Speaker 1: Good morning, peeps, and welcome to Okay f Daily with
Speaker 1: Meet your Girl, Danielle Moody, recording from the Home Bunker. Folks,
Speaker 1: there is not often that there are things that are
Speaker 1: in the news that are good. Right, we marinate and
Speaker 1: a lot of misery up in these parts, and so
Speaker 1: when something good finally happens, I want to elevate it
Speaker 1: and I want to start with it, which is that
Speaker 1: finally there seems to be somebody that is awake at
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice. Why do I say that, because
Speaker 1: the four officers that were involved in the murder of
Speaker 1: Brianna Taylor are being charged with federal crimes. It is
Speaker 1: taken way too fucking long to get to this place
Speaker 1: to arrest the officers that would storm into Brianna Taylor's home.
Speaker 1: I have so many I got Brittany Grinder coming up
Speaker 1: in my mind. I got Brianna Taylor in my head.
Speaker 1: But with Brianna, people were in the streets. People have
Speaker 1: been in the streets, people have been asking, begging, fighting
Speaker 1: for those officers that would barge into her home, break
Speaker 1: into her home in the middle of the night while
Speaker 1: she was sleeping, and kill her in her sleep. Right,
Speaker 1: we watch the trial where it was, oh, no one's
Speaker 1: at fault here. Police just get to walk in, kill somebody,
Speaker 1: walk out, and no one is held accountable. Yes, the
Speaker 1: family did receive millions of dollars in her settlement, but
Speaker 1: what does that do when your twenty something year old
Speaker 1: daughter is murdered in her sleep for no other reason
Speaker 1: than what being in the right place at the wrong time,
Speaker 1: and again, no fucking accountability. Well, the Department of Justice
Speaker 1: has finally stepped in and the Department of Justice has
Speaker 1: finally brought charges against the four officers that were involved
Speaker 1: in her murder. Several of them were dismissed, and they
Speaker 1: were dismissed back in twenty twenty and twenty twenty one
Speaker 1: from the force. But we know what happens in this
Speaker 1: blue fraternity is that you know, you can kill somebody
Speaker 1: in one town, one state, and get to go and
Speaker 1: move over to the next place and kill some more people. Right,
Speaker 1: That's how it works. And so the federal government finally
Speaker 1: deciding to bring charges after a long, long aggravated weight
Speaker 1: is something that I will applaud and we will continue
Speaker 1: to watch and see what happens. But this is what
Speaker 1: accountability looks like, I just wish it came quicker speaking
Speaker 1: of accountability Alex Jones's piece of shit ass and his
Speaker 1: stupid fucking lawyers. But I don't know if they're stupid
Speaker 1: or they were just sending over all of the contents
Speaker 1: of his phone over the last two years to a
Speaker 1: posting counsel because they were then going to try and
Speaker 1: push for a mistrial, or they are really that dumb.
Speaker 1: But after about I think a little over an hour
Speaker 1: of deliberation, they the jury has come back with four
Speaker 1: million dollars so far in damages for the family that
Speaker 1: brought Alex Jones to trial. And let me say this,
Speaker 1: Sandy Hook happened ten years ago, so I just like
Speaker 1: their child that Alex Jones and all of the children
Speaker 1: of Sandy Hook would be teenagers now, They would be
Speaker 1: in high school now, and this man is only now
Speaker 1: going to trial for years of fucking lies, conspiracy theories
Speaker 1: putting their lives at steak because of his rabid, fucking
Speaker 1: hopped up KKK bullshit white supremacy, white frail male base
Speaker 1: that would take his words and go and try and
Speaker 1: attack those families. So far, four million dollars they're asking
Speaker 1: for a hundred and fifty million, and we will see
Speaker 1: what this sum total comes out to. But I gotta
Speaker 1: say this, and I said this on Twitter the other day.
Speaker 1: Do you know that that motherfucker is making eight hundred
Speaker 1: thousand dollars a day selling tubs of survival food and
Speaker 1: like gun paraphernalia. Who knew that white supremacy and male
Speaker 1: fragility were so fucking lucrative? My god, did I go
Speaker 1: into the wrong line of work when all I had
Speaker 1: to do was slap a sticker on this on a
Speaker 1: tub of Kraft macaroni and cheese and say that it's
Speaker 1: survival food and sell it to a bunch of idiots
Speaker 1: hunkered down in their like gun sheds. I had no idea.
Speaker 1: Now to terrible news, which is that of Britney Griner.
Speaker 1: Britney Griner was found guilty in the sham trial that
Speaker 1: Russia put together and sentenced her to nine years in
Speaker 1: prison with criminal intent because sure, you have remnants of
Speaker 1: marijuana in a vape that you have a prescription for
Speaker 1: from a doctor, and that's criminal intent. I mean, Russia
Speaker 1: is a fucking terrorist state, and I just wish that
Speaker 1: they were pulled out of every single fucking G seven,
Speaker 1: G eight, every single type of group, like, can we
Speaker 1: just stop legitimizing the country of Russia? Can we stop
Speaker 1: legitimizing Putin? Can we just give them whatever fucking criminals
Speaker 1: they want back so that we can get our people home?
Speaker 1: Can we stop with the bullshit like we think that
Speaker 1: we're punishing Russia for something and just give them whatever
Speaker 1: prisoners they want in exchange for the Americans that they're
Speaker 1: holding hostage. Right, And you know, I'll say this that
Speaker 1: there was an artist who said after they heard the
Speaker 1: sentencing come down, that said, you know, I guarantee you
Speaker 1: that if this were Taylor fucking Swift, if this were
Speaker 1: you know, any white NFL star, or white NBA star
Speaker 1: or a white superstar, that America would have done more
Speaker 1: right from the fucking jump. There would have been campaigns,
Speaker 1: and there would have been this, that and the other thing.
Speaker 1: But for Brittany Griner, for some reason, we were all
Speaker 1: told not to march, to stay silent, and that oh
Speaker 1: America was going to do the work. But it wasn't
Speaker 1: until people got in the streets and kept putting her
Speaker 1: name in their mouths. Did this federal government, did this
Speaker 1: administration decide to act so you know what I will
Speaker 1: tell people is that like this is not fucking done right.
Speaker 1: And I heeded the initial warnings of you know, we'll
Speaker 1: do more harm than good than bring attention to this
Speaker 1: fuck that Britney Grinder should be home, right, Britney Griner
Speaker 1: should not be a fucking hostage of Russia on some
Speaker 1: trumped up bullshit. As a matter of fact, Britney Grinder
Speaker 1: should have never had to go to Russia in the
Speaker 1: first fucking place to play ball in the offseason to
Speaker 1: be able to provide for her family because the w
Speaker 1: NBA should be paying on par what the fucking NBA pays.
Speaker 1: How about women deserve to be paid the same. And
Speaker 1: I know that the Women Soccer League just fucking won
Speaker 1: their case, right, the same case that Serena Williams and
Speaker 1: Venus Williams brought against Tennis. If Britty Griner had been
Speaker 1: treated like the NBA players, she wouldn't have been fucking abroad.
Speaker 1: This case makes me sick. It makes me sick to
Speaker 1: my stomach to think about a black, queer woman being
Speaker 1: held in fucking Russia, in a country that hates black
Speaker 1: people and hates gay people, and she embodies both. So
Speaker 1: if you are a praying person, please pray for her.
Speaker 1: If you are a person that will call your representatives
Speaker 1: and say that you want pressure right on this fucking
Speaker 1: administration to do everything and anything that they can, please
Speaker 1: do that this should have never come to pass. My
Speaker 1: heart is broken for her and her family, and I
Speaker 1: hope that years will not pass before Brittany's body and
Speaker 1: mind is broken by this barbaric, fucking country, before she's
Speaker 1: able to come home. Coming up next, my Dear friends,
Speaker 1: is a conversation that I think is really interesting with
Speaker 1: a Kaivan Stroff, who we've had on the show before
Speaker 1: and has done a capstone research project at Harvard on
Speaker 1: what he deems as the trifecta that is happening in
Speaker 1: journalism and modern media right now and where the breakdown
Speaker 1: has come in terms of the Fourth Estate turning into
Speaker 1: nothing more than reality TV filled with stars that want
Speaker 1: to line their own pockets. So we get in to
Speaker 1: that conversation with our friend Kaivan Stroff. Coming up next, Hey,
Speaker 1: I'm David. Plots of Slaves Political Gabfest. As another election
Speaker 1: season accelerates, it can be tricky to sort through all
Speaker 1: the noise and the news Each week on The gap Fest,
Speaker 1: John Dickerson, Emily Bathlon and I decipher the headlines, break
Speaker 1: down the races, and tell you what issues really matter.
Speaker 1: We do not always agree, We definitely do not always agree,
Speaker 1: but we always deliver thoughtful debate and we always have
Speaker 1: a good time. So subscribe to Slate's Political Gapfest. New
Speaker 1: episodes every Thursday. Get up behind the scenes look at
Speaker 1: Comedy Central's The Daily Show on Beyond the Scenes, an
Speaker 1: original podcast from the Daily Show with Trevor Noah. Every week,
Speaker 1: host Roy Wood Junior goes deeper with the notable guests
Speaker 1: and experts from the Emmy Award winning series. Together, they
Speaker 1: use comedy to tackle current topics from gentrification to gun
Speaker 1: laws and take a closer look at how and why
Speaker 1: these topics matter. Listen to Beyond the Scenes from The
Speaker 1: Daily Show with Trevor Noah on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast,
Speaker 1: or wherever you get your podcast. New episodes every Tuesday. Folks.
Speaker 1: I am very happy to welcome back to Woke f
Speaker 1: Daily Kivan Schroff, who is a Democratic commentator and has
Speaker 1: done an amazing Capstone. I believe it's at Harvard, so
Speaker 1: no dummy here on the trifecta of bad incentives facing
Speaker 1: modern journalism. And I think that it's such a wonderful
Speaker 1: time to have this conversation because the question that I
Speaker 1: keep asking is has anybody learned anything over the last
Speaker 1: four years? Did anybody learn anything during the Trump era?
Speaker 1: So Kivan talked to talk to us about this capstone
Speaker 1: and why you decided to make this the topic. Absolutely So.
Speaker 1: I was in on a joint law and policy program
Speaker 1: at Harvard, and our challenge was to pick an extensive
Speaker 1: research topic that posed a public problem today, and I
Speaker 1: couldn't think of a more appropriate topic. I personally do
Speaker 1: a lot on social media on Twitter, getting into TikTok
Speaker 1: as I know you are as well, Yes, And I
Speaker 1: think one thing that we've seen just as sort of
Speaker 1: there's been public backlash in the market when certain businesses,
Speaker 1: you know, engage in unethical, inappropriate behaviors, because consumers have
Speaker 1: finally learned the power that they have together when they
Speaker 1: organize like that on Twitter to boycott or something like that.
Speaker 1: There's also been similar backlash two journalists who have really
Speaker 1: dropped the ball in these recent years, again and again
Speaker 1: and again. And I think at first there was this
Speaker 1: question of whether it was out of incompetence or a
Speaker 1: lack of ability. I mean, I do think there's a
Speaker 1: people problem, for sure, but I think that there's also
Speaker 1: a structural problem where the incentives facing journalists today have
Speaker 1: totally shifted priorities away from truthtelling and informing the American
Speaker 1: people and to these three you know, overarching incentives that
Speaker 1: I call it the trifecta of bad incentives, and that
Speaker 1: is social media, fame, cable news hits, and book deals,
Speaker 1: and all three of those incentives work together to sort
Speaker 1: of push first of all, to draw people into the
Speaker 1: profession that are more interested in being an influencer and
Speaker 1: a journalist, and then to in really problematic behaviors, I think,
Speaker 1: to achieve those ends at the cost of truth telling
Speaker 1: and sort of maintaining a reputation with the public. Um.
Speaker 1: So that is sort of the you know, the project,
Speaker 1: it's it's it's all, you know, because when you think
Speaker 1: about journalism, right, like the advent of journalism and the
Speaker 1: importance behind it is that it was considered the fourth estate, right,
Speaker 1: it was considered you know, this this um this through
Speaker 1: way for the American people to be able to understand
Speaker 1: better the world around them, how their government works, how
Speaker 1: society works, and their function within and what has happened
Speaker 1: right by virtue And I remember doing a podcast about this,
Speaker 1: like I would say probably eight years ago where I was,
Speaker 1: I would know maybe ten years ago. I was watching
Speaker 1: the rise of reality TV and at the same time
Speaker 1: watching the shift that was happening with news, right, and
Speaker 1: I said, there is there isn't going to be this
Speaker 1: clear divide anymore between this reality TV antics, right, and
Speaker 1: what is supposed to be actual news, what is supposed
Speaker 1: to be journalism. And so did you see that confluence
Speaker 1: as well, like with how how we see TV these
Speaker 1: days and caricatures of people one hundred percent? And I
Speaker 1: think last time I was on the show, I was mentioning,
Speaker 1: you know, I think like I looked to platforms like
Speaker 1: RuPaul's Drag Race and The Housewives and all those reality
Speaker 1: shows are absolutely sort of leading on how to effectively
Speaker 1: build an audience and communicate and you can use those
Speaker 1: tools for good and evil, And we're seeing it done,
Speaker 1: you know, for evil by a lot on sort certainly
Speaker 1: the right. But I think also we're seeing journalists engage
Speaker 1: like this and Taylor Lawrence, who's like a prominent reporter
Speaker 1: at the Washington Post that covers influencers has said, you
Speaker 1: know that her she sees media headed to be much
Speaker 1: more distributed personalities instead of sort of these mainstream networks
Speaker 1: that we're so used to. But what comes with that
Speaker 1: is a whole lot of subjectivity that you know, sort
Speaker 1: of obscures objective fact and truthfulness. And I think what
Speaker 1: we're seeing from mainstream prominent journalists is that they are
Speaker 1: accelerating us to that outcome way before we are ready
Speaker 1: for it, you know, And I think so on social
Speaker 1: media prong of this trifecta, there's three behaviors that I
Speaker 1: think we see, and you know, anyone that's online, I
Speaker 1: think can identify at least one or two prominent reporters
Speaker 1: that stand out. But there's hundreds of people engaging this way, right,
Speaker 1: So there's the blurring of lines between professional and personal
Speaker 1: social media, which makes sense because a lot of times
Speaker 1: these reporters are verified because they're a New York Times reporter,
Speaker 1: they have hundreds of thousand followers because of their role,
Speaker 1: and then they're pivoting to tweet every take that would
Speaker 1: never get by an editor that they have no experience
Speaker 1: or background to be commenting on, but it's sort of
Speaker 1: elevated because it's on this larger platform with hundreds of
Speaker 1: thousands of followers that people are following for the news,
Speaker 1: not for Dave Whitegel's you know, racist jokes or you know,
Speaker 1: bad food takes, those types of things. I think, you know,
Speaker 1: that was one episode that stands out, but everybody seeing
Speaker 1: that every week we're seeing, whether it's a Maggie Habermid
Speaker 1: episode or Dave white Gel or you know, I'm sure
Speaker 1: you know more conservative people felt that way about Jim Acosta,
Speaker 1: but every day we're seeing these media figures center themselves
Speaker 1: instead of just focus on communicating important information to the
Speaker 1: American people. That's one. Then two right, there's this direct
Speaker 1: backlash between journalists that get called out then by people
Speaker 1: like you and me and regular news consumers, and then
Speaker 1: they're fighting in public suddenly with people that are supposed to,
Speaker 1: you know, the next day read their recording and feel
Speaker 1: its subjective and trustworthy and truthful, and it's it's incredibly unprofessional.
Speaker 1: But again it's it's moving us faster on that timeline
Speaker 1: towards partisan news. And then finally, you know, I think
Speaker 1: we all see different reporters try to go viral. I
Speaker 1: don't know if this has happened to you, but I've
Speaker 1: had a lot of people, you know, try to DM
Speaker 1: me their stories and things like that, which, again, like,
Speaker 1: if it's good work, I'm happy to amplify it. I'm
Speaker 1: on Twitter all days, so I'm seeing it. But there
Speaker 1: is that sort of questionable issue of blake. Why are
Speaker 1: journalists in the dms of you know, social media people
Speaker 1: asking them to plug their reporting it again, it creates
Speaker 1: a perverse incentive there when you're then going to cover
Speaker 1: that person or something like that. So you know, it's
Speaker 1: funny because for me, you know, people have always confused
Speaker 1: me and said that I was a journalist and I'm not, right, Like,
Speaker 1: I'm actually very clear about the fact that I did
Speaker 1: not go to school for journalism. I'm not a journalist.
Speaker 1: I'm actually an opinionator. And there is a difference, right
Speaker 1: Like I come from a place that is not neutral,
Speaker 1: right Like, I come from a place that is and
Speaker 1: I and I try for the people that listen to me,
Speaker 1: that read, you know, my work, like I try and
Speaker 1: make that very clear, like um, because I want folks
Speaker 1: to understand that there is a line there was a
Speaker 1: line anyway between what it was considered opinions, right, like
Speaker 1: you being asked to write a piece from your vantage
Speaker 1: point versus somebody who is employed by a Washington Post
Speaker 1: in New York Times where they're not employed as an
Speaker 1: opinion writer, they're employed as a reporter. And that you know,
Speaker 1: so I just want you again for folks who are
Speaker 1: not necessarily in the minutia to understand the distinctions between
Speaker 1: those things. Yeah, and then you know, sort of so
Speaker 1: the next player, of course, and these all sort of
Speaker 1: operate together, but the order doesn't really matter. Is you
Speaker 1: want to have a lot of social media followers because
Speaker 1: that's going to get you on cable news and get
Speaker 1: you a book deal, which a lot of these journalists
Speaker 1: want a book deal. That's like considered sort of like
Speaker 1: you know, a major career goal. And especially when you
Speaker 1: go to the White House Press Corps and you know,
Speaker 1: you're sort of immediately incentivized to create this reality television
Speaker 1: as you noted, because the minute you do that, you're
Speaker 1: going to be covered across network news. They might invite
Speaker 1: you on a show to talk about the viral moment.
Speaker 1: And so again, you know what in the Trump era,
Speaker 1: it's a little hard to disaggregate what was appropriate journalism
Speaker 1: standing up to a really corrupt leader. And there were
Speaker 1: some great moments, really brave moments from journalists. But you know,
Speaker 1: then we see under Biden somebody like you know, do
Speaker 1: Sye there, who's literally just exists to troll, create viral moments,
Speaker 1: get Twitter traction, and I saw, like really concerning there's
Speaker 1: a lot of buy it, I think across the industry
Speaker 1: from this approach. Eric Wempel, who's you know again, a
Speaker 1: prominent media critic for The Washington Post, basically said of
Speaker 1: Doucy's trolling, you know, that's his job to get, you know,
Speaker 1: to elicit sort of anger and reaction from President Biden.
Speaker 1: And I actually just fundamentally disagree. I don't think that
Speaker 1: the American people are sitting there watching these sort of
Speaker 1: exchanges hoping for drama that you have reality TV if
Speaker 1: you want to watch that. People want rectation, and so
Speaker 1: the incentive to go fight with Biden or catch him
Speaker 1: off guard, or you know, any leader that's not actually
Speaker 1: prioritizing truth, you know, asking those follow up questions they
Speaker 1: never seem to ask to any buddy when they come
Speaker 1: on their show that's about truth seeking, you know, So
Speaker 1: I think that's another incentive. And then, of course the
Speaker 1: book deals as we've all seen, not only is there
Speaker 1: the issue of self promotion, where if I'm following Jake
Speaker 1: Chapper because I want to know breaking news because he
Speaker 1: has special access, then I got to see him plug
Speaker 1: his book every fifth tweet, like or plug a Collie's book, right,
Speaker 1: Like that's like, that's sort of a perverse incentive because
Speaker 1: we know, as we just default know that salespeople are
Speaker 1: not objective, and we want our journalists to be objective.
Speaker 1: So if you're hawking a book to me every five seconds,
Speaker 1: of course I'm going to think, well, maybe you're, you know,
Speaker 1: positioning yourself whether on what you cover or how you
Speaker 1: cover it, to sell this book more than you know,
Speaker 1: to tell the truth to the American people. And because
Speaker 1: again these things are all interrelated, we see people saving
Speaker 1: those scoops, whether it's Maggie Haberman or Bob Woodwork or
Speaker 1: you know those two New York Times. Oh yeah, Mark right, right,
Speaker 1: Bob Boardward couldn't let us all know about COVID, right,
Speaker 1: And what Donald Trump had said about COVID in December
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen when he was interviewing him for his book Fear,
Speaker 1: but he would hold that information when Donald Trump told him, oh,
Speaker 1: this is some really bad stuff. It's worse than the flu.
Speaker 1: It's airborne, and he would hold that until he was
Speaker 1: ready to release his book months. I mean literally, it's
Speaker 1: not too dramatic to say life's gonna you know, been
Speaker 1: saved because of that. Yeah. Absolutely, And again like why
Speaker 1: are they doing that? Because you need to have something
Speaker 1: newsworthy so that when you go on cable news months
Speaker 1: later after you submitted your book, you have something that
Speaker 1: you know is going to drive the news cycle because
Speaker 1: even though not that many people are watching cable news relatively,
Speaker 1: that is still what drives a lot of book sales.
Speaker 1: So it's all related, and again it's not part of
Speaker 1: that puzzle is informing the American people, you know, at
Speaker 1: this crisis moment for democracy and a crisis moment of
Speaker 1: course relatedly for the media industry, which you know, I
Speaker 1: think is sort of imploding. We're seeing. So so let
Speaker 1: me let me ask you this because it's something that
Speaker 1: I find that I have found very troubling throughout my
Speaker 1: career in media, which is, you know, we look at
Speaker 1: the types of stories, and I'm particularly talking about cable
Speaker 1: news right now, So we look at the type of
Speaker 1: stories that make it into segments, that make it into shows,
Speaker 1: and you know, I know by virtue of being inside
Speaker 1: these places that these newsrooms do not look like me right,
Speaker 1: that they are filled still still just sprinklings of people
Speaker 1: of color and sprinkling of women or non binary folks
Speaker 1: like as sprinkling, it is mostly still white men that
Speaker 1: get to make new decisions. And because they come from
Speaker 1: this vantage point though of quote unquote neutrality, there has
Speaker 1: been this discrimination towards people of color, towards queer people,
Speaker 1: towards women, about us not being able to be quote
Speaker 1: unquote neutral or objective because we embody some of the
Speaker 1: same demographics as the stories that we're covering. What do
Speaker 1: you say to that, Because to me, I'm like, there's
Speaker 1: a difference between being objective, being neutral, right, and also
Speaker 1: just being honest. And the fact that white men have
Speaker 1: always been the ones to have been said are the
Speaker 1: ones that can be neutral absolutely, So it's such a
Speaker 1: good point, and I think, like to your point, you know,
Speaker 1: people that defend the status quo often like to you know,
Speaker 1: sort of do that under the guise of being neutral.
Speaker 1: But the status quo is not neutral. It has all
Speaker 1: the history behind it, right that led up to that moment,
Speaker 1: to all the points you just made. I think one
Speaker 1: interesting thing. So in my research, I sort of started
Speaker 1: off with a deep dive into the history of journalism
Speaker 1: in America and you know, trace it to how we
Speaker 1: got to this moment, and what you bring up comes
Speaker 1: up in sort of you know, recent decades of journalists
Speaker 1: understanding the pitfalls of you know, it's impossible to actually
Speaker 1: be objective, and of course you're coming from a perspective,
Speaker 1: and often that perspective we know is you know, disproportionately
Speaker 1: white and male. Um. But that doesn't mean that we
Speaker 1: throw out the project of objective truth telling all together,
Speaker 1: because I think the added value the journalists should be
Speaker 1: bringing is not They're sort of subjective. This is my
Speaker 1: background experience that I'm sort of super imposing on the news,
Speaker 1: but it should be. I'm somebody that's spent ten years
Speaker 1: covering Capitol Hill. I know, within the bounds of reason,
Speaker 1: this is normal behavior. And I'm using that objective experience
Speaker 1: that's personal too, because it's my experience to say this
Speaker 1: was outrageous or to say this was a huge deviation, right, Like,
Speaker 1: those are the types of ways that you can sort
Speaker 1: of still be objective and of course bring that experience in,
Speaker 1: but it's the useful, relevant experience and not you know,
Speaker 1: random and appropriate experience. So I think that's a huge issue.
Speaker 1: And I think again, like not solving that diversity issue
Speaker 1: is so huge because it's been years now, and you know,
Speaker 1: I still still people complaining about like, oh I can't
Speaker 1: get like a a young white man's never going to
Speaker 1: get a book published again. It's like I don't right,
Speaker 1: Like I don't know if you've seen those viral tweets
Speaker 1: from people but like this, like crying about how their
Speaker 1: editors are like, oh, yeah, we'll never give this a chance. Like,
Speaker 1: I don't think that's objectively true. If you go look
Speaker 1: at the New York Times bestseller lists, right, I think
Speaker 1: there's a lot of invasion first. Yeah, yeah, that white
Speaker 1: men are hurting same in journalism, you know, Like I
Speaker 1: was able to speak with some prominent reporters for this work,
Speaker 1: and they say that they care a lot about the
Speaker 1: issues of diversity and inclusion. Everything we see going forward
Speaker 1: doesn't seem to match that. If you ask those people
Speaker 1: to follow up and say, okay, so what procedures do
Speaker 1: you have in place? They don't have the answer that
Speaker 1: they're looking at it with that in mind, I guess,
Speaker 1: but they don't have the lived experience necessarily to do
Speaker 1: a good job. And we've seen that over and over
Speaker 1: in the coverage of Vice President Harris, who I think
Speaker 1: has been extraordinarily disrespected, treated much a double standard, and
Speaker 1: it's almost just normal. And again, because you have this
Speaker 1: critical mass of media leadership that is not diverse, they
Speaker 1: all defend each other. So they're never gonna say, yes,
Speaker 1: we mistreat did Paumala Harris. They're never gonna say, yes,
Speaker 1: we mistreated Hillary Clinton. You know, five years later, you'll
Speaker 1: get one or two hot takes that nobody reads that
Speaker 1: are like, oh, you know, actually, I was a journalist
Speaker 1: the New York Times and I covered the Clinton campaign,
Speaker 1: and if we did a terrible drop, that never has
Speaker 1: the same effect as you know, the initial coverage and mistreatment.
Speaker 1: So I'd look to you know, places like the Griot
Speaker 1: for example, even just Brittney Griner right like, we're follow
Speaker 1: up on that story for every week that you know,
Speaker 1: we've been waiting. Now that they you know, had the
Speaker 1: sentencing and trial and everything. It's getting coverage today, But
Speaker 1: I find it hard to believe that, you know, somebody
Speaker 1: of a different identity that was in a similar situation
Speaker 1: would not have been driving totally different, much more persistent
Speaker 1: media narratives up until this moment. And do we know
Speaker 1: if that affects the outcome? You know, I mean hard
Speaker 1: to say. You know. One of the things that too,
Speaker 1: I find really troubling is, I mean, we we always
Speaker 1: will see a double standard, a triple standard, depending on
Speaker 1: who is being covered and who is doing the covering
Speaker 1: of that story. But what I find really troubling now, um,
Speaker 1: which I think is the purpose of your work, is
Speaker 1: that we are in crisis. You said it earlier, like
Speaker 1: this country, this world is in crisis, and the media
Speaker 1: is not doing anything to educate people to use their
Speaker 1: their their their mouthpieces to be able to inform the
Speaker 1: public at these times of crisis, whether we're talking about
Speaker 1: climate change, our democracy and the rise of authoritarianism in
Speaker 1: this country, we're talking about abortion, any of these things.
Speaker 1: And so what do you think, like, is there an
Speaker 1: answer here or is this just going to, honestly cavan
Speaker 1: continue to just get worse you know. So so I
Speaker 1: do address you know, a couple of different solutions in
Speaker 1: the paper, and obviously one is more public funding of journalism,
Speaker 1: which I think the idea of, you know, it's a
Speaker 1: hard thing to execute, but internationally there's some successful models,
Speaker 1: and I think the idea there would be to have
Speaker 1: a credible competitor to CNN and these other outlets that
Speaker 1: are engaging in reckless behavior, whether that's an MPR or
Speaker 1: something like that, which you know doesn't get a whole
Speaker 1: lot of funding MPR compared to things like that the
Speaker 1: way its structure, but I think actually something that's even
Speaker 1: more necessary and more structural, so of course harder to do,
Speaker 1: is every important industry we have, whether it's you know,
Speaker 1: being a lawyer, being a doctor, and I would put
Speaker 1: of course being a journalist. You know, at that level,
Speaker 1: you know, these are people that should have a skill set.
Speaker 1: There are people that I should know, right Like, I
Speaker 1: know you took chemistry if you are a doctor, but
Speaker 1: I don't know that you ethics or sociology or history
Speaker 1: or any of those things. If you're a New York
Speaker 1: Times journalist, and I think you know one of those issues.
Speaker 1: There's this sort of catchway two of Okay, so is
Speaker 1: the answer more credentialing and more school and should people
Speaker 1: go to journalism school? But of course all those institutions
Speaker 1: are historically exclusionary and offensive and hard to access. And
Speaker 1: at the same time, does that mean we should just
Speaker 1: not regulate this hugely important industry, you know, like the
Speaker 1: law is a self regulating industry. Essentially you have the
Speaker 1: bar association, right, Like, what if there was a sort
Speaker 1: of more formal structure where you had, you know, some
Speaker 1: type of counsel that thought through policies and put out
Speaker 1: best practices, whether they were actionable or not. And what if,
Speaker 1: you know, it was more mainstream to go to journalism school.
Speaker 1: And maybe these are hard topics. So I'm not saying
Speaker 1: there's a right or wrong answer. How should journalists behave online?
Speaker 1: I think we've seen some bad examples of what not
Speaker 1: to do, but at least give people that are going
Speaker 1: to be in this important profession the chance to debate that.
Speaker 1: And here's maybe one theory of age online. Here's another.
Speaker 1: At least I'm more thoughtful and not just tweeting out
Speaker 1: every meme that I see on Reddit, you know, with
Speaker 1: the platform of the Washington post political news desk behind
Speaker 1: me and often you know, contributing to misinformation when I'm
Speaker 1: doing that because you know, as funny as these little
Speaker 1: hipster jokes are among you know, maybe people like us
Speaker 1: that follow like the you know, minutia of media whatever,
Speaker 1: most people have no idea what those people are talking
Speaker 1: about or what the joke is, you know, like they're
Speaker 1: not getting it right, just confusing people that want to
Speaker 1: learn and want information. So yeah, well, Kivan, I think
Speaker 1: that the work that you have done is really important.
Speaker 1: I think that it's conversations that we just are not having,
Speaker 1: and I don't you know, I hope that now, but
Speaker 1: again I'm still not sure. I hope that now though,
Speaker 1: people realize the importance of the media and what it
Speaker 1: was supposed to be and what it has become, and
Speaker 1: at the very least, by our eyeballs, which provide the
Speaker 1: ratings and the money, you know, begin to show these
Speaker 1: networks and outlets what it is that we actually want,
Speaker 1: because it is going to be viewer based and reader based,
Speaker 1: right like, it isn't going to be these people deciding,
Speaker 1: you know what, I don't want that six figure book deal,
Speaker 1: you know what, I don't want all these hundred thousand followers.
Speaker 1: It is going to be about people demanding the type
Speaker 1: of information and news that they need, otherwise they're going
Speaker 1: to lose viewers absolutely. And I think, like, you know,
Speaker 1: how I end sort of my research because I'm like,
Speaker 1: these are a bunch of solutions that are really hard
Speaker 1: and probably won't happen. But the one thing we can
Speaker 1: do right now is what you just said, which is
Speaker 1: educate people about this problem, call out and frame. That's
Speaker 1: why I thought this project was important to me because
Speaker 1: I think so much of education has been you know,
Speaker 1: just adding terms and codifying and you know, creating a
Speaker 1: body that people can like reference and build off of,
Speaker 1: even if it's so intuitive that you know, as a consumer,
Speaker 1: I think so many of your listeners will have already
Speaker 1: identified themselves a lot of these issues, but sort of
Speaker 1: adding vocabulary and creating a framework by which I want
Speaker 1: people to recognize, you know, like that is a journalist
Speaker 1: right now who's talking to me something, or that is
Speaker 1: a journalist right now who's just designed this tweet to
Speaker 1: try to get you know, engagement and go viral. Or
Speaker 1: I just saw this journalist like you know, saving a
Speaker 1: scoop while they're on their cable news hit I should
Speaker 1: have known this three months ago, and call it out
Speaker 1: and don't reward that behavior, and don't buy that book
Speaker 1: and tell your friends yep yep Kaivan, trev I hope
Speaker 1: that you will come back and join us again soon.
Speaker 1: Appreciate you, Thank you so much, and I will keep
Speaker 1: following along on by from TikTok. That is it for
Speaker 1: me today. Dear friends, on woke app as always, Power
Speaker 1: to the people and to all the people. Power, Get woke,
Speaker 1: Dear Dear God, get woke and stay woke as fuck.
Speaker 1: Get up. Behind the scenes. Look at Comedy Central's The
Speaker 1: Daily Show on Beyond the Scenes, an original podcast from
Speaker 1: The Daily Show with Trevor Noah. Every week, host Roy
Speaker 1: Wood Junior goes deeper with the notable guests and experts
Speaker 1: from the Emmy Award winning series. Together, they use comedy
Speaker 1: to tackle current topics from gentrification to gun laws and
Speaker 1: take a closer look at how and why these topics matter.
Speaker 1: Listen to Beyond the Scenes from the Daily Show with
Speaker 1: Trevor Noah on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever
Speaker 1: you get your podcasts. New episodes every Tuesday