WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:09.840 Music. 00:00:09.689 --> 00:00:12.909 And welcome to the edition podcast i'm charlotte henry 00:00:12.909 --> 00:00:15.889 uh today i'm thrilled to be joined once again by benjamin 00:00:15.889 --> 00:00:19.669 mullin from the new york times hey ben how you doing hey charlotte how are you 00:00:19.669 --> 00:00:23.209 yeah i don't i was just pleased to have you on just because we could have a 00:00:23.209 --> 00:00:27.929 catch-up really there's not much going on in your country or your industry so 00:00:27.929 --> 00:00:31.329 i thought we'd just chill out maybe talk about why all new york sports teams 00:00:31.329 --> 00:00:33.289 seem to be hopeless at the moment i don't know, 00:00:34.149 --> 00:00:36.809 anything going on where you are no it's been 00:00:36.809 --> 00:00:39.569 pretty slow um so yeah that that sounds like a good plan 00:00:39.569 --> 00:00:42.789 we can chat the knicks yeah yeah i won't 00:00:42.789 --> 00:00:48.069 share with uh listeners the increasingly broken messages i get from ben as things 00:00:48.069 --> 00:00:54.649 escalate at a pace in the u.s um of course i we have to talk about the election 00:00:54.649 --> 00:01:01.969 and the coverage there of um obviously the new york times was impeccable It goes without saying. 00:01:02.649 --> 00:01:10.269 But there's a few things. I was critical about some of the way the coverage was. 00:01:10.529 --> 00:01:13.909 And you disagreed with me, not from The New York Times in particular, 00:01:14.069 --> 00:01:15.509 but in general, I'm talking about. 00:01:16.809 --> 00:01:25.169 Just because I thought it overemphasised the 50-50 nature of the election, which didn't bear out. 00:01:25.169 --> 00:01:29.269 Now, I understand that the Electoral College system means you could win by one 00:01:29.269 --> 00:01:33.729 vote in each state and you would win 538 to zero in the Electoral College, 00:01:33.849 --> 00:01:35.549 but you'd have only had 50 votes more. 00:01:36.089 --> 00:01:42.009 I understand the vagaries of the system, just like our system has vagaries here. But... 00:01:43.574 --> 00:01:50.014 The data suggests it really, the final data, it really wasn't as close as people 00:01:50.014 --> 00:01:51.854 spent months telling us. 00:01:52.974 --> 00:01:57.154 Do you think that was a mistake in the coverage or do you just disagree with my whole premise? 00:01:58.414 --> 00:02:02.114 I guess I would say I think the polls by and large did fine. 00:02:02.374 --> 00:02:07.194 I mean, the polls showed that most states would be, you know, 00:02:07.294 --> 00:02:12.474 even battleground states would be close. And if you look at the final tallies 00:02:12.474 --> 00:02:17.134 of the of of most of the battleground states, they were close. 00:02:17.314 --> 00:02:20.234 But it's one of those situations where I think like, you know, 00:02:20.314 --> 00:02:25.994 100000 votes either way can in every state can swing an election. 00:02:25.994 --> 00:02:29.634 Sure i also think broadly like you 00:02:29.634 --> 00:02:32.394 know there was a lot of criticism of the press during the run-up to 00:02:32.394 --> 00:02:35.394 the 2024 presidential election people 00:02:35.394 --> 00:02:38.074 saying that um you know 00:02:38.074 --> 00:02:42.574 the press didn't didn't cover biden's age enough um yeah but you know i would 00:02:42.574 --> 00:02:49.734 say that like you know cnn aired a debate um that showed that president biden 00:02:49.734 --> 00:02:53.894 had trouble answering very simple questions and we probably wouldn't have gotten 00:02:53.894 --> 00:02:57.994 that window into his state of mind without the media, without the press. 00:02:58.794 --> 00:03:04.014 The Times, the Journal, and others covered his age. So I think by and large, 00:03:04.174 --> 00:03:08.834 the criticism of the press going into the 2024 election is off base. 00:03:08.954 --> 00:03:11.454 I think the press did a pretty good job of covering the election. 00:03:12.854 --> 00:03:16.634 And you think they did give a fair reflection first of Joe Biden's age? 00:03:16.714 --> 00:03:21.194 I mean, there were stories, but there were also denials that were given equal weight. 00:03:21.254 --> 00:03:30.614 And yes, your point that the debate was really the thing that exposed the flaws for Joe Biden. 00:03:32.034 --> 00:03:36.834 I don't want to be too sort of blasé about it, but it was a debate in the evening 00:03:36.834 --> 00:03:39.754 with a man in his sort of 80s. 00:03:41.554 --> 00:03:46.514 And most of us, when we get to 80s, would like to be as well as Joe Biden is, frankly. 00:03:46.874 --> 00:03:53.014 No, I'm being serious. But just because he is generally better and sharper and 00:03:53.014 --> 00:03:57.474 more healthy, thank goodness, than most 80-year-olds, that doesn't mean he is 00:03:57.474 --> 00:04:01.774 fit and proper to be the most powerful person in the world anymore. 00:04:01.914 --> 00:04:07.594 And I don't think a lot of coverage gave that picture or anything. 00:04:09.266 --> 00:04:13.746 Uh, I, I would, I guess I would politely disagree. I think, um, 00:04:13.886 --> 00:04:16.126 you can disagree. I'm politely on this show, Ben. It's fine. 00:04:17.106 --> 00:04:22.526 I mean, the times have been covering Biden's age for years. The journal had a big story. 00:04:22.946 --> 00:04:27.126 I think, you know, weeks before Biden dropped out, that was all about, 00:04:27.306 --> 00:04:30.406 you know, the fact that he was becoming increasingly infirm. 00:04:31.086 --> 00:04:37.806 Um, obviously the, the debate on, on, I think CNN was a decisive moment. Yeah, clearly. 00:04:38.166 --> 00:04:43.126 And I don't want to overstate the case. It's not like everyone had not mentioned 00:04:43.126 --> 00:04:48.686 Joe Biden's moving towards the end of his 70s in the previous years. 00:04:48.966 --> 00:04:55.086 Like, I'm not overstating it. There was a story from The New Yorker by Evan 00:04:55.086 --> 00:04:59.406 Osnos that I think, if I recall correctly, 00:04:59.726 --> 00:05:07.606 kind of said that President Biden in one-on-one meetings still behaved like 00:05:07.606 --> 00:05:09.426 the President Biden of old. 00:05:09.426 --> 00:05:14.966 And I think if you had just read that story and you cast your vote based on 00:05:14.966 --> 00:05:21.946 that, then you might think that he was the same Joe Biden that was elected in 2020. 00:05:22.186 --> 00:05:27.066 But I think if you looked at the overall sort of like oeuvre of coverage, 00:05:27.266 --> 00:05:32.746 I think you would know that Biden was increasingly not the candidate that he was four years ago. 00:05:34.166 --> 00:05:39.646 Yeah, and there was criticisms in the media of all candidates, 00:05:39.906 --> 00:05:43.106 frankly, about who they spoke to and who they didn't spoke to. 00:05:43.646 --> 00:05:47.286 I mean, there's been a lot of talk since the election about the kind of bro 00:05:47.286 --> 00:05:52.506 culture within a podcasting world that seems to have done a good job for Donald Trump. 00:05:53.606 --> 00:05:57.546 Kamala Harris was frankly just as happy to pick and choose who she spoke to. 00:05:58.266 --> 00:06:01.606 You know, call him daddy and all of that stuff. 00:06:03.442 --> 00:06:13.542 Yeah, I talked to an Obama advisor recently who said that he was initially surprised 00:06:13.542 --> 00:06:16.962 that she wasn't doing more, you know. 00:06:19.202 --> 00:06:22.942 Adversarial interviews with sort of mainstream news media. 00:06:22.942 --> 00:06:28.602 And then he said that after he saw one or two examples of that, 00:06:28.822 --> 00:06:36.522 he kind of understood why and drew a distinction between Kamala as a candidate 00:06:36.522 --> 00:06:45.082 with kind of a preternatural grasp and ability to communicate on policy issues versus Obama. 00:06:46.082 --> 00:06:49.102 Um so i think but but 00:06:49.102 --> 00:06:51.962 she's a great debater and and i think she was 00:06:51.962 --> 00:06:54.802 really playing to her strengths in the debate so i think they 00:06:54.802 --> 00:06:59.862 were kind of trying to give her opportunities to excel in arenas that she was 00:06:59.862 --> 00:07:06.622 really good at yeah i mean we definitely saw the lawyer didn't we in kamala 00:07:06.622 --> 00:07:11.502 harris come out in the bits where she did debate she certainly in those settings 00:07:11.502 --> 00:07:13.442 got to donald trump from what I could see. 00:07:13.942 --> 00:07:17.962 I think that definitely happened. But there was a sense in the American media, 00:07:18.102 --> 00:07:22.182 wasn't there, a frustration at the access not being given. 00:07:22.322 --> 00:07:26.562 I'm sure your colleagues at the New York Times on the political team were feeling 00:07:26.562 --> 00:07:27.722 increasingly frustrated. 00:07:29.302 --> 00:07:35.182 Well, I also think that this is just where we are as reporters in 2024. 00:07:35.882 --> 00:07:41.782 I mean, candidates can decide to go and participate in forums where they're 00:07:41.782 --> 00:07:43.722 going to reach undecided voters. 00:07:44.022 --> 00:07:48.402 And those forums might not necessarily be traditional mainstream news interviews. 00:07:49.022 --> 00:07:53.542 And the only thing that we can, we can't force people to appear in our pages or on our air. 00:07:53.822 --> 00:07:56.762 The only thing we can do, I think, is kind of source up around the candidates 00:07:56.762 --> 00:07:59.662 and do the best job for digging out stories 00:07:59.662 --> 00:08:04.042 that don't rely on access yes i 00:08:04.042 --> 00:08:07.202 think the sort of infrastructure of 00:08:07.202 --> 00:08:10.022 news look i'm having this conversation with you 00:08:10.022 --> 00:08:13.282 you're in a grand newsroom at one of the great news institutions if 00:08:13.282 --> 00:08:18.062 not the great news institution of the world i'm a little independent podcaster 00:08:18.062 --> 00:08:23.762 newsletter writer and so i obviously have sympathy and full solidarity with 00:08:23.762 --> 00:08:29.482 my fellow indie news creators and i think that is an important part of helping 00:08:29.482 --> 00:08:31.242 the media industry thrive in 2024. 00:08:31.462 --> 00:08:34.342 You've done some excellent reporting on some of those people. 00:08:35.642 --> 00:08:42.642 But obviously, the major institutions do have a different kind of clout, or at least did. 00:08:44.628 --> 00:08:47.588 I think it is shifting. And the election did show that. 00:08:48.828 --> 00:08:55.688 Yeah, I mean, I think that's right. I think, you know, you can never get complacent 00:08:55.688 --> 00:08:59.528 and you should never assume that somebody is going to give an interview to you 00:08:59.528 --> 00:09:03.668 just because you work for an organization that has a lot of readers. 00:09:03.668 --> 00:09:09.808 I think they picked, if I'm reading the moment right, I think these candidates 00:09:09.808 --> 00:09:15.408 picked their audiences very carefully, you know, going on Call Her Daddy. 00:09:15.748 --> 00:09:20.388 That was a podcast that started at the Barstool Network, which, 00:09:20.588 --> 00:09:28.688 you know, I think is popular more so than organizations like, 00:09:28.788 --> 00:09:31.848 for example, NPR among conservative listeners. 00:09:31.848 --> 00:09:39.568 And so if you're looking to reach conservative or middle-of-the-road listeners, 00:09:39.928 --> 00:09:44.128 especially women who care about reproductive rights and who might be undecided. 00:09:44.768 --> 00:09:50.428 Call Her Daddy is a fantastic podcast to go on. 00:09:50.568 --> 00:09:55.608 So I think that the candidates are getting increasingly smart about where they choose to go on air. 00:09:56.088 --> 00:10:00.048 And mainstream news organizations just have to adapt, I think. 00:10:00.048 --> 00:10:05.488 I find it fascinating that I think there's an argument to have both to do both. 00:10:05.768 --> 00:10:09.508 But it seemed particularly in this sort of sprint to the line for this election, 00:10:09.948 --> 00:10:15.028 that when there was a 50 50 choice, do you go on NPR? Do you go and call her daddy? 00:10:15.268 --> 00:10:18.268 Do you go on Joe Rogan? It was call her daddy and Joe Rogan that won. 00:10:19.348 --> 00:10:22.048 Yeah i think so and i i guess it also 00:10:22.048 --> 00:10:25.228 depends on um whether your goal is to 00:10:25.228 --> 00:10:28.508 introduce yourself to the electorate or to sort of 00:10:28.508 --> 00:10:31.488 refine your policy prescriptions like i 00:10:31.488 --> 00:10:34.308 think one of the things that a mainstream news interview 00:10:34.308 --> 00:10:37.388 does is you'll be asked for specifics and 00:10:37.388 --> 00:10:40.188 you'll be grilled about your policy and it 00:10:40.188 --> 00:10:43.188 gives you an opportunity to underscore your bona fides 00:10:43.188 --> 00:10:45.888 um that is maybe not the kind 00:10:45.888 --> 00:10:48.788 of uh the the same context that 00:10:48.788 --> 00:10:52.008 you'll get on um an interview 00:10:52.008 --> 00:10:57.168 that's maybe lighter on policy so i think different types of interviews accomplish 00:10:57.168 --> 00:11:01.588 different goals for candidates yeah and look we've had similar things here with 00:11:01.588 --> 00:11:07.128 you know uh people going on breakfast shows instead of uh you know the more 00:11:07.128 --> 00:11:11.488 the tougher political news shows i mean we had one absurd thing, 00:11:12.788 --> 00:11:15.948 recently where Ed Bulls, who's the former Shadow Chancellor, 00:11:17.028 --> 00:11:20.448 lost his seat and is now a morning news presenter. 00:11:23.268 --> 00:11:29.028 His wife is the Home Secretary now. And she went on ITV this morning and was 00:11:29.028 --> 00:11:30.448 interviewed by her husband. 00:11:32.358 --> 00:11:36.338 Clearly absurd. I mean, they've dealt with it and it won't happen again. 00:11:36.518 --> 00:11:39.318 But the fact it was allowed to happen once is obviously absurd. 00:11:39.498 --> 00:11:41.698 So I'm not saying we are so much better here. 00:11:42.118 --> 00:11:49.858 But just to wrap up this bit, do you think then that the let's talk about the mainstream media, 00:11:49.858 --> 00:11:54.438 they did hold the candidates to account and push them as far as they could and 00:11:54.438 --> 00:11:58.658 reflect the state of the race accurately to the electorate? 00:11:59.878 --> 00:12:03.858 I think they did i mean you know 00:12:03.858 --> 00:12:06.858 you're never going to be able to predict the outcome 00:12:06.858 --> 00:12:10.238 of the with 100 certainty and i 00:12:10.238 --> 00:12:14.058 think people who are reading the polls you know 00:12:14.058 --> 00:12:18.458 have um you 00:12:18.458 --> 00:12:22.698 know i think they understand that um so yeah 00:12:22.698 --> 00:12:26.838 i i think i think they did okay well 00:12:26.838 --> 00:12:30.358 it'll be very interesting to see because there has been I 00:12:30.358 --> 00:12:33.438 mean after Trump there was a is it 00:12:33.438 --> 00:12:36.498 after the first Trump election and Brexit here in 00:12:36.498 --> 00:12:39.258 the UK there was a complete meltdown in newsrooms that thought 00:12:39.258 --> 00:12:43.498 they had totally missed major stories there 00:12:43.498 --> 00:12:46.918 that seems to have improved a bit 00:12:46.918 --> 00:12:50.498 in the UK and you seem to be saying that actually you think people 00:12:50.498 --> 00:12:53.258 have done a better job of filling those kind 00:12:53.258 --> 00:12:56.178 of you would call them fly over country voters you 00:12:56.178 --> 00:12:59.138 know the quote-unquote normal man and that 00:12:59.138 --> 00:13:03.678 seems to you think have got better yeah i 00:13:03.678 --> 00:13:13.078 think so i mean um i feel like what i'm trying to say is the polling indicated 00:13:13.078 --> 00:13:19.158 that the race was close yeah and the race was the race was close um it was yeah 00:13:19.158 --> 00:13:21.598 that And that is where I respectfully disagree with you. 00:13:21.718 --> 00:13:24.178 I think it doesn't feel as close. 00:13:24.858 --> 00:13:27.278 I think the way the closest it was 00:13:27.278 --> 00:13:32.518 described as, I'm not sure actually was reflected at the end of the day. 00:13:32.638 --> 00:13:36.518 But I may not quite understand the vagaries of your electoral system to the 00:13:36.518 --> 00:13:37.938 sophisticated level you do. 00:13:37.938 --> 00:13:44.338 I think if you were following the mainstream news coverage, you were expecting 00:13:44.338 --> 00:13:51.378 this race to be like the 2021 where it went on, wasn't decided till the weekend. 00:13:52.398 --> 00:13:56.118 By the time I woke up at seven o'clock in the morning, whatever it was, it was done. 00:13:57.889 --> 00:14:01.889 And I think that is that's really what I'm getting at. 00:14:02.889 --> 00:14:06.869 Yeah. I mean, my understanding is that there were people at the networks who 00:14:06.869 --> 00:14:15.729 were prepared for a week long ordeal of people talking about the election as as the votes came in. 00:14:16.169 --> 00:14:19.749 That ultimately did not happen. Obviously, we had our results the next day. 00:14:21.149 --> 00:14:24.809 But I guess what I'm saying is, you know, you can prepare for that eventuality. 00:14:24.809 --> 00:14:26.349 It's your responsibility to 00:14:26.349 --> 00:14:33.789 prepare for that eventuality, regardless of what the actual results are. 00:14:34.249 --> 00:14:38.549 Preparing for it is one thing, but the narrative being perpetuated seemed to 00:14:38.549 --> 00:14:39.789 me that that was going to be necessary. 00:14:40.249 --> 00:14:45.329 Anyway, I want to jump onto a couple of other things because there's obviously 00:14:45.329 --> 00:14:50.749 been lots of talk about the people around President-elect Trump in Mar-a-Lago. 00:14:52.449 --> 00:14:56.809 Obviously Elon Musk seems to be having a lovely time down there and won't, 00:14:56.949 --> 00:15:01.909 his app seems to be very comfortable in Florida but two more unexpected guests 00:15:01.909 --> 00:15:06.689 are Joe Scarborough and his partner Mika Brzezinski who obviously they're the 00:15:06.689 --> 00:15:11.469 presenters of MSNBC Morning Joe have been highly, 00:15:11.649 --> 00:15:18.069 highly critical of President Trump they were criticised, I think, 00:15:18.329 --> 00:15:21.849 the papers that pulled endorsements of Kamala Harris. Is that right? 00:15:22.069 --> 00:15:24.349 They were pretty unimpressed with that as well on air. 00:15:24.869 --> 00:15:28.389 And now we learn they've popped down to Mar-a-Lago as well. 00:15:29.849 --> 00:15:33.669 Yeah. As you pointed out, there were a couple of news organizations, 00:15:33.969 --> 00:15:38.789 including the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, that decided not to endorse Kamala Harris. 00:15:39.469 --> 00:15:44.249 I think the editorial boards of both organizations were planning on endorsing. 00:15:44.569 --> 00:15:47.589 So that was a shock 00:15:47.589 --> 00:15:50.749 to the system for those news organizations um the 00:15:50.749 --> 00:15:53.989 morning joe thing i think is is interesting and 00:15:53.989 --> 00:15:57.149 slightly different um they both uh mika 00:15:57.149 --> 00:16:00.229 and joe visited mar-a-lago and um 00:16:00.229 --> 00:16:03.009 i think they said that it was kind of the they were aiming to 00:16:03.009 --> 00:16:07.509 reset communications um so uh 00:16:07.509 --> 00:16:10.329 so yeah i i but i think they've 00:16:10.329 --> 00:16:13.529 been criticized by some people who are regular viewers 00:16:13.529 --> 00:16:16.829 of their program who saw them stridently critique 00:16:16.829 --> 00:16:19.629 president trump and who essentially see this as 00:16:19.629 --> 00:16:22.509 an abrupt about face yeah they said in 00:16:22.509 --> 00:16:25.449 response that you know it's their responsibility to to 00:16:25.449 --> 00:16:29.649 meet and talk to politicians which i think is a frankly perfectly reasonable 00:16:29.649 --> 00:16:35.149 argument there is something quite unsightly about these journalists sort of 00:16:35.149 --> 00:16:40.689 making the pilgrimage to florida but i think you know of a major morning breakfast 00:16:40.689 --> 00:16:45.109 show you sort of do have to have a line of communication with the incoming white house right yeah. 00:16:47.345 --> 00:16:54.525 Well, I mean, as journalists, it's their responsibility to meet with newsmakers like the president. 00:16:55.325 --> 00:17:02.345 I think if I were them, I would have been seeking an interview from this meeting. 00:17:02.345 --> 00:17:09.385 I think if if if you're able to communicate to your viewers a clear journalistic purpose, 00:17:09.405 --> 00:17:17.985 then you're better off in the long run, because I think if you don't, 00:17:18.045 --> 00:17:22.385 if you're unable to articulate like a clear journalistic purpose, then you don't. 00:17:22.885 --> 00:17:31.425 I think it's I think it's possible that viewers may sort of misinterpret what you're trying to do. 00:17:31.425 --> 00:17:34.885 Particularly at a partisan station like msnbc. 00:17:36.885 --> 00:17:39.705 Well i think everybody knows that you know 00:17:39.705 --> 00:17:42.465 morning joe is an opinion show and that's why people tune in 00:17:42.465 --> 00:17:47.205 because they want to hear what joe and mika think um and 00:17:47.205 --> 00:17:52.725 so uh yeah i i just think i just think it would have been better if they were 00:17:52.725 --> 00:17:57.725 if they were able to explain that they were looking for an interview um you 00:17:57.725 --> 00:18:02.605 wrote a really fascinating story right in the aftermath of the election about 00:18:02.605 --> 00:18:06.985 the so-called trump bump uh which happened the first time he was elected, 00:18:08.085 --> 00:18:15.345 um where he you know some newspaper subscriptions shot up tv viewing shot up you know people. 00:18:16.725 --> 00:18:19.425 News website visits shot up everyone was obsessed with 00:18:19.425 --> 00:18:23.925 the news weren't they when he was first elected yeah and 00:18:23.925 --> 00:18:27.585 your story makes the point that there's been obviously initial 00:18:27.585 --> 00:18:30.325 signs of that that happens straight away you know always in 00:18:30.325 --> 00:18:34.425 an election year we see that kind of thing go up as well yet the 00:18:34.425 --> 00:18:37.085 people you spoke to were not convinced it would 00:18:37.085 --> 00:18:40.125 last like it did the first time and everyone's basically a bit exhausted 00:18:40.125 --> 00:18:42.865 by the news yeah i think what 00:18:42.865 --> 00:18:45.585 we've seen so far since that story ran is there was 00:18:45.585 --> 00:18:49.365 a brief dip in viewership on msnbc 00:18:49.365 --> 00:18:52.845 and people moved to uh but i 00:18:52.845 --> 00:18:56.845 think fox news saw spike in viewership um i think as their viewers are kind 00:18:56.845 --> 00:18:59.325 of interested in some of these moves that's happened that are happening during 00:18:59.325 --> 00:19:04.865 the transition but since then i think msnbc's viewership has rebounded and um 00:19:04.865 --> 00:19:10.665 many news organizations including i think the the Guardian have reported an 00:19:10.665 --> 00:19:12.645 uptick in digital subscriptions. 00:19:13.105 --> 00:19:18.425 So I think we are kind of seeing a minor Trump bump 2.0. 00:19:19.105 --> 00:19:22.345 And do you think that, based on your conversation, do you think that will last 00:19:22.345 --> 00:19:25.585 the four years until the next election cycle? 00:19:26.804 --> 00:19:33.704 You know, I think all signs indicate that we're headed to a pretty high intensity news period. 00:19:34.084 --> 00:19:43.224 And if past this prologue, those kinds of those periods tend to be kind of, 00:19:43.364 --> 00:19:47.624 you know, a bonanza for digital subscriptions and viewership. 00:19:47.784 --> 00:19:53.244 So I definitely think that probably we're in for another spike before too long. 00:19:53.244 --> 00:19:58.304 Um in terms of exhaustion um i 00:19:58.304 --> 00:20:01.084 think you know we saw that immediately after the 00:20:01.084 --> 00:20:04.484 election um but i 00:20:04.484 --> 00:20:07.424 don't i don't see things getting any slower going forward 00:20:07.424 --> 00:20:10.464 well based on what's happened as he's uh 00:20:10.464 --> 00:20:13.484 picking tapping people to be in his cabinet uh and 00:20:13.484 --> 00:20:16.424 the level of coverage that's got uh i think 00:20:16.424 --> 00:20:20.244 you uh probably have a point there yeah yeah 00:20:20.244 --> 00:20:23.384 um it's been pretty intense you know 00:20:23.384 --> 00:20:27.644 depending on how this goes there could be a a fight in the senate over confirmation 00:20:27.644 --> 00:20:33.484 of some of these uh nominees like matt gates um so yeah i think and that presumably 00:20:33.484 --> 00:20:40.544 could be televised um we obviously have the inauguration coming up um in the 00:20:40.544 --> 00:20:43.164 wake of trump's election in. 00:20:44.904 --> 00:20:48.044 2016 god um you know 00:20:48.044 --> 00:20:52.284 there was uh yes it was eight years ago there were 00:20:52.284 --> 00:20:55.344 public demonstrations and those were televised so who 00:20:55.344 --> 00:20:58.704 knows what's going to happen yeah do you 00:20:58.704 --> 00:21:07.284 think from that experience eight years ago um the american media has learned 00:21:07.284 --> 00:21:11.944 or chosen to do coverage of trump 2.0 differently do you think we're going to 00:21:11.944 --> 00:21:15.564 see different kinds of coverage once he enters that re-enters the Oval Office. 00:21:17.577 --> 00:21:24.337 Um, that's a good question. I think, um, you know, one, uh, point that has been 00:21:24.337 --> 00:21:29.957 made to me is that the media is more used to covering, uh, president elect Trump 00:21:29.957 --> 00:21:31.037 than they were eight years ago. 00:21:31.237 --> 00:21:34.297 It used to be that when president Trump would tweet something, 00:21:34.317 --> 00:21:38.977 um, it would immediately be written up, um, kind of by everybody. 00:21:38.977 --> 00:21:42.137 And sort of we all sort of took that as a 00:21:42.137 --> 00:21:45.337 public policy um and also uh 00:21:45.337 --> 00:21:48.057 you know there was i think a 00:21:48.057 --> 00:21:51.357 tendency especially during the run-up to the 2016 election to 00:21:51.357 --> 00:21:54.257 put him on tv even even before he 00:21:54.257 --> 00:21:57.557 appeared on stage they would put his podium on tv and i 00:21:57.557 --> 00:22:00.257 think um i think that was 00:22:00.257 --> 00:22:03.177 sort of curtailed this time around so i think 00:22:03.177 --> 00:22:06.237 uh generally speaking the press is getting better 00:22:06.237 --> 00:22:09.277 at covering sort of the the stakes rather 00:22:09.277 --> 00:22:12.037 than the odds as uh jay rosen is 00:22:12.037 --> 00:22:15.697 fond of saying um but um but 00:22:15.697 --> 00:22:18.397 yeah so i think probably that'll be the approach is to sort of 00:22:18.397 --> 00:22:24.377 like dig deep and focus more on what's actually going on than um you know what's 00:22:24.377 --> 00:22:29.997 just being discussed or what's appearing on social media yeah although elon 00:22:29.997 --> 00:22:35.957 musk is trying his very best to keep uh the latter going but it's uh Yes, 00:22:36.137 --> 00:22:38.257 I think I would like to think you're right. 00:22:38.357 --> 00:22:44.557 And obviously, we saw things even like the way Trump's rallies and debates were 00:22:44.557 --> 00:22:50.017 kind of attempted at least to be fact checked was different this time around, wasn't it? 00:22:51.077 --> 00:22:58.617 Yeah, definitely. The 2024 election was very much focused on fact checking. Yeah, it really was. 00:23:00.237 --> 00:23:03.637 It's been fascinating watching it from the other side of the world. 00:23:03.817 --> 00:23:09.417 I jumped around a few different stations on election night, as I'm sure you did. 00:23:09.697 --> 00:23:14.757 The one that I was most fascinated by was Brian Williams on Amazon Prime Video. 00:23:15.417 --> 00:23:21.517 How did that go? Do you think we're going to see them doing more major news events going forward? 00:23:21.517 --> 00:23:27.077 I haven't seen any reporting on whether amazon was happy about that no i haven't, 00:23:27.757 --> 00:23:32.757 but it seems like it it went off without a hitch i mean it seems like you know 00:23:32.757 --> 00:23:37.877 people enjoyed watching him he was such a beloved presence on american tv that 00:23:37.877 --> 00:23:42.857 i think people were just happy to see him you know pop up again on amazon um 00:23:42.857 --> 00:23:47.197 but i actually don't know what amazon actually wants to do long-term with its news. 00:23:47.757 --> 00:23:51.077 It's interesting. I feel like if it had been a huge, huge success, 00:23:51.077 --> 00:23:53.157 we might have heard a lot more about it. 00:23:53.357 --> 00:23:59.797 The fact that they've been quiet in the aftermath indicates to me maybe they weren't so happy. Yeah. 00:24:00.473 --> 00:24:06.233 That might be a bit unfair. They say real G's move in silence like lasagna. 00:24:07.333 --> 00:24:08.793 So maybe they're just... 00:24:10.293 --> 00:24:17.913 It's a rap lyric. Right. But it's possible that, you know, that maybe they do have plans to do more. 00:24:18.033 --> 00:24:22.753 They're just not public about them yet. I think it would be fascinating to see 00:24:22.753 --> 00:24:27.113 these kind of streaming services move into that space. 00:24:27.113 --> 00:24:31.833 It was a very funny thing because here in the UK, they have rights to the Champions 00:24:31.833 --> 00:24:36.153 League football as well, which is always on a – they have a game every Tuesday 00:24:36.153 --> 00:24:38.353 night in Europe's major football competition. 00:24:38.513 --> 00:24:45.073 So when I turned on the Prime Video app, next to each other was live football and live news. 00:24:45.413 --> 00:24:50.433 I was a bit like, ah, feels kind of like a cable channel, right? 00:24:51.333 --> 00:24:55.333 You know, to your point, I was watching a movie on Prime, like an old movie 00:24:55.333 --> 00:24:56.633 on Prime Video the other day. 00:24:56.633 --> 00:25:00.173 And during the commercial breaks they 00:25:00.173 --> 00:25:03.513 said um if you like this you'll 00:25:03.513 --> 00:25:06.433 like and then they gave me a feed of a bunch of the commercial 00:25:06.433 --> 00:25:09.133 was for a bunch of streaming news apps like from 00:25:09.133 --> 00:25:15.733 abc and nbc and cbs so i bet what they did was they advertised to news viewers 00:25:15.733 --> 00:25:19.973 that night uh free streaming channels that they could get through prime video 00:25:19.973 --> 00:25:24.293 and i think they're probably trying to capture that audience which presumably 00:25:24.293 --> 00:25:26.773 is valuable yeah i mean there's some good stuff, 00:25:27.353 --> 00:25:30.173 buried within prime video as well as all the you know 00:25:30.173 --> 00:25:33.233 the free live tv but it just struck me as being quite funny 00:25:33.233 --> 00:25:36.333 that suddenly uh you know having been determined to 00:25:36.333 --> 00:25:39.153 break this kind of traditional model the thing 00:25:39.153 --> 00:25:41.973 that prime was going big on that tuesday night in november was 00:25:41.973 --> 00:25:45.873 live sport and live news yeah yeah 00:25:45.873 --> 00:25:48.753 i mean we've seen like i think netflix getting more 00:25:48.753 --> 00:25:51.513 and more into live that's the one that really we're not going to talk 00:25:51.513 --> 00:25:54.273 about jake paul and mike tyson we can 00:25:54.273 --> 00:25:58.093 we can do it we don't have to do it to ourselves it's okay um 00:25:58.093 --> 00:26:01.073 but i guess i wonder like you know would they consider 00:26:01.073 --> 00:26:04.993 doing a new show so far it seems like they haven't been interested but they 00:26:04.993 --> 00:26:08.993 kind of have gone close with that that live special they did a comedy special 00:26:08.993 --> 00:26:14.033 yeah um i think it's only a matter of time that's my guess okay do you so do 00:26:14.033 --> 00:26:18.433 you think this election was amazon and dipping their toes in the water a little bit. 00:26:19.273 --> 00:26:24.733 It for sure was. It just seems to me everything else, including advertising, 00:26:24.973 --> 00:26:25.973 has migrated to streaming. 00:26:26.733 --> 00:26:30.933 Why wouldn't news migrate to one of the big streamers? To me, 00:26:31.013 --> 00:26:33.693 it just seems like... Because it's a pain in the ass to do. 00:26:34.898 --> 00:26:40.078 Well, that is true. It is a pain in the ass, but it's also kind of an important part of the bundle. 00:26:40.418 --> 00:26:47.478 I mean, CNN and MSNBC, I think, have pretty high subscription rates per subscriber on cable. 00:26:47.758 --> 00:26:49.898 So then presumably it has some value. 00:26:50.318 --> 00:26:53.998 So I'm sure before long we're going to see it on one of those places. 00:26:54.958 --> 00:27:01.678 It's fascinating. And I think as the second Trump era comes fully in, 00:27:01.838 --> 00:27:03.718 you and I are going to have lots to talk about. 00:27:03.718 --> 00:27:07.118 So I'm really, really grateful for you taking the time in this really busy period 00:27:07.118 --> 00:27:12.118 to come and talk to me about everything that has been going on in the U.S. and U.S. media. 00:27:12.218 --> 00:27:17.458 And these crazy, I mean, it's only been, what, three weeks, two and a half weeks or something. 00:27:18.498 --> 00:27:21.698 It feels like two months. And the rest. 00:27:21.838 --> 00:27:27.238 I mean, goodness, it's we've got a lot more to look forward to. 00:27:27.358 --> 00:27:28.698 Is that the expression? I'm not sure. 00:27:28.938 --> 00:27:32.298 We'll certainly be keeping busy. Ben, as you report on all this, 00:27:32.418 --> 00:27:33.378 where can people keep up with you? 00:27:33.718 --> 00:27:37.178 Uh i am on x 00:27:37.178 --> 00:27:40.838 at ben mullen i'm also on blue sky and threads 00:27:40.838 --> 00:27:43.698 uh at that same handle and you can read 00:27:43.698 --> 00:27:47.218 all my reporting if you have a new york times subscription very 00:27:47.218 --> 00:27:51.658 good i'm at charlotte a henry across those social media platforms and others 00:27:51.658 --> 00:27:56.558 uh if you're listening to this i hope you are subscribed to the edition at the 00:27:56.558 --> 00:28:01.718 edition.net um please take out a pay subscription it really helps keep the show 00:28:01.718 --> 00:28:07.078 on the road in all senses and it really means a lot to me if people can convert, 00:28:07.998 --> 00:28:12.658 into paid supporters of this it helps us fight the good fight of independent 00:28:12.658 --> 00:28:16.318 media so thank you so much for listening ben thank you once again for being 00:28:16.318 --> 00:28:18.058 on the show and i'll see you all soon. 00:28:18.480 --> 00:28:26.950 Music.