- [08:47]
A
I think that's a great way of explaining it, that we're watching childhood trauma played out on the world stage on a daily basis. I want to go back to something else you said that was very interesting about those, the North Korean style cabinet meetings that you would think that Donald Trump would go, stop, stop, stop. You know, let's get to business. But also the willingness to abase themselves. I guess this is, you know, part of, I think the mystery of Trump for me is not Donald Trump. I think Donald Trump is Donald Trump, you know, what's going on here? It's the people who enable him, the people who look at him and say, yes, that's the person that I want to put in the Oval Office. That's the person that I trust, the willingness to adjust their own values to him. But these cabinet members, I mean these are, well, not all of them. Actually he's done quite a good job of surrounding himself with non entities, people whose entire fame and career depend on his favor. Right. But you would think that more people would be embarrassed to sit around in public with the cameras on saying you are the best, most wonderful. That willingness to. And you see it among congressmen and Senate, the groveling, where is your self respect? I guess that surprises me that, that you, you would have so many people willing to grovel and surrender their self respect.
- [10:06]
B
Yeah, I, you know, you do look at people like Marco Rubio, who, you know, I think is quite respected for his foreign policy acumen and other things. And you know, there was a funny video where during the Zelinsky meeting, they showed him sitting there and played the Curb youb Enthusiasm music and sort of that he, he was having an out of body experience. It is, it is, it is very strange. And I mean, as somebody who talks to a lot of Republicans, how do they explain it, Charlie? I mean, and, and do you think at some point they are going to cave? You know, I've heard stories about the kind of threatening behavior the White House exerts on people who are wobbly, whether it's Joanie Ernst. You know, these are just rumors, like really scary threatening things about, you know, retribution if they don't, if they don't play the game. And Lisa Murkowski even talked about it at that town hall meeting. You, there's real fear. And yes, you know, and, and a lot of people I talk to, we scratch our heads and say, is keeping your House or Senate seat so important? Is this craven desire for power at any cost? Is that the deciding factor on how you bend to Donald Trump? And you know, at some point, isn't it better to have your dignity than to have that job? And that's, I'm so interested in that. And what do you, you have a lot of perspective on that because, you know, so many Republicans, what do they say?
- [11:57]
A
Well, I mean, first of all, you know, yeah, apparently keeping your dignity rather than your job is an unpopular opinion these days. I mean, I would much rather be a Liz Cheney than I would be a Lindsey Graham. But that's not the decision that most Republicans are Making. And yes, they are afraid, and the fear is ratcheted up and you're seeing the, well, you're seeing the fe. But from law firms, from businesses, from media moguls, all of these people basically say, this guy is vindictive. He will destroy me. It's not just. And frankly, let's be honest about it, for a lot of these Republicans, it is not just losing their jobs. If they, in fact, do buck Donald Trump, they have the full excommunication, their entire network of friends and allies. They will be not just excoriated, but they will be excluded from any involvement in the, you know, the political world they've spent their entire life. So don't underestimate just the social pressure on Republicans and conservatives to go along with all of this, because it's like, you know, you lose everything. Now what do people say? Well, there's a variety of different responses and it's evolved. I mean, in the beginning it was, okay, we're just going to make a Faustian bargain. We're just going to be transactional about this. We're going to ignore all of this other stuff and we're going to get what we want. We'll get the tax cuts. This was the Paul Ryan approach, right? How bad could it be? I'll be the person in the room. But over time, you know, it has become this sense that if you want to be relevant, if you want to have any role whatsoever, you have to do all this. You have to agree to all of this. You have to bend the knee and you have to. If it, if what it takes is groveling, Marco Rubio is willing to grovel. But, but I get stuck on the same thing that you're talking about, is that you would think that there's a certain level of dignity and self respect. But one of the things that Donald Trump has done in 2.0, as opposed to 1.0 and 1.0, you had some pretty substantial guys, right? Generals. You had people who had been General.
- [13:58]
B
Mattis and HR McMaster and all these people, Rex Tillerson for a nanosecond.
- [14:04]
A
Right, right, right. But I mean, these were people who had lives, they had independent identities and careers. Now you look at the people that Donald Trump has surrounded himself with, and they are all creatures of himself. They are all satellites. They're. Remember how the, what the shock was when, you know, people thought, really, Matt Gaetz for Attorney General, Tulsi Gabbard for dni. You would really put, you would really put, you know, somebody like RFK Jr. In, well, these are all people, Pete Hegseth, I think being the perfect example. People who will never stand in the Oval office and say, Mr. President, you can't do that. And because he can flick them off just like the dandruff. Now, Elon Musk is a little bit.
- [14:44]
B
More what about Scott Bessant? You know, I heard just because, you know, I guess because my husband was in finance and a lot of his friends still are and you know, people said very complimentary things about him and I thought, well, he will be less obsequious right. To Donald Trump. But it seems to me from things that I've seen him say on camera recently that he has, you know, solidly been drinking the Kool Aid and is supporting him at every turn. What do you know about Scott Bessant?
- [15:25]
A
Okay, well, I think he's playing the, he's playing the grown up game, which we call the grown up game, which is that, okay, in order to be able to keep Donald Trump from doing the really, really terrible things, there's a price to be paid. You have to stay in the room. And you stay in the room by going on TV and saying what Donald Trump wants you to say. Because you know that if Donald Trump is sitting there, you know, with his coke and cheeseburger watching you on Fox News and you're saying positive things, that he's going to pick up the phone and you'll be able to have a conversation. Bessen is the closest thing to a first term grownup and he's been successful in at least moderating some of the tariff extremism by Donald Trump. He apparently went, you know, head to head, nose to nose with Elon Musk over the future of the irs. So I think that one of the ways these guys behind the scenes, they buy the ability to have some of that access by sucking up to Donald Trump. That's just simply the price that you have to do this. Now again, why you would think that there would be a certain level of self humiliation to do all of that, but obviously there are people willing to pay that price. Now having said that, if Besant can save the world economy from Donald Trump's narcissistic whims, that would be a good thing, right? Yeah.
- [16:48]
B
You know, the other person I'm fascinated by or just observing is Howard Lutnick. And, and some of the things he said, this is one thing I'd love to pick your brain about, Charlie, is remember Howard Lutnick said if his mother in law didn't get her Social Security check, she she'd be fine. And that kind of coincides with Donald Trump's comments about people, you know, kids having 11 year old having fewer dolls. Right. And, and there's this kind of let them eat cake sentiment coming from these two men. And those are just two examples. I mean there are many more. And I'm curious how that is, why that isn't resonating or turning off more working class voters. This kind of noblesse oblige attitude that, you know, we're so rich and okay, so yeah, like who gets 30 dolls for Christmas anyway? Except for maybe Donald Trump's grandchildren.
- [17:52]
A
Well, also me. I'm going to come back to your question. This whole notion that instead of $30, you get just two dolls. I mean there are a lot of families that these tariffs might mean no dolls whatsoever. So we're supposed to be okay with, with that. Howard Glutnick is many ways, I was thinking of him as kind of the opposite of Scott Besson because I mean, he goes on and he is, I mean he's definitely been injecting the Kool Aid, there's no question about it. But that comment about how his mother in law wouldn't care about, was it his mother in law or his grandma, whatever, wouldn't care about missing the Social Security check. To say that that was tone deaf is understating it rather dramatically, you know, and he was basically echoing Elon Musk, the world's richest man, who was saying anybody that, you know, complains about this is obviously a fraudster. Well, this is ridiculous. But this goes to. There's a bigger story here obviously, and I think you're getting at it, which is there's an inherent contradiction in a populist movement for the people, for the little guy that is absolutely dominated by these out of touch billionaires who clearly have no idea how people actually live to be lectured. You want to talk about an iconic moment? There's Donald Trump, this avatar of excess, you know, who has inshitified the Oval Office with all of his gold stuff and he's lecturing working class families on now you need to live with less. I got elected by promising you prosperity, but now I'm moving to austerity. And you should listen to me and my incredibly rich friends who never go into a grocery store, have never pumped gas in their lives, listening to us tell you how you should live your life. No, there's a contradiction. If Democrats cannot figure out a way to turn that around, then they ought to find a different line of work, I think.
- [19:42]
B
Yeah, well, how do you? I mean, first of all, you know, I interviewed Estad Herndon from the New York Times yesterday for my podcast, and he spends a lot of time talking to voters where they are. And I really admire the work Estad is doing. And, you know, he said in terms of tariffs, there were some people who, yeah, there were uncomfortable with it, but it wouldn't necessarily change their votes. And one woman even said, well, he's trying.
- [20:12]
A
Right.
- [20:12]
B
And I am fascinated by the level of tolerance, slash, forgiveness people give to Donald Trump with this disconnect. And, I mean, how do you explain it? I think it's always existed. Like, he's always been ostentatious and excessive. And I think a lot of people have seen that as aspirational. You know, he's rich and very kind of in your face rich and has the hot young wife. You know, that kind of, that whole sort of aspiration for certain, for a certain kind of young man in particular. But I do not still don't understand how it squares with people who are struggling and are like, that's okay. Well, it is a cult.
- [21:09]
A
Well, okay, yes, it is. And I think that that's why the whole comment about the dolls and the pencils was kind of interesting, because it really was kind of the let them eat cake moment. So if there was ever going to be a break, it would be something like that. But you're talking about the cognitive dissonance that we've seen since, frankly, 2016. How do people overlook? I mean, I remember the moment when Donald Trump insulted John McCain being a POW, said, you know, I like the ones that weren't captured. And like everybody else, I thought, well, that's it. And yet voters forgave him for that. So let's fast forward to now why voters are willing to cut him some slack on the tariffs. Keep in mind, think of all the other things that they have forgiven him for. I mean, let's just remember we are talking about the first man to be a convicted felon, to be the president, United States. This is a man who incited the attack on the Capitol on January 6th. And somehow the voters, his voters got over that and decided that they were going to cut him some sex. So in some ways, it's unrealistic to think that the prospect of tariffs is going to break that bond when they have a lot of sunken costs. Right? I mean, they, psychologically, they have swallowed a lot, they have agreed to a lot. They have changed their opinion on one issue after another. So this is the problem with a cult of personality. That it is so hard to dislodge it. And frankly, I, I don't think that, that, you know, I, you know, don't, I don't think people should have irrational exuberance about some moves in the polls because what those polls still show is that his voters and the Republicans who are beholden to those voters are still sticking with him. Now, having said that, and I want to get your take on all of this, I think, in terms of, and we can talk about the media a little bit, because I was at a seminar the other day where people were talking about, you know, what's ahead, and I was perhaps a little bit more downer than some of the others. And I said, look, I think that we ought to acknowledge first of all that what you think of as the legacy media is not going to be able to fix the problem of discommunity, of, you know, disinformation is not going to be able to solve the divide because we, you no longer have the audience and the voice, but you do have the ability to tell stories. And so I think it's going to be the stories, not the issue. So people may say, well, he's trying on tariffs, but if you live up in central Wisconsin. And by the way, do you know that Wisconsin is one of, if not the world's greatest producer of ginseng here in Wisconsin?
- [23:45]
B
I did not know that.
- [23:46]
A
Well, they can't sell the ginseng right now. Okay. You know, if you think I'm wandering around here. So in each community in America, there are stories of the downstream effects of this. You put a human face on these issues. And that's when I think people change. I have to admit, I'm surprised by. Do you remember the big debate about whether or not Democrats should talk about Abrego Garcia going down to El Salvador? And all the smart people said, no, don't talk about that. Because people don't care about abstractions like due process. They just care about kitchen table issues. And plus, immigration is Donald Trump's strong issue. Well, it turns out that when people do you put a human face on the issue, that that was one of Donald Trump's worst issues. So in each community, there's going to be women, there's going to be families, there's going to be doctors, there could be hospitals, there will be services that will be cut, there will be businesses that will be shut. And I don't know if there's anything that can move people off the cult. That might be it. But again, he wasn't elected by the cult.
- [24:54]
B
You're totally right. Yeah, I think you make an excellent point. In fact, you know, I've talked to my team and I keep saying let's talk to real people who, you know, I think people have, you know, have pundits out the wazoo. Right. And political experts opining on all this stuff from all sides of the, you know, through the spectrum. But, but I think, you know, I interviewed a farmer in Iowa, and 77% of farmers voted for Donald Trump. And suddenly with this, these not only tariffs, but the USAID dismantling and the USDA cuts to programs where they were able to give produce and sell things to schools to help with, with, you know, school lunches, you know, they are really, they are really hurting. And to actually talk to a farmer about that and what that means to him and to other farmers, and this was, I did it a couple of months ago. I want to talk to more small business owners who are going to have to close their businesses because of tariffs. And I think you're right. The downstream impact and repercussions of his policies and what they are doing, I think are much more powerful stories than, frankly, you and I having a conversation about what the Democrats should do. And I think we have to realize, too, that I think in the next month or two, this is my understanding, Charlie, I'd love to talk to you more about trade imbalances because I really don't understand US Trade policy as well as I should. I've thought about ordering like Trade for Dummies and really kind of understanding the, the big picture and how trade has evolved through the years and NAFTA and how that changed things and globalization. You know, I think it's an argument for a national civics lesson and for us to really understand sort of modern American history so people can, can really appreciate sort of these policy changes and swings. Anyway, what was I talking about?
- [27:06]
A
Well, no, I mean, I think you're right here, but the stories and about, you know, the trade issue. And by the way, what I was.
- [27:14]
B
Going to say is I don't know if your understanding is, but we have only just begun to feel the ramifications of these tariffs. And in the next, my understanding is in the next month or two, that is when they are really going to have an impact. And so I think it's really important to your point for people to tell stories of people from every state struggling and in every situation, because I think if you don't see that, then you don't really understand the impact. And I think, sadly, I Don't think that's a priority for a lot of media outlets, because when you cut back, you cut back on reporters in the field telling these stories. That's why you see so many news shows, just basically a lot of people around the table yammering away instead of reporters who are out in the field saying, this is what is happening all over the country or in this state or in this city or, or town.
- [28:22]
A
Yeah, well, let me go to the. I want to talk about that in, in just a moment, what's happening with the media, because I do think that that's relevant to this conversation. But you're absolutely right. In terms of the impact of these tariffs, it hasn't really hit yet. It's more theoretical. The fact that he's taken a hit on his ratings before. It's hit is, is, is interesting. It's a warning sign. But most people haven't seen the big price increases or the shortages. Now, what's happening right now, as you and I are speaking is, is there are all these container ships off the west coast of the United States and many of them are empty or half empty, that the supply chain is very, very fragile. And so when people begin to see empty shelves again, when they start to see the fact they can't buy the products, and by the way, some of the stuff from China, you know, who's going to pay 147, 145% tariff, you're just not going to get it. It's not going to be sold. They're going to keep them. So you can have the shortages, you can have the price increases, you have the disruption. That's when people are going to do it. Now, I understand the woman who you cited who said, well, at least Donald Trump is trying, let's face it, many of part of the problem of globalization is it has hollowed out many communities. There are people who blame that for the loss of manufacturing jobs, even though we still have manufacturing jobs. So there is a sense that we need to do something about it. I wanna do something to have people make stuff in the United States. That's a widespread view on both the right and the left. The problem of Trump, what Trump has done is it is so. Well, it is tariff by whim. It has been so erratic, it has been so unpredictable and it's so draconian that I think the implications are gonna be much worse. I mean, if Donald Trump does plunge the country into recession, it is not going to be good for him. And, and by the way, I had an interview this morning with somebody who was from Australia. And, and one of the things she wanted to know was, should you take, should we take Donald Trump seriously about invading Greenland? And I said, okay, this is an interesting question because I think it's a joke, I think it's a troll. But you could certainly imagine a scenario in which the economy would go into the tank and Trump needs a distraction and Donald Trump is the master of distractions. What is a better distraction from the distractions, from the distractions than a wag your dog invasion of Greenland? Now, I don't know whether that will happen. I cannot imagine that that would be necessarily a positive, but that's kind of the world that we're in. But again, when people begin to feel this in their actual lives, that's when I think you will be able to measure that. And this won't change the cult, but the cult, I think I had said this before, the cult did not elect Donald Trump. It is the soft Republican voters or the other voters that stayed home. If he succeeds in waking up the voters that didn't turn out in November of 2024, if they begin to turn out, and if many of those soft Republican swing voters go, okay, I did not sign up for this. This is not what you ran on. You know, you were gonna lower prices. And what you've done is you've jacked up, You've, you've jacked up, you've jacked up the prices. We have inflation, I have shortages and the country is now in recession. I voted for you because I thought that my 401k would soar and now my 401k is in the crapper. That's when you begin to see the real downstream. But can I just go back to your point about the media?
- [32:08]
B
Yeah, sure, of course.
- [32:09]
A
And I want to get your view on how the media has handled this because I think it's been a very mixed bag. But the one part that the story that does not get enough attention has been the decimation of local media all around the country. The number of newspapers that have disappeared, the vast areas in this country that are news deserts. I grew up, I was actually at a meeting with some old newspaper guys. We were all remembering when newsrooms in mid metropolitan, mid sized metropolitan areas had 300 to 500 reporters and now they look like tabloid shoppers. The number of journalists who've lost. So the local, the, the entire infrastructure of local reporting has been virtually destroyed. And I don't know how that does not have massive implications for the civic health of the country.
- [33:02]
B
Yeah. And they say that people who have a vibrant local news environment are more engaged in their local elections and also, ergo, more likely to participate in national elections, too. Margaret Sullivan wrote a great sort of treatise on this about news deserts. And I forget the number, but I think since 2004, I don't even want to quotes a number, but thousands and thousands of local news operations have shut down. Now, I do find it heartening that there are efforts in a lot of different arenas, Charlie, to revitalize local news, whether it's Report for America and other. You know, the. The Texas Tribune, I think, is trying to do that, and they're trying to adjust. You know, people are looking at local, you know, at news on their phone. They're not reading a physical paper, even though I still really love to get the Sunday New York Times, but, you know, and my dad read the Washington Post every day. You know, it was on our doorstep growing up in. In Northern Virginia for us. And I think they are trying to revitalize local news. But you're right, and I think Facebook groups have replaced local news. And, you know, even my algorithms, Charlie, I'm like, gosh, I get fed so much, you know, very liberal content on my phone, and, you know, sometimes I'd like to read less liberal content. Now, I do watch Fox News sometimes just to see how they're framing issues, but I've just gotten really discouraged by their inability to criticize Trump at all. And when the stock market was plunging, they just took the stock market ticker.
- [34:53]
A
Hilarious. Yeah, it was.
- [34:55]
B
I mean, and so, you know, you know, sometimes my followers, like I used to. Like, you used to be much more objective. And. And I feel like if you're critical of Donald Trump, it automatically now is interpreted as being biased. But if you're trying to just point out. And I think, Charlie, I mean, you're in this department, too. People. People think you're not an honest broker by being an honest broker, you know.
- [35:29]
A
Well, no, I mean, you could certainly make the case. Very strong case. I certainly would make the case that Donald Trump has broken the journalistic model, and he's certainly broken the public's trust in it. And we are in this bizarre universe. You know, you were describing how, you know, your algorithms work. It is so easy these days to fall into a bubble, to fall into these hermetically sealed information bubbles. I mean, it is. And I think it's something that people need to struggle against. But also, you see all that. All the incentives out there are for media outlets to engage in fan Service to give people what they want, and people want what they want, right? I mean, if you want maga, you want it pure Maga, and you won't tolerate anything. If you want blue Maga, like, no, do not tell me that Joe Biden was too old, that blue mo. You know, then you will find an outlet that will, will serve you. So there is the danger.
- [36:22]
B
Blue. Blue Maga. I don't think that's a fair, I don't think that's a fair label because I think make America great again is so problematic. I, I think a blue Maga, Maga, whatever you say it is kind of an oxymoron.
- [36:40]
A
Well, okay, but, but part of, part of it is, is the, is the, the point they're making or that I am making here is, do you understand that you folks are now sounding like those folks that you think that you are not in a bubble? But look at this. And I think that's kind of the danger that, I mean, we knew that people on the right, I wrote a book about it, had fallen into this, this alternative reality silo, which was impenetrable, in which Donald Trump exploited. But there was a period over the last couple of years where you started to realize, you know, there are folks on the left who are also in this pretty tight bubble and they're not hearing, they don't know how they sound, and they don't know what other people are talking about. This is a danger, I think, for all of us, and I think it's accelerating because more and more outlets are figuring, how do we serve our audience? Well, our audience is, you know, we serve, we serve our audience by giving them what they want.
- [37:40]
B
Not what they, what they need.
- [37:42]
A
So how do you think the media has handled the first hundred days? I give them a mixed record, but I would like your take. It's been so overwhelming. The campaign of shock and awfulness, I think, just feels like. And flooding the zone. So you've watched this.
- [37:57]
B
I mean, I think it's been really hard. I think it's been really hard to cover it because for that reason, you know, and, and every day there's a new head scratching action by Donald Trump and then things get forgotten. And, you know, I know the ACLU has a running list of everything that Donald Trump has done, but I think, I think it's true. I mean, it's been very effective in terms of not being able to talk about any one thing because there's so many things coming at you. Right? So many things in real time. Oh, the new Canadian prime minister has said this, we're covering this and every day there's a new thing. But nobody's saying, hey, what about the fact that they kicked AP out of the, you know, out of the White House, the Associated Press, one of the oldest news institutions in the country, or.
- [38:55]
A
For not calling the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America? I mean that's, that's, you know, the reason the president United States exiled AP is, AP didn't go along with that stupid narcissistic insistence that Donald Trump can rename the Gulf of Mexico.
- [39:12]
B
And they had a legitimate reason. They're international news organization and you know, they, they can't necessarily just change the things of a body of water. And you know, there was a cartoon that said the Gulf of male fragility. And you know, but, but my point is like every day, if not several times a day, there's something new that somebody needs to say, wait a second, let's go deeper on this, or what are the ramifications of that? But by the time you do that, it feels old, it feels like yesterday's headline. And part of the news is keeping up what's happening in the here and now. So I think, you know, to take a look at some of these measures and there are very few places that can do that in a, in a, in a really sort of meaningful way. Daily news shows, you know, cable, they're all like, what's happening now? What's happening now?
- [40:16]
A
And, and by now you mean sometimes in the last hour. I mean, we, how many news cycles do we have now? I mean, I, I certainly remember when there were two major news cycles a day. Now there's a news cycle every, what, 10 seconds?
- [40:31]
B
It's true. So I'm very sympathetic to these outlets trying to cover it all, but you know, to me it cries for more longer, long form conversations. But you know, I think that, I mean, you, you point out so many problems. There are these very two distinct media bubbles. Right?
- [40:55]
A
Yeah.
- [40:56]
B
And then there are people who are really not particularly engaged in the daily news. Right. And so how do you, how do you speak to both of those audiences when nobody really wants to hear that? Well, but also, is it, is it, you know, I, I feel like that's really addressing news how it used to be. You know, you could say, you could talk about George Bush and Iraq and whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction and you know, was Paul Wolfowitz and the neocons behind this and you know, what it meant and you know, debate sort of our policy in Afghanistan, which obviously covered several administrations. Right. And you could kind of have an intelligent conversation. The question is, it's hard to have an intelligent conversation about some of the things that Trump is doing. Right. When the tariffs are on again, off again, when it's so sort of disorienting. And, you know, can you have a smart conversation on the trade balance. Right. Or the imbalance of trade policy and what China has done? And would people be interested in that? Would they be interested in understanding the long view and how manufactured factoring cratered, but how our system here with unions and minimum wage just can't manufacture some of the goods that they can in China? And is that the kind of things we want to be manufacturing? Right. And is that the kind of jobs that people want to have in this country? I think we live in a binary media environment that doesn't serve an incredibly complicated world.
- [42:57]
A
Well. And also, we live in a world where a lot of the audience has a short attention span. I mean, I think this is one of the. The larger issues is that we're dealing with, with Russia and China, which have much larger sort of historical perspectives. And we go from moment to moment to moment. Well, you know, on this question of the media, I mean, I do think that there are certain outlets that have just done a fantastic job of keeping up with the flood. I mean, the New York Times newsroom, the Washington Post, which we can come back to Wall street pro publica. On the other hand, I mean, I think that the big story over the last hundred days or so was, and I find this profoundly shocking, was the inability of some of the corporate media to stand up the settlement by ABC genuinely shocking. If Paramount throws CBS under the bus to pay off Donald Trump, that would be genuinely shocking, especially because it's coming at a time when this is the most aggressive attack on press freedom that we have seen. It's beyond Richard Nixon's wildest dreams when you have the chairman of the FCC overtly threatening to pull licenses because he doesn't like the content. And yet how has corporate media responded? Jeff Bezos, owner of the Washington Post, goes in and kisses Donald Trump's ring. You know, they lose their $40 million.
- [44:23]
B
For a documentary about Melania Trump.
- [44:25]
A
Okay, so can we just. Because there's so much here that alone, you have dinner with him and it's like, how do I suck up to him? I'm going to give tens of millions of dollars to the President's wife. It was naked. It was a naked shakedown. It was a naked, you know, payment of Tribute. But so he has really embarrassed the Washington Post. Clearly, the editorial page of the Washington Post has now become his.
- [44:51]
B
So many people have left the Washington Post.
- [44:53]
A
Right. Yeah.
- [44:53]
B
Because of it.
- [44:55]
A
So you have had that failure to push back. That was a little. Not a little. I think it's profoundly shocking because let's. Let's face it, the, you know, illiberalism is at ramming speed right now. And if Donald Trump realizes that he can use the power of government to intimidate media as well as law firm media, while also using the threat of libel action, he can silence a lot of the critical voices. This. This can actually happen here if people become afraid to write negative things. Right. Because. And, you know, they call it.
- [45:34]
B
What do they call it? Anticipatory obedience that is already kind of reared its ugly head. I mean, I have many thoughts about this. I wrote an essay. I was so upset about Sherry Redstone exerting power on 60 Minutes. You know, I worked there for a few years. I had my problems internally with the management there, which people can read my book if they want to learn more about that. But, you know, 60 Minutes has always been a stalwart example of really the highest level of journalism. And the fact that she was micromanaging or attempting to micromanage the content that they were reporting on and wanted advance notice about any stories having to do with Donald Trump, that they had a story about Gaza. And I, you know, listen, I appreciate her efforts to, to, to tackle antisemitism, which is a real concern. But to say that you can't do a story on Gaza and what's happening there and State Department officials who are quitting because they're upset about the administration's policies or whatever is just so chilling and so scary. And there was always a line of understanding. I talked about in my essay how Bob Wright, who was then the president of NBC, wrote me a note. I think he wrote me an email or a top line back then. I can't remember. But I had interviewed Condoleezza Rice, and I asked her a question, some question about Russia, because she was a Russian scholar, right, and spoke Russian, I think that he felt was, I guess, too contentious or something. And he said, you know, I heard from a lot of people that they. They thought that question was out of line. And I wrote him back and I said, respectfully, Bob, you know, I'm going to stay out of GE's, you know, quarterly profits report, but please stay out of my journalism. You know, I was in a position where I was, you know, my Job was secure, you know, and I had the ability to do that. But the fact that so overtly. I think, I think the Paramount Skydance merger is the most blatant example of corporate interference.
- [47:57]
A
Did he write you back, by the way?
- [47:59]
B
I mean, I think, I think it. I can't remember, but I think, like, the message was received.
- [48:06]
A
Okay. And so back then you could push back and they would recognize, okay, I'm going to stay in my lane and this is your plane. Yeah, but do you get the sense now that. That the billionaires have kind of felt unleashed? I almost get the sense that they, they're sort of gathering around going, you know what the cool thing is? Now we can do anything. You know, we can not just be rich, we can be powerful. We can cross any lines. We can tell the people that work for us exactly what to do. There is a, you know, lack of restraint. You're describing an era.
- [48:35]
B
Yeah, machismo, kind of.
- [48:37]
A
Well, but also it's like, okay, you know, what's the point of being rich and powerful unless we can impose our will on others? And I'm not trying to be paranoid here. It's just that there was once a time when even the most powerful business executives and billionaires had limits on what they were going to do. And all of those limits seem to have been just obliterated.
- [49:01]
B
Who are you talking about? Like, the tech executives?
- [49:04]
A
I'm thinking about Sherry Redstone, too. You know, the fact that she's doing.
- [49:08]
B
What you're describing, I mean, I think the avarice is so mind boggling to me. You know, how much money does one really need? And the fact that she doesn't need an American institution and.
- [49:29]
A
Trash it.
- [49:31]
B
Well, and try to, I don't know, try to put a stranglehold on what has been really important. Journalism. And the, the Kamala Harris editing thing is so absurd. You know, it is such a. It is such a canard. And is that the right word? A canard, A red herring? I mean, it's just sort of. It. It's just such a bad example of any kind of journalistic malfeasance. It's just.
- [50:02]
A
They would definitely win. This is the frustrating thing to me.
- [50:05]
B
Yes, they would definitely win it, definitely.
- [50:08]
A
And the law firms would have won. You're starting to see these court hearings come back, by the way. Well, among the positive things, and some, you know, accused of being negative, the judiciary, including the conservative judiciary, is really waking up. And you're seeing one powerful opinion after another. But again, the media companies, the law firms would have won if they would have challenged us. But they're making that internal decision, why bother to fight? It's easier and safer to surrender when in fact the opposite is true, isn't it? Because the more you surrender to these guys, the more empowered, emboldened, dangerous they become.
- [50:47]
B
Well, I read that Donald Trump did feel emboldened when NBC. Sorry. When ABC caved with the George Stephanopoulos stuff. And then I think it made him think, oh, okay, this is actually an effective model for me. But, you know, I think what's also sort of sad is why didn't the media organizations get together and say, everything we stand for needs to be protected and there is strength in numbers. And I think the law firms did try to do that, Charlie. Yes, but there was not unity. And unfortunately, you know, competition and capitalism and the bottom line and quarterly profits, they all were too afraid. And I think they missed a really important, courageous opportunity to march in lockstep to against this administration and what they were trying to do. And my late husband worked for Williams and Conley in Washington, and they're, they're defending a lot of these law firms. And, and it is very, very. You know, I've tried to interview some of my old friends who work there, and they're notoriously press shy, but I am talking to a lawyer next week on my podcast about what this means and how this happened. And, you know, I think the almighty dollar seems to trump literally, you know, these ethical considerations, and it's really upsetting.
- [52:19]
A
Well, I mean, this is Donald Trump's instinct here. I think initially I and others were surprised. I think we were all surprised, you know, watching the billionaires. You know, we mentioned the tech bros, all surrendering to Donald Trump because we thought, okay, their money would insulate them from fear. Right. When Donald Trump's instinct was the richer you are, the more you have to lose. And therefore I'm going to challenge you. And that if you are a law firm and you're making $10 billion a year, and I am threatening to make you only earn $8 billion a year, you're going to wet your pants, you know, because you have to have all of that. But this actually sort of ties back to something you said very early in our, in our conversation. Like, you know, are people not embarrassed? Do they not have a sense of self respect? You would think that someone in Sherry Redstone's position would not want her legacy to be the trashing of CBS in 60 minutes, but clearly she doesn't care about all of that. I mean, the woman is richer than God right now. But you would think that. And again, in the past, the rich have been concerned. Remember, there was once a time when, when rich people would fund ballets and symphonies and they would build, you know, beautiful music halls, and they would build opera houses and things like that and libraries because they wanted to be remembered in a certain way. We now have billionaires who go, screw it. I'm just, it's pedal to the metal. And if I'm remembered as the person who actually trashed one of the most, you know, respected media organizations, I simply don't care. I find that amazing.
- [53:51]
B
I think people convince themselves of their own moral rectitude. I mean, I don't know Sherry Redstone. Well, I've met her a few times, but I imagine she feels very strongly about, you know, that 60 Minutes has gotten to have become too much of advocacy journalism. I think she feels that she has the moral high ground for fighting anti Semitism.
- [54:23]
A
Okay, I do understand.
- [54:24]
B
And I think she, I think people contort themselves and convince themselves that what they're doing actually is justified. And, you know, for whatever reason. So I imagine that she is feeling less embarrassed and more emboldened. And I'm sure she has a lot of people, you know, it's been very interesting. Yeah. To, you know, who are reinforcing that she's doing the right thing. And, you know, it's very interesting, the whole anti Semitism discussion of, you know, obviously, it's horrific. But is Donald Trump using the veil of antisemitism as a way to erode the rights of everyone? And I think, you know, there are a lot of historians and legal experts who say, you know, once you start eroding anyone's rights, it never turns out very well, especially for Jewish people, you know. And, you know, that to me, is, is a really interesting area to explore. Like, is it really anti Semitism he's addressing or is it ultimately free speech and academic freedom that will be, you know, that will, that will pay the price. Right. I don't, you know, I think this.
- [55:54]
A
Is a very, it's a crucial point because, of course, he's looking for an enemy. He's looking for a justification. And the fact is that Donald Trump has turned a blind eye to anti Semitism on the right from the very, very beginning. I have a whole chapter in my book how the Right Lost Its Mind about the Right Wing Anti Semitism that Trump sort of winked. Winked at. Remember, he's also the guy, he's also the guy who had dinner at Mar A Lago with Kyle, head of the Proud Boys. Right, well, and, and with Nick Fuentes, who's basically a neo Nazi. And we know, we know where ye went all of that. So that, that's a, that's a mixed bag.
- [56:33]
B
So you do lots of Jewish voters square that. Again, you know, there's this cognitive dissonance that you described. How did Jewish voters square that? You know, oh, he supports Israel and yet he has, you know, these massive anti Semites and wines and dines them. I just, I don't get it.
- [56:54]
A
Well, I, I don't claim that I get it all, but I mean, you do tend to see people who will compartmentalize and if you are good for Israel, then they're going to go along with it. Most Jewish voters continue to vote against Donald Trump, though. So, Katie, you do a lot of interviews. How many interviews do you do a week? People you interview?
- [57:14]
B
Probably, I don't know, probably four or five.
- [57:17]
A
So in the last, in the first hundred days, who were the most interesting interviews? Who was your.
- [57:23]
B
Oh, gosh, well, you. Charlie, of course.
- [57:26]
A
Well, okay, leaving that aside as a.
- [57:28]
B
Given, but you went dark on me for a little while. I think you kind of. You went dark. You sort of said, I need a break, which I totally appreciate and understand. Gosh, I do so many. It's really. I need to go back and look at my list.
- [57:44]
A
I know.
- [57:44]
B
I mean, I've always. I always enjoy Heather Cox Richardson because I always appreciate looking at things from an historical perspective. And you know what I was talking about earlier being so focused on the present and here and now. I think it's so important to look at kind of that long arc of history and what we can learn from the past. So I always enjoy. Do you. Do you know who Heather Cox Richardson is?
- [58:09]
A
Oh, absolutely. I mean, I think she's like number one on Substack, right? Her as one of the most popular writers on Substack, Really a pioneer of independent media. See, I think that's what is important too. I do like talking with people who have some sort of historical perspective.
- [58:25]
B
Although I like Mike McFaul too.
- [58:29]
A
Yeah. Former ambassador to Russia, who again, yeah.
- [58:31]
B
I feel like Mike is just very direct and honest.
- [58:37]
A
No, I think part of the problem of putting all of this in historical perspective is that the perspective that is the most valuable is the most disturbing, the parallels. But also it's important just to recognize what a complete departure this is from any recent history. I think I had a conversation the other day with somebody. We were talking about the Watergate era. And all the lessons of the Watergate era, what Richard Nixon did was held accountable for. Feels like we're living in the doppelganger, mirror version, antimatter version of that, where all of those lessons have been forgotten. Katie Couric, it's always a pleasure to talk with you. And when you said that, I went dark. I think what I said was that, you know, I just needed a moment not to spend my evening watching a Donald Trump speech. And I still think that was a really good.
- [59:26]
B
I totally get it, Charlie. I totally get it. Can I mention one other person who I love talking to? And that was. That was Francis Collins, because Francis is such. He just oozes. Emanates decency. And he was head of nih, and I don't think people even appreciate it. I didn't fully understand how NIH operated, you know, in terms of distributing grants, you know, and as somebody who cares so deeply, Charlie, about medical research and science and cancer research, specifically, to have Francis talk about the impact on clinical trials, the impact on really promising scientific advancements, the impact on young researchers, and a brain drain that inevitably is going to happen, I thought was so powerful. And I just. I. Francis is just one of the kindest, most thoughtful, smartest people I've ever met. So I'm a big fan of his. So that was a really meaningful and critically important conversation. The whole problem is, you know, the media landscape is so fragmented. I think a lot of people watched it, but there are millions of people out there who will never hear from Francis Collins. And therein lies the rubber. How do we. How do we get back to having some. Some national appreciation and understanding information and facts?
- [61:00]
A
Boy, we have been talking about that now for decades, and I don't have a solution to that. I wish we could find a way to have to have that conversation, because you know what? A democracy that does not have shared facts and shared conversations is always going to be fragile. Katie, again, thank you so much for all of your time this morning. I appreciate it and thank everyone.
- [61:22]
B
So great to see you, as always. Thanks, Charlie.
- [61:24]
A
Thank you. And thank you all for listening to this episode of to the Contrary podcast. You know why we do this? Because now more than ever, it's important to remember that you are not the crazy ones. It.