WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:11.280 Music. 00:00:11.651 --> 00:00:15.031 To the edition podcast, I'm, as ever, your host, Charlotte Henry. 00:00:15.471 --> 00:00:18.891 And this week, I'm joined by esteemed media and tech writer, 00:00:19.151 --> 00:00:21.791 Matthew Ingram. Matthew, thank you so much for coming back on the show. 00:00:22.891 --> 00:00:28.651 Oh, thanks for having me. Now, I'm told there is something going on in America 00:00:28.651 --> 00:00:33.771 that we kind of have to be aware of. Care to enlighten me? 00:00:35.131 --> 00:00:39.471 Yeah, I think there's an election coming up. Election, yes. Of course, 00:00:39.571 --> 00:00:43.791 it's eight days out, I think, from when we're recording this, just over a week. 00:00:44.251 --> 00:00:47.251 It'll be a week, basically, by the time this show goes out. 00:00:48.191 --> 00:00:51.731 Obviously, it is Donald Trump versus Kamala Harris for the White House. 00:00:52.771 --> 00:00:57.291 It means Joe Biden can finally go on the beach and relax and not have to be, 00:00:57.491 --> 00:01:00.391 well, he'll have a few more weeks of being the president, won't he, I suppose. 00:01:00.751 --> 00:01:05.571 But the media, of course, it's a huge story all over the world. 00:01:05.691 --> 00:01:09.651 There's lots of coverage here in the UK and elsewhere. But the big thing that's 00:01:09.651 --> 00:01:15.651 caused a rumpus in the media world of America is that two major newspapers, 00:01:16.131 --> 00:01:22.531 Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post, have decided not to endorse a candidate 00:01:22.531 --> 00:01:23.811 in the run-up to the election, 00:01:24.011 --> 00:01:28.691 which kind of on the face of it might seem normal, but it's not because, 00:01:28.891 --> 00:01:31.871 as I understand it, Matthew, both these papers over a long number of years have 00:01:31.871 --> 00:01:33.331 endorsed presidential candidates. 00:01:34.591 --> 00:01:37.711 Yes they have and so um you 00:01:37.711 --> 00:01:40.751 know there are newspapers that don't endorse candidates and 00:01:40.751 --> 00:01:43.731 they they you know they say they want to be neutral 00:01:43.731 --> 00:01:46.491 and they don't want to pick favorites and so on 00:01:46.491 --> 00:01:49.331 and there's there's a whole host of of sort 00:01:49.331 --> 00:01:52.431 of media uh commentary around that decision 00:01:52.431 --> 00:01:56.411 sure but but in most cases um you 00:01:56.411 --> 00:01:59.171 know i think most people think well if you don't want to you don't have to 00:01:59.171 --> 00:02:02.131 and maybe it is better to to stay 00:02:02.131 --> 00:02:06.131 neutral i think that's uh you 00:02:06.131 --> 00:02:12.611 know not the case now because we're so close to the election um these two papers 00:02:12.611 --> 00:02:18.811 i think in both cases had endorsements ready to go so it wasn't that they had 00:02:18.811 --> 00:02:25.231 a policy at the washington post there wasn't a kamala harris endorsement ready to go right, 00:02:26.253 --> 00:02:31.493 So so in both cases, it seems like the kind of thing that was decided at the last minute. 00:02:31.493 --> 00:02:37.413 It wasn't like they had a policy of not endorsing and it wasn't even that they 00:02:37.413 --> 00:02:43.393 decided, oh, after long consideration and thought that they should not endorse candidates. 00:02:43.393 --> 00:02:48.413 It was it sounds like a last minute sort of spur of the moment decision, 00:02:48.413 --> 00:02:53.153 which then raises a whole host of questions. Why did they decide to do this? 00:02:55.793 --> 00:03:05.233 Why did they decide to do this? So there is a considerable group of opinion, 00:03:05.233 --> 00:03:08.733 including some people who work for both newspapers, 00:03:08.953 --> 00:03:13.553 who believe that that decision was made specifically because those papers are 00:03:13.553 --> 00:03:15.553 afraid that Trump is going to win. 00:03:15.753 --> 00:03:21.293 And that if they endorsed Kamala Harris, they would be treated badly by Trump 00:03:21.293 --> 00:03:24.993 and his government if, in fact, he becomes the next president. 00:03:25.513 --> 00:03:31.293 Isn't there an even more sinister element to this, that the things that I've 00:03:31.293 --> 00:03:36.033 read, particularly in the case of the Washington Post, is that the ownership, 00:03:36.273 --> 00:03:39.393 and the ownership that is, of course, Amazon boss Jeff Bezos. 00:03:39.913 --> 00:03:46.293 Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, were worried that their other businesses might be 00:03:46.293 --> 00:03:49.173 treated badly. That's the allegation flying around, isn't it? 00:03:49.233 --> 00:03:52.093 I certainly don't have any evidence of it. I don't 00:03:52.093 --> 00:03:55.153 know if you do but that is the allegation flying around isn't it 00:03:55.153 --> 00:03:58.453 right right so that if the thought 00:03:58.453 --> 00:04:01.593 is they were sort of preemptively trying 00:04:01.593 --> 00:04:04.513 to suck up to trump in case he becomes the 00:04:04.513 --> 00:04:09.813 president the main reason that it's been alleged both of them decide to do that 00:04:09.813 --> 00:04:14.993 is because they are billionaires with existing businesses that would be impacted 00:04:14.993 --> 00:04:20.953 by a president trump and are trying to effectively curry favor preemptively 00:04:20.953 --> 00:04:22.373 before he becomes president. 00:04:22.653 --> 00:04:28.873 So a number of people noticed that for example Jeff Bezos met with. 00:04:30.944 --> 00:04:35.884 You know, government representatives about his space business, 00:04:36.204 --> 00:04:39.904 which would obviously be impacted by a new president. 00:04:40.424 --> 00:04:47.464 Patrick Soon-Shiong, who owns the Los Angeles Times, has a vast kind of medical, 00:04:48.264 --> 00:04:51.104 business empire that would obviously be impacted. 00:04:51.724 --> 00:04:58.324 I believe when Trump was president before or Sun Xiong, his name was tossed 00:04:58.324 --> 00:05:01.744 around as someone who might take a position in the government. 00:05:02.224 --> 00:05:07.904 So, you know, both of them have existing relationships that would be significantly affected. 00:05:08.344 --> 00:05:13.424 And so the argument is, or the belief is, the fear is that they're trying to 00:05:13.424 --> 00:05:16.824 curry favor with Trump because they're afraid he might become president. 00:05:17.384 --> 00:05:21.884 Yeah, I haven't seen anything from Patrick Sun Xiong, but I have seen a strong 00:05:21.884 --> 00:05:26.084 denial from Jeff, Well, not Jeff Bezos himself, but it's been strongly denied 00:05:26.084 --> 00:05:32.304 from people at the top of the post that Jeff Bezos ever even saw the endorsement. I've seen that story. 00:05:33.384 --> 00:05:37.884 Right, right. There was some confusion about whether he had actually seen it 00:05:37.884 --> 00:05:39.364 before he made this decision. 00:05:39.664 --> 00:05:45.024 And according to the post's leadership, Will Lewis and Shipley, 00:05:45.244 --> 00:05:50.184 that is not the case. He did not see it, but he did know, I believe, 00:05:50.324 --> 00:05:54.584 that there was an endorsement all ready to go. and then made this decision. 00:05:55.564 --> 00:05:59.864 Right. That's, of course, Sir Will Lewis to us. Right. Right. 00:06:00.384 --> 00:06:06.624 Yeah, so I've discussed on previous shows, but it is an interesting one. 00:06:06.864 --> 00:06:12.084 I want to get back to the election in a moment, but look, you've read these 00:06:12.084 --> 00:06:15.084 pieces, you've written these pieces, you've had the discussions where people 00:06:15.084 --> 00:06:18.084 have said the sort of quote-unquote philanthropic model, 00:06:18.624 --> 00:06:23.104 whereby a benign billionaire owns these media companies and keeps them alive, 00:06:23.284 --> 00:06:25.064 particularly in the context of local media, 00:06:25.664 --> 00:06:28.664 might be the answer to the current media's woes. 00:06:28.804 --> 00:06:31.044 But then you get incidents like this, right? 00:06:32.600 --> 00:06:37.280 Yeah, I think that the flaw in that kind of argument is that there are no benign 00:06:37.280 --> 00:06:40.480 billionaires, at least to my knowledge. 00:06:40.680 --> 00:06:42.740 I suppose Craig Newmark comes the closest. 00:06:43.500 --> 00:06:48.960 But there aren't, if you are a billionaire with all these existing businesses 00:06:48.960 --> 00:06:53.640 and you buy a media entity, you're doing it for some reason. 00:06:53.860 --> 00:06:57.360 You're not doing it purely out of the goodness of your heart. 00:06:58.360 --> 00:07:01.800 Or even if you are doing it purely out of the goodness of your heart, 00:07:02.180 --> 00:07:07.100 eventually, as we've seen now, your ownership of that media entity will collide 00:07:07.100 --> 00:07:09.820 in some way with your business interests. 00:07:10.020 --> 00:07:16.580 And then you have to decide, should I pursue the purity of media and journalism 00:07:16.580 --> 00:07:20.780 or should I pursue the interests of my existing business empire? 00:07:20.940 --> 00:07:24.500 And if you are a billionaire who founded all these businesses, 00:07:24.500 --> 00:07:28.640 you're going to side with the thing that made you a billionaire, I'd expect. 00:07:29.540 --> 00:07:34.620 Yeah. And of course, if you're a billionaire with something in such a regulated 00:07:34.620 --> 00:07:40.680 industry with such ties to government like Jeff Bezos and space or Will Shiong without health. 00:07:41.680 --> 00:07:45.440 Patrick, sorry, these are going to be very close. 00:07:45.760 --> 00:07:48.960 Like what the government does in those areas really matters to your business. 00:07:49.840 --> 00:07:53.700 For sure. I mean, particularly when you look at Bezos, I mean, 00:07:53.840 --> 00:07:59.940 Elon Musk and SpaceX are already far ahead of his space ventures. 00:08:00.200 --> 00:08:02.940 He's got to be thinking, I have to... 00:08:03.487 --> 00:08:07.887 Figure out some way that I can catch up and having the government give him a 00:08:07.887 --> 00:08:10.807 bunch of contracts would definitely help him do that. 00:08:11.367 --> 00:08:15.047 Yeah. Marty Barron, who formerly edited the post, obviously very famously. 00:08:16.547 --> 00:08:20.407 You know, see if you can work out what Marty Barron really thinks about the 00:08:20.407 --> 00:08:21.907 situation. I'll read you one of his tweets. 00:08:22.127 --> 00:08:25.787 He said, this is cowardice with democracy as its casualty. 00:08:26.307 --> 00:08:29.887 Donald Trump will see this as an invitation to further imitate Jeff Bezos, 00:08:29.887 --> 00:08:34.007 disturbing spylessness at an institution famed for courage. 00:08:34.627 --> 00:08:38.267 I'm not sure if he's happy about this decision or not. What do you think, Matthew? 00:08:39.087 --> 00:08:45.087 Yeah, he definitely made his views plain, and so did Woodward and Bernstein. 00:08:45.887 --> 00:08:50.507 Basically everyone associated with this newspaper for the last hundred years 00:08:50.507 --> 00:08:54.607 who's still alive has said that they find this decision reprehensible. 00:08:55.747 --> 00:09:01.087 And again, I think if it was a few months ago and the post said, 00:09:01.227 --> 00:09:03.547 we've thought about it and we're not going to endorse anyone. 00:09:03.727 --> 00:09:08.087 I don't think you would see any of this kind of commentary or less of it. 00:09:08.147 --> 00:09:13.027 But the fact that it happened so late and that there was already an endorsement, 00:09:13.427 --> 00:09:18.767 you know, I think everyone assumes that Bezos just decided, you know, 00:09:19.367 --> 00:09:23.927 maybe Trump will become president and I don't want to irritate him preemptively. 00:09:25.447 --> 00:09:28.907 It's fascinating quite something. I mean, of course, everyone is bashing around. 00:09:29.187 --> 00:09:32.087 I think most of the attention seems to have been on the Washington Post. 00:09:32.627 --> 00:09:36.987 I think not least because their strapline is democracy dies in darkness. 00:09:37.407 --> 00:09:45.427 And lots of people consider Donald Trump a threat to the democracy that supposedly dies in darkness. 00:09:46.367 --> 00:09:50.287 Let me flip this around a moment. Play devil's advocate. 00:09:50.707 --> 00:09:54.147 Do you think if we thought the Washington Post and the LA Times were going to 00:09:54.147 --> 00:09:56.887 endorse Donald Trump, everyone would be so upset about this? 00:09:59.567 --> 00:10:02.847 Yes yeah really i do yeah i 00:10:02.847 --> 00:10:05.687 think so um you know 00:10:05.687 --> 00:10:08.967 a number of the people at the post um and and 00:10:08.967 --> 00:10:12.687 probably at the la times have talked about the coverage of 00:10:12.687 --> 00:10:15.527 trump the post has been you know has been writing 00:10:15.527 --> 00:10:18.807 for months of years about donald trump and 00:10:18.807 --> 00:10:21.487 about all the things he's accused of doing all the 00:10:21.487 --> 00:10:24.547 things he's been found guilty of doing um all the 00:10:24.547 --> 00:10:28.407 things he's talked about doing and so to 00:10:28.407 --> 00:10:31.447 i mean obviously that the opinion side 00:10:31.447 --> 00:10:34.767 the editorial side of a newspaper is supposed to be you know 00:10:34.767 --> 00:10:40.827 separate from the reporting side but you can't have that volume of content about 00:10:40.827 --> 00:10:45.767 a person and all the bad things about them and then have the newspaper endorse 00:10:45.767 --> 00:10:47.987 that person for president it 00:10:47.987 --> 00:10:52.687 would just be i think there'd be the same reaction yes no what i'm saying, 00:10:54.007 --> 00:10:56.467 So I agree with you on that What I was saying is if we thought the paper was 00:10:56.467 --> 00:11:01.087 going to Endorse Donald Trump and then had pulled The endorsement Do you think 00:11:01.087 --> 00:11:02.267 there would also have been a backlash? 00:11:05.378 --> 00:11:09.018 I i mean backlash i don't think there'd be anything like what we're seeing now, 00:11:09.538 --> 00:11:15.178 but i think there would be you know there'd be lots of talk about well why would they do that, 00:11:15.698 --> 00:11:26.018 um but i think it would be perceived you know the trump versus kamala is is not a sort of uh, 00:11:26.718 --> 00:11:33.478 you know on one hand on the other hand sort of there's a perception that one of these people is. 00:11:34.758 --> 00:11:37.298 Evil and the other one is mostly good. 00:11:38.458 --> 00:11:43.438 Whether that's accurate or not is hard to say, but there's certainly a kind 00:11:43.438 --> 00:11:48.558 of preponderance of evidence to show that Trump is guilty of a number of crimes 00:11:48.558 --> 00:11:51.378 and would love to commit some more crimes. 00:11:52.558 --> 00:11:58.238 So I don't think there's a, if it was just this candidate versus that candidate, 00:11:58.798 --> 00:12:01.738 then there'd be, I'm sure there would be sort of argument about 00:12:01.738 --> 00:12:04.498 it but not to the extent that we've seen now if it 00:12:04.498 --> 00:12:09.098 was a more conventional race is what you're saying because this 00:12:09.098 --> 00:12:11.958 is not a conventional race it sure 00:12:11.958 --> 00:12:15.178 doesn't feel that way no no um let's step 00:12:15.178 --> 00:12:17.958 back onto that actually in terms of the coverage of this 00:12:17.958 --> 00:12:20.898 rather unconventional race and it's unconventional in a number of ways 00:12:20.898 --> 00:12:23.678 because of course Kamala Harris is 00:12:23.678 --> 00:12:27.018 only will only have been the candidate for what is it 16 weeks 00:12:27.018 --> 00:12:30.558 or something by election day um something like 00:12:30.558 --> 00:12:33.758 that which is not normally how american elections run 00:12:33.758 --> 00:12:36.838 we normally get 16 months minimum of 00:12:36.838 --> 00:12:39.658 of a candidate sort of more like two 00:12:39.658 --> 00:12:43.318 years so that's been rather different uh both 00:12:43.318 --> 00:12:46.018 candidates have been criticized for not 00:12:46.018 --> 00:12:49.438 doing media and then gone on the kind of media blitz uh that 00:12:49.438 --> 00:12:53.118 was a really big narrative a week or so ago that harris wasn't 00:12:53.118 --> 00:12:57.078 the vice president wasn't doing enough interviews and they've both gone and 00:12:57.078 --> 00:13:00.438 done them i'm fascinated and i wrote about this the other day i'd love to get 00:13:00.438 --> 00:13:04.418 your take on it both of them have really been keen to get into these podcasts 00:13:04.418 --> 00:13:10.978 big audiences but very niche set of podcasts that they have been really happy to talk to. 00:13:14.525 --> 00:13:17.625 Yeah i think that has been an interesting i mean we're you know 00:13:17.625 --> 00:13:21.385 in a way it's a it's a it's an evolution of 00:13:21.385 --> 00:13:24.365 what what is seen as sort of 00:13:24.365 --> 00:13:28.045 mainstream media you know in the past not not 00:13:28.045 --> 00:13:30.945 too distant past they would be going to tv 00:13:30.945 --> 00:13:33.825 networks they would be picking you know a host of 00:13:33.825 --> 00:13:36.765 an interview show etc etc and sitting down 00:13:36.765 --> 00:13:40.705 with that person and now it's podcasts um joe 00:13:40.705 --> 00:13:44.285 rogan is arguably more powerful than any 00:13:44.285 --> 00:13:48.545 tv host that i can think of going back to cronkite so 00:13:48.545 --> 00:13:51.245 it certainly gets bigger numbers than most of 00:13:51.245 --> 00:13:58.345 them yeah yeah and so that's you know those are the kind of the nexus of power 00:13:58.345 --> 00:14:05.965 now is podcasts and independent quote-unquote media entities and individuals 00:14:05.965 --> 00:14:09.205 And I think that has shifted the landscape for sure. 00:14:10.745 --> 00:14:14.385 Back when you would just talk to someone from this or that network, 00:14:14.625 --> 00:14:18.685 I think there was an understanding about how that worked in terms of, 00:14:18.785 --> 00:14:22.905 you know, what were the rules and what was that person supposed to be doing 00:14:22.905 --> 00:14:27.025 and all those criteria are effectively out the window. 00:14:27.185 --> 00:14:30.125 I mean, Joe Rogan is a chaos engine. 00:14:30.325 --> 00:14:32.985 Like, you never know what the guy is going to say from one to the next. 00:14:32.985 --> 00:14:36.785 Of course, Kamala Harris appeared on Call Her Daddy as well, 00:14:36.865 --> 00:14:37.945 which is a very big podcast. 00:14:39.125 --> 00:14:43.385 I believe she's appeared on some podcasts as well aimed at the black community, 00:14:43.485 --> 00:14:44.825 they're popular amongst the black community. 00:14:45.205 --> 00:14:50.805 There's all sorts of different ways they're sort of segmenting people, 00:14:50.925 --> 00:14:57.445 but also they obviously have to have big audiences with these segments of society. Yeah. 00:14:58.087 --> 00:15:03.567 Yeah, and I think it's fascinating to me how, you know, you can see this sort 00:15:03.567 --> 00:15:07.127 of transformation of media in what they're doing. 00:15:07.487 --> 00:15:12.007 Like they're effectively, because they have to look for where are they going 00:15:12.007 --> 00:15:13.747 to get the most bang for their buck? 00:15:13.887 --> 00:15:16.867 Where are they going to get the most sort of, where is their interview going 00:15:16.867 --> 00:15:21.947 to do them the most sort of favors in terms of political voting? 00:15:22.487 --> 00:15:26.427 Who they're choosing and why and when um is 00:15:26.427 --> 00:15:29.227 is a fascinating it's just fascinating to watch call her 00:15:29.227 --> 00:15:32.587 daddy i don't think i had ever heard of before because i'm 00:15:32.587 --> 00:15:35.687 not the market yeah i don't you 00:15:35.687 --> 00:15:38.467 know i i realize i'm out of it so i 00:15:38.467 --> 00:15:41.567 should know who they are i can't claim to be a listener but i 00:15:41.567 --> 00:15:44.327 do know the show well there was a huge story i can't 00:15:44.327 --> 00:15:47.807 remember months maybe a couple of years ago now where she got another huge 00:15:47.807 --> 00:15:50.927 deal but anyway sorry continue i digress so so 00:15:50.927 --> 00:15:53.827 you know i've heard of it but i certainly am not 00:15:53.827 --> 00:15:57.027 a listener no i don't understand the sort 00:15:57.027 --> 00:16:00.167 of market that that podcast pitches to 00:16:00.167 --> 00:16:03.607 but i'll bet you a hundred dollars kamala harris and 00:16:03.607 --> 00:16:08.087 her campaign managers understand it pretty well um i don't think i'd go against 00:16:08.087 --> 00:16:15.047 that bet so definitely watching them you know the fact that they chose it made 00:16:15.047 --> 00:16:19.207 me interested in well what is it about that podcast Why did they pick it? 00:16:19.327 --> 00:16:20.627 And I don't think it's just numbers. 00:16:20.787 --> 00:16:24.887 As you mentioned, it's kind of looking at who are the target listeners? 00:16:25.287 --> 00:16:26.607 Who's the target audience? 00:16:27.247 --> 00:16:30.387 What, you know, are they young? Are they female? Are they black? 00:16:30.667 --> 00:16:33.547 How can that sort of help our campaign? I mean. 00:16:35.027 --> 00:16:38.867 Joe Rogan, obviously, you know, his listeners run the gamut from, 00:16:38.867 --> 00:16:46.347 well, from weirdos to sort of more normal members of society. 00:16:46.547 --> 00:16:49.827 But so it's harder to predict what his listeners are going to do, I think. 00:16:50.267 --> 00:16:55.507 It's just with Joe Rogan in particular, it's just huge, huge numbers, isn't it? Yeah. Yeah. 00:16:57.447 --> 00:17:01.407 And in terms of the mainstream coverage, newspapers, TV networks, 00:17:01.647 --> 00:17:03.287 they've only done one debate, these two. 00:17:03.787 --> 00:17:07.967 Which is kind of interesting of you know some of that was because biden did 00:17:07.967 --> 00:17:14.047 a first debate but these two have only debated once on tv um and in terms of 00:17:14.047 --> 00:17:17.447 the tv coverage then and the reporting, 00:17:18.387 --> 00:17:22.967 how what's your take has this been conventional and is that with a candidate 00:17:22.967 --> 00:17:27.287 particularly like donald trump is that been reasonable is that the right way 00:17:27.287 --> 00:17:32.347 to deal with it so i think that is one of the big questions about this campaign 00:17:32.347 --> 00:17:34.507 that's what we're here for matthew the big questions, 00:17:36.027 --> 00:17:41.787 there's there's a phenomenon that some people call sane washing um which is 00:17:41.787 --> 00:17:50.667 taking the you know bizarre rambling um crazy mumblings of trump and and somehow 00:17:50.667 --> 00:17:53.607 i've seen some clips about golf that i can't unsee. 00:17:56.530 --> 00:18:02.290 Yeah, it's, I mean, so he will ramble in a way that makes zero sense. 00:18:02.490 --> 00:18:07.810 And then the New York Times will run a story trying to find the threads of sort 00:18:07.810 --> 00:18:14.530 of sanity in there, or referring to them in kind of oblique ways, so that it makes it seem, 00:18:14.790 --> 00:18:17.850 you know, like a normal person said those things. 00:18:17.850 --> 00:18:20.750 And I think that's a that's a very deliberate decision. 00:18:21.290 --> 00:18:25.270 Obviously, the Times, I'll bet you there are people talking. 00:18:25.510 --> 00:18:31.290 Let's say Trump gives a speech and editors are thinking this is insanity. 00:18:31.290 --> 00:18:32.730 None of it made any sense. 00:18:33.310 --> 00:18:39.430 He's rambling about things that don't apply at all. He's making stuff up. What do we do? 00:18:39.870 --> 00:18:44.510 Do we just run a transcript so people can make their own decisions? 00:18:44.570 --> 00:18:50.590 Or if you're trying to make sense of that and there isn't any, then what do you do? 00:18:50.790 --> 00:18:53.310 Do you say this man rambled incoherently? 00:18:53.690 --> 00:18:59.310 Then it looks like you've chosen sides. So you're sort of trapped between we 00:18:59.310 --> 00:19:02.270 have to give the appearance of being objective, 00:19:02.270 --> 00:19:09.370 but by any objective standard, this man is losing it and is rambling incoherently. 00:19:09.570 --> 00:19:13.950 So how do we how do you express that in a place like The New York Times? 00:19:14.270 --> 00:19:17.550 It's it's it's a very difficult problem for them. 00:19:17.970 --> 00:19:22.190 There haven't there hasn't been a candidate like this with Biden. 00:19:22.190 --> 00:19:26.470 And they could say, well, you know, he's aging and he forgot some things. 00:19:26.670 --> 00:19:28.290 We're in a completely different category. 00:19:28.770 --> 00:19:34.630 There's a guy who's just literally stitching together irrelevant stories that have no point. 00:19:38.070 --> 00:19:41.990 And if you were, go on then, I've got to ask, if you were an editor in a newsroom, 00:19:42.150 --> 00:19:44.990 which, you know, you have been over the years, what would you be doing? 00:19:48.350 --> 00:19:51.590 I mean i would be doing my best to 00:19:51.590 --> 00:19:54.830 i think there is a place for 00:19:54.830 --> 00:20:02.970 the scrupulously objective kind of distanced perspective on a speech or a debate 00:20:02.970 --> 00:20:10.410 but then that has to be balanced by someone or many people saying what exactly 00:20:10.410 --> 00:20:14.630 happened and just calling out exactly how crazy it was. 00:20:14.850 --> 00:20:19.690 And if you don't have those things, if you don't have both of them in enough 00:20:19.690 --> 00:20:22.850 volume and space and sort of size, 00:20:23.070 --> 00:20:28.130 then it's going to look like you are sane watching or picking sides that you're 00:20:28.130 --> 00:20:33.350 trying to make Trump seem more palatable or normal than he really is. 00:20:33.450 --> 00:20:35.890 And I think that in itself is a choice. 00:20:36.450 --> 00:20:41.970 And what about TV? We've had lots of talk about fact-checking on debates, 00:20:41.970 --> 00:20:45.810 on interviews, on phone-ins with Trump. What's your take on that? 00:20:47.411 --> 00:20:50.491 I thought it was interesting watching the debate and seeing 00:20:50.491 --> 00:20:53.931 the the fact checking and then of course the the 00:20:53.931 --> 00:20:56.711 mega response um oh how come they 00:20:56.711 --> 00:21:00.771 only fact check trump well that's because he's the one who's lying the most 00:21:00.771 --> 00:21:06.871 like you know that's the obvious answer and yet you can't again if you say well 00:21:06.871 --> 00:21:11.971 trump just lied from beginning to end then people will assume that you're you 00:21:11.971 --> 00:21:14.251 know a Trump hater and that you've made up your mind. 00:21:14.411 --> 00:21:20.171 And so it's difficult to be objective about how much he's lying without making 00:21:20.171 --> 00:21:23.011 it seem as though you're playing favourites. 00:21:23.491 --> 00:21:26.971 But do you think the networks have done a good job of that? If your premise 00:21:26.971 --> 00:21:30.431 is correct that he is lying all the time, and it's a premise I'm happy to go 00:21:30.431 --> 00:21:36.731 along with, do you think the networks have done well enough at holding that out in real time? 00:21:37.591 --> 00:21:41.291 I think for the most part they have, yes. Right. Because that was a criticism 00:21:41.291 --> 00:21:44.491 both 2016 and 2020, wasn't it? 00:21:45.471 --> 00:21:49.851 Mm hmm. Yeah. And I think they have in particular the debate that I watched. 00:21:50.551 --> 00:21:55.031 I thought they were very fair. And, you know, they did fact check a couple of 00:21:55.031 --> 00:21:56.411 things with Kamala as well. 00:21:56.531 --> 00:22:02.131 But again, she just she didn't lie as as floridly as Trump did. 00:22:02.991 --> 00:22:06.511 Back to the vice president. What do you make of the way she's been covered? 00:22:07.071 --> 00:22:10.771 Do you think it's been fair? Do you think it's been too soft in some ways? 00:22:10.991 --> 00:22:15.391 Do you criticise her for her reticence to do interviews? What's your take on 00:22:15.391 --> 00:22:18.091 the way newspapers and TV networks have dealt with her? 00:22:20.098 --> 00:22:24.938 I think for the most part they've been fair. I think there has been some criticism, 00:22:25.698 --> 00:22:32.258 some valid criticism that she hasn't, she and her campaign haven't provided 00:22:32.258 --> 00:22:34.978 a whole lot of details around policies. 00:22:35.498 --> 00:22:39.118 So I think that's a legitimate thing that you can talk about. 00:22:39.578 --> 00:22:42.618 What are the policies? What are the details? How would it work? 00:22:43.218 --> 00:22:46.458 And I think there has been some kind 00:22:46.458 --> 00:22:49.878 of pointing out that for her and her 00:22:49.878 --> 00:22:53.298 campaign the obvious thing is just to not be 00:22:53.298 --> 00:22:56.938 insane and then you look sort of like 00:22:56.938 --> 00:23:00.138 a more obvious choice but but then you know 00:23:00.138 --> 00:23:02.958 in terms of the election itself and running for president you 00:23:02.958 --> 00:23:06.238 should you should go beyond that it shouldn't just be are 00:23:06.238 --> 00:23:09.358 you do you make sense it should be you know 00:23:09.358 --> 00:23:12.218 do you have policies that it's quite a low bar 00:23:12.218 --> 00:23:15.318 yeah exactly so i think she 00:23:15.318 --> 00:23:19.318 you know very obviously they've decided well 00:23:19.318 --> 00:23:22.758 all we have to do is not be insane and i 00:23:22.758 --> 00:23:25.858 think there's a little bit more required and 00:23:25.858 --> 00:23:29.398 i think to some extent the press has pointed that out um 00:23:29.398 --> 00:23:33.218 but for the most part i think it's been fair yeah there's 00:23:33.218 --> 00:23:36.378 there's another thing as well which is here in the uk not 00:23:36.378 --> 00:23:39.958 all that long ago we had a general election uh 00:23:39.958 --> 00:23:43.058 in which obviously the conservatives have been the incumbent party 00:23:43.058 --> 00:23:45.818 for 14 years and obviously then tried 00:23:45.818 --> 00:23:48.858 to present themselves as fixing things doing things etc etc 00:23:48.858 --> 00:23:51.578 etc um yet they've been 00:23:51.578 --> 00:23:54.378 in power for this has got nothing to do with my politics they've been 00:23:54.378 --> 00:24:00.178 in power for 14 years so the very reasonable question to the conservatives and 00:24:00.178 --> 00:24:03.538 the conservative leader rishi sunak who was then the prime minister was would 00:24:03.538 --> 00:24:06.918 you be the chance of the exchequer and the prime minister if you think those 00:24:06.918 --> 00:24:11.798 were good things why haven't you done them already and of course Kamala Harris is the vice president. 00:24:12.378 --> 00:24:17.078 And so on your point on policy if she laid out policies to some extent the press 00:24:17.078 --> 00:24:22.498 would have the right to say well why haven't you done some of that already has that been happening. 00:24:24.095 --> 00:24:27.115 I don't think it's been happening to the extent that it should 00:24:27.115 --> 00:24:30.635 um and and the only point i 00:24:30.635 --> 00:24:33.755 think that i gave to trump in the debate was when he mentioned that 00:24:33.755 --> 00:24:39.855 right that is a valid point you have been in government uh you know you you've 00:24:39.855 --> 00:24:44.755 been very very close to the levers of power and yet all of these things that 00:24:44.755 --> 00:24:50.695 you say you would like to do have not happened and so you You know, the obvious out is, 00:24:51.255 --> 00:24:55.855 well, I wasn't the president or, but I think it's still a valid point. 00:24:56.135 --> 00:25:00.295 If you've been there and where the decisions were being made, 00:25:00.515 --> 00:25:05.475 were you just unable to make yourself heard? And if so, why? 00:25:05.895 --> 00:25:10.715 Or did these decisions not get made for some other reason that you're not talking about? 00:25:11.195 --> 00:25:17.515 Yeah. And one thing I've I have seen is that she has been called the stuff going 00:25:17.515 --> 00:25:20.075 on on the border. Obviously, that's a very live debate in the country, 00:25:20.175 --> 00:25:23.635 the southern border and immigration. It's a huge issue here as well. 00:25:25.075 --> 00:25:29.955 Obviously, people have tried to and the press have tried to talk about her policy 00:25:29.955 --> 00:25:33.735 and her current role in dealing with that situation. 00:25:35.015 --> 00:25:38.475 But from what you're saying, it doesn't sound like it's gone much beyond that. 00:25:39.215 --> 00:25:46.515 And you think it hasn't. And I think there are criticisms that could be made. 00:25:46.515 --> 00:25:53.715 Trump has and his followers have referred to her as the border czar, which she was not. 00:25:54.115 --> 00:26:01.955 But still, she was in the government. This was a significant part of the policies of the government. 00:26:02.735 --> 00:26:06.255 And so there is valid criticism to be made there. And I, 00:26:06.535 --> 00:26:12.295 you know, as with many other issues, I feel like there hasn't been valid criticism 00:26:12.295 --> 00:26:18.235 of those policy related things because there's so much theater and circus kind 00:26:18.235 --> 00:26:20.295 of going on to pay attention to. 00:26:20.675 --> 00:26:25.895 It just doesn't get. Yeah, I have to say when I cover and consume American media, 00:26:25.995 --> 00:26:31.415 which I do a fair amount, it does seem rather like a circus, 00:26:31.615 --> 00:26:35.515 which given the stakes are so high, is rather disappointing. 00:26:35.515 --> 00:26:38.355 I mean, I criticise British political media for this as well, 00:26:38.495 --> 00:26:48.215 but given the stakes are multipliers higher for the rest of the world as well, with the US president, 00:26:48.615 --> 00:26:53.935 it does seem a bit like a circus as opposed to this kind of serious thing and 00:26:53.935 --> 00:26:57.935 the serious media discussion we possibly should have been having. Am I being unfair? Yeah. 00:26:58.997 --> 00:27:04.897 No, not at all. I think that's been a consistent theme for quite some time. 00:27:05.277 --> 00:27:07.097 It's not just Trump and Kamala. 00:27:07.617 --> 00:27:14.437 There's a significant proportion of the mainstream press and even non-mainstream 00:27:14.437 --> 00:27:19.837 press that sees this whole thing as a, you know, a wrestling match. 00:27:21.257 --> 00:27:25.777 Which sports team do you support? which 00:27:25.777 --> 00:27:28.737 side are you on and you know there's bad 00:27:28.737 --> 00:27:31.797 people over here and good people over here and it 00:27:31.797 --> 00:27:34.697 becomes a horse race or or a wrestling 00:27:34.697 --> 00:27:37.677 match instead of so that that in some 00:27:37.677 --> 00:27:41.057 sense the the severity or the impact of what 00:27:41.057 --> 00:27:44.297 the president is going to do and has done is is 00:27:44.297 --> 00:27:47.517 lost it's then it just becomes who's ahead 00:27:47.517 --> 00:27:50.797 and who's behind and what do the polls say and 00:27:50.797 --> 00:27:53.517 you know horse race journalism as some people 00:27:53.517 --> 00:27:57.277 call it and i think that does a real disservice to the 00:27:57.277 --> 00:28:00.857 public for one thing but just to you 00:28:00.857 --> 00:28:04.517 know society as a whole these are it's not 00:28:04.517 --> 00:28:07.777 just a race for you know city councilor or 00:28:07.777 --> 00:28:11.397 even senator this is someone who's going to wield but 00:28:11.397 --> 00:28:14.457 just an unbelievable amount of power and and 00:28:14.457 --> 00:28:17.497 it's not it's it doesn't do anybody any favors 00:28:17.497 --> 00:28:20.557 to to say who's winning 00:28:20.557 --> 00:28:24.977 we should be talking about who's right well that's 00:28:24.977 --> 00:28:28.137 a that's a subjective judgment which. 00:28:28.137 --> 00:28:31.357 U.s media tends to be rather reticent about 00:28:31.357 --> 00:28:34.217 yeah and that's you 00:28:34.217 --> 00:28:37.357 know that's been a historical trend there 00:28:37.357 --> 00:28:40.497 there you're allowed to have a column 00:28:40.497 --> 00:28:43.377 or an op-ed piece or or maybe an 00:28:43.377 --> 00:28:46.497 editorial in which you call a 00:28:46.497 --> 00:28:49.997 spade a spade but but in your reporting you're not 00:28:49.997 --> 00:28:53.857 supposed to you're supposed to be balanced and 00:28:53.857 --> 00:28:57.157 unfortunately if the if the. 00:28:57.157 --> 00:29:06.057 Stakes are not balanced if the players are not balanced your balance effectively 00:29:06.057 --> 00:29:10.637 unbalances things the fact that you're trying to find balance where it doesn't 00:29:10.637 --> 00:29:15.257 exist yeah there's a kind of false equivalence that can happen exactly Anyway, 00:29:16.557 --> 00:29:20.477 I'm not going to ask you as we come to the end of the show who you think is going to win. 00:29:21.017 --> 00:29:26.177 I wouldn't do I wouldn't do that to you. But I what I want to know from you 00:29:26.177 --> 00:29:31.177 is how do you think the days, you know, election day and beyond that? 00:29:32.774 --> 00:29:38.114 Will play out in the media because for one thing American election just seems 00:29:38.114 --> 00:29:45.574 to take forever like the counting takes forever um we had a new prime minister by lunchtime, 00:29:47.414 --> 00:29:50.854 I'm not joking he was in number 10 by kind of lunchtime uh 00:29:50.854 --> 00:29:54.034 for you guys it seems to take kind of on and 00:29:54.034 --> 00:29:57.414 on and on it goes anyway how do 00:29:57.414 --> 00:30:00.334 you think that will be covered uh we know there's always 00:30:00.334 --> 00:30:02.994 you know we love a kind of interactive board where they 00:30:02.994 --> 00:30:06.314 try to press different states and all of 00:30:06.314 --> 00:30:09.234 that stuff but there's obviously 00:30:09.234 --> 00:30:13.374 post you know january the 6th 2020 there 00:30:13.374 --> 00:30:16.814 is a concern about you know who 00:30:16.814 --> 00:30:19.914 is going to actually sort of accept or 00:30:19.914 --> 00:30:22.554 not accept the result of the 00:30:22.554 --> 00:30:26.434 election by which i basically mean donald will donald trump accept he has lost 00:30:26.434 --> 00:30:31.934 if he has um there will be all sorts of stories and conspiracy theories i guess 00:30:31.934 --> 00:30:37.234 about the veracity of the election yeah how are journalists you think going 00:30:37.234 --> 00:30:41.454 to be able to deal with that how particularly on live tv how is that going to play out do you think. 00:30:43.865 --> 00:30:47.445 I think it's going to be a very very difficult um 00:30:47.445 --> 00:30:51.285 task for particularly live 00:30:51.285 --> 00:30:54.025 tv to try and give people a 00:30:54.025 --> 00:30:57.825 sense of some of these complex issues that 00:30:57.825 --> 00:31:00.605 are going on beneath the surface so it's one thing to have your 00:31:00.605 --> 00:31:03.485 map and you know you touch it and it updates 00:31:03.485 --> 00:31:06.305 with live results that to some extent is a 00:31:06.305 --> 00:31:09.365 sideshow um obviously it's it it's 00:31:09.365 --> 00:31:12.205 important but the things that you 00:31:12.205 --> 00:31:15.565 mentioned are much harder to describe in 00:31:15.565 --> 00:31:18.605 a soundbite on tv you know who are the 00:31:18.605 --> 00:31:22.385 the election officials who've been replaced by 00:31:22.385 --> 00:31:25.565 trump uh believers in various 00:31:25.565 --> 00:31:28.485 states who are willing to overturn the 00:31:28.485 --> 00:31:31.425 results of an election or or stay the 00:31:31.425 --> 00:31:34.605 results of an election or call into question you know 00:31:34.605 --> 00:31:38.705 um voting by electronic votes 00:31:38.705 --> 00:31:41.585 or voting by mail or whatever there's a 00:31:41.585 --> 00:31:44.625 significant I think some of the best reporting 00:31:44.625 --> 00:31:47.325 that we've seen leading up to this election has been 00:31:47.325 --> 00:31:53.665 about those movements kind of beneath the surface where friends of Trump have 00:31:53.665 --> 00:31:58.885 been maneuvering in various states to get election officials replaced or to 00:31:58.885 --> 00:32:06.285 get the policies around approving results changed to make it easier for someone. 00:32:06.625 --> 00:32:10.545 And this is kind of what I'm getting at because. Yeah. 00:32:12.045 --> 00:32:15.185 You know, I remember watching, I think I get CNN here in the UK, 00:32:15.365 --> 00:32:19.685 watching that insurrection on January the 6th as it was playing out on live TV. 00:32:19.845 --> 00:32:25.885 OK, but there's a more nuanced thing of like the way what speeches will the 00:32:25.885 --> 00:32:30.625 candidates and their supporters make, you know, from the day of the election 00:32:30.625 --> 00:32:32.925 onward. All that kind of thing is quite messy. 00:32:34.881 --> 00:32:40.021 Yeah. And as a result, it's going to be harder to report on and harder to kind 00:32:40.021 --> 00:32:47.821 of get across in a way, particularly on television, not known for its depth and nuance. 00:32:48.661 --> 00:32:51.801 So how is that story going to be told? 00:32:52.361 --> 00:32:58.541 And and will it kind of get across to people what is actually happening in a 00:32:58.541 --> 00:33:02.301 kind of state by state, you know, electoral official by electoral official? 00:33:02.301 --> 00:33:05.801 So that's a complex thing. 00:33:06.041 --> 00:33:10.061 It's very difficult to sum up in a soundbite. 00:33:10.561 --> 00:33:12.681 Do you think American media is up to the task? 00:33:14.581 --> 00:33:16.061 I think some of them are. 00:33:18.161 --> 00:33:20.941 I'm so tempted to get you to name names. Go on. 00:33:23.981 --> 00:33:27.221 No, you're going to behave? No, I'd rather not. 00:33:27.601 --> 00:33:31.421 Fair enough. I think I could guess where you're getting at. It's going to be fascinating to watch. 00:33:31.421 --> 00:33:35.341 It's always it's what's really interesting i wrote about this the other day 00:33:35.341 --> 00:33:41.881 is the interest here in the uk is really ramped up uh multiple tv networks are 00:33:41.881 --> 00:33:45.761 going to be covering it live in the way they cover a british election including 00:33:45.761 --> 00:33:47.721 channel four who haven't done it for decades, 00:33:48.301 --> 00:33:53.041 which is really interesting so that's it kind of shows how significant the rest 00:33:53.041 --> 00:33:58.861 of the world uh considers what's going on and i'll be fascinated to watch it 00:33:58.861 --> 00:34:00.681 and maybe as it all plays out, 00:34:00.781 --> 00:34:05.121 I'll have to get you back to tell me how you think it all happened on the night and beyond. 00:34:05.641 --> 00:34:08.701 Matthew, thank you so much for joining me. Where can people keep up with you 00:34:08.701 --> 00:34:12.901 and all the things you write and talk about as this goes on? 00:34:14.801 --> 00:34:21.761 I mean, I'm on every social network, I think, that's out there as at Matthew I with one T. 00:34:22.761 --> 00:34:26.161 Fantastic. So that's probably the best place. Great. We will definitely keep up with you. Yeah. 00:34:26.301 --> 00:34:29.221 Thank you so much for coming back. obviously i'm at charlotte 00:34:29.221 --> 00:34:31.921 a henry across social media uh if you 00:34:31.921 --> 00:34:35.001 enjoy the show i'd love you to sign up to the paid version of the newsletter 00:34:35.001 --> 00:34:39.841 uh it's five pounds a month 50 quid for the year which is really i would say 00:34:39.841 --> 00:34:43.641 considerably good value i'd like to think so so head over to the edition.net 00:34:43.641 --> 00:34:48.001 uh to do that and you can read all sorts of blog posts and get the other podcast 00:34:48.001 --> 00:34:52.561 episodes there as well matthew thank you once again and i'll see you all next week. 00:34:52.880 --> 00:35:01.700 Music.