Speaker 1: Hey, there, folks, Robes and I must admit we were
Speaker 1: wrong about Terry Moran. Turns out he meant that shit.
Speaker 1: And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ,
Speaker 1: a bonus episode. We didn't plan on doing this, but Rose,
Speaker 1: I am stunned now at this ABC Now former ABC
Speaker 1: News correspondent lost his job over a tweety sent about
Speaker 1: the Trump administration. Now he's coming out saying I meant
Speaker 1: everything I said.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it wasn't a mistake.
Speaker 3: And he very clearly states I wasn't drunk because he
Speaker 3: knew a lot of folks, including us, thought that was
Speaker 3: a possibility presented.
Speaker 2: And we know the guy, Yes, we know him.
Speaker 3: But yes, after midnight on a Saturday night, you fire
Speaker 3: off a tweet that is highly critical and very personal
Speaker 3: against not only President Trump but his deputy chief of staff.
Speaker 3: And it seemed to have come out of nowhere.
Speaker 2: And so there are no.
Speaker 1: Good tweets after midnight on the weekend.
Speaker 2: Nothing good happens after midnight.
Speaker 3: Your mother told you that growing up, and it certainly
Speaker 3: holds true with social media.
Speaker 2: I think what was the line?
Speaker 1: It was the one that nothing is opened after two
Speaker 1: am except legs and Walmart there you go. That was
Speaker 1: the line that they used to say in this out.
Speaker 1: I'm not kidding, I hear, I believe. I'm just saying
Speaker 1: you shouldn't be tweeting after midnight.
Speaker 2: It doesn't make sense.
Speaker 3: But he not only said that he meant to do
Speaker 3: it and that he wasn't drunk while he did it,
Speaker 3: he says he has no regrets even after all the fallout,
Speaker 3: the fact that he lost his job. He says he
Speaker 3: spoke the truth and you should never regret being honest.
Speaker 1: Okay, And that is where we kind of scratched our
Speaker 1: heads this morning. Obviously, we know and respect Terry Moran.
Speaker 1: We worked with him for several years and he has
Speaker 1: a long and even storied career in this business. Has
Speaker 1: covered the Supreme Court, has covered the Capitol, covered the.
Speaker 3: White House, covered foreign news. He was positioned in London
Speaker 3: for quite some time.
Speaker 1: And he knows better than an anybody that this is
Speaker 1: not something in business that is done in journalism that
Speaker 1: you can go out and openly not just criticize, but
Speaker 1: give a personal, biting attack against someone. This wasn't a
Speaker 1: policy issue, Robes. The issue here is he called people haters.
Speaker 1: How do you judge that that's your opinion about somebody,
Speaker 1: and that's fine, you can have it, but that's no repercussions.
Speaker 3: Not as a journalist, and not as a journalist for
Speaker 3: a mainstream network. And the interesting thing is he I
Speaker 3: have to admit I expected him to apologize. I expected
Speaker 3: him to say I shouldn't have put that tweet out.
Speaker 3: I want to make clear that I was angry, upset
Speaker 3: about X, Y and Z, and that I took my
Speaker 3: journalism cap off in that moment and I became private
Speaker 3: citizen Terry Moran in that moment and emotionally said how
Speaker 3: I was feeling. But he didn't do any of the above.
Speaker 3: Not only didn't he apologize, He said, and this is
Speaker 3: what actually really interesting to me, because you were alluding
Speaker 3: to this, and we talked about it after we were
Speaker 3: done with Morning Run today. You can be critical of
Speaker 3: an administration's policies as a journalist by supporting that with facts.
Speaker 2: This was not that, this was.
Speaker 3: An emotional personal assessment that I'm sorry. As a journalist,
Speaker 3: you cannot professionally disseminate well and still expect to be
Speaker 3: considered a journalist.
Speaker 1: And how can he make the argument that I'm speaking truth?
Speaker 1: How can he make the argument that I put that
Speaker 1: tweet out and I should not be criticized for it
Speaker 1: because I am someone who put out information that was truth,
Speaker 1: that was in my heart. How can you say about
Speaker 1: another individual that they are a world class hater who
Speaker 1: nourishes themselves with him themselves by eating hate. And that
Speaker 1: is a fact, and that is truth, and because it is,
Speaker 1: I can say it. I don't know how he's making
Speaker 1: that argument.
Speaker 3: And to follow up with that he did. Terry Moran
Speaker 3: did a couple of interviews on Monday, and in his
Speaker 3: interview with The New York Times, the Times was able
Speaker 3: to ascertain that Terry Moran admitted he has never met
Speaker 3: Stephen Miller. So that's also of note. He doesn't personally
Speaker 3: know him, So how can he personally make an assessment
Speaker 3: of his Stephen Miller's emotional state or motivation for his beliefs.
Speaker 1: So, you know, I would almost I would almost be
Speaker 1: more willing to listen to him, being such a believer
Speaker 1: in what his statement was if I knew he had
Speaker 1: a long standing relationship personal relationship. Okay, he knows that
Speaker 1: guy in a way I don't. He does not even
Speaker 1: met the guy.
Speaker 3: No, and he admitted that to The New York Times.
Speaker 3: Obviously he's met President Trump, he sat down with him
Speaker 3: in April for his one hundred days, and he even said, hey,
Speaker 3: when it was questioned or his impartiality was questioned, he said,
Speaker 3: when I was a journalist, when I was doing my interviews,
Speaker 3: I stand on my interviews. Go back and look at them.
Speaker 3: You'll see that I was fair and impartial. But to me,
Speaker 3: you can't say that and then put out a tweet
Speaker 3: and defend it and say that's my right as a
Speaker 3: journalist to tell the truth, and so you can't hold
Speaker 3: me accountable for that. It was Look, this is not
Speaker 3: something that just I mean, obviously it affected him. He
Speaker 3: lost his job, but a lot of folks in media
Speaker 3: and journalists were upset about his comments because it was
Speaker 3: a gift to anyone on the right who thinks that
Speaker 3: all members of the press, all members of mainstream.
Speaker 2: Media, are out to get the right, are out to.
Speaker 3: Be anti conservative, and it fueled that narrative, and so
Speaker 3: it actually did damage to a lot of well intentioned,
Speaker 3: impartial journalists who are fighting that belief that has now
Speaker 3: been reinforced by what Terry Moran not only did in
Speaker 3: that tweet. But now what he's saying about his right
Speaker 3: to make tweets.
Speaker 2: Like that as a journalist.
Speaker 1: I don't know in what world we could possibly live
Speaker 1: in that a journalist could go out and say whatever
Speaker 1: they want in their opinion, personal opinion, and then come
Speaker 1: back and cover the people they just express their opinion about.
Speaker 1: I had every single story we've ever done, sweetheart, we
Speaker 1: were on the air, we had an opinion about it,
Speaker 1: we had a feeling about it. But you don't let
Speaker 1: it come through your reporting.
Speaker 3: It's that simple, correct and look, Terry Moran makes this point,
Speaker 3: and of course this is true. We're all human beings
Speaker 3: who have had personal experiences, who have families who believe
Speaker 3: certain things, who have friends who believe certain things, and
Speaker 3: were influenced by all of that in how we think
Speaker 3: about not only policy.
Speaker 2: But about politicians.
Speaker 3: Of course, we personally have those beliefs, but it is
Speaker 3: our job to set those beliefs and those opinions aside
Speaker 3: when we are commenting on and reporting on politics period.
Speaker 3: Our job, as I learned in journalism school and through
Speaker 3: my career, that our jobs are to report facts and
Speaker 3: let the people at home decide what they believe. It
Speaker 3: is not our job to tell people what to think
Speaker 3: how to think.
Speaker 1: It was a highlight. I'm sure this has happened to you,
Speaker 1: especially at your time in cable. Yes, but at CNN
Speaker 1: and MSNBC where you were, those are hardcore politics watchers
Speaker 1: that watch those and most networks.
Speaker 3: People on those networks were left of center.
Speaker 1: Yes, absolutely, but it was always great. And you never
Speaker 1: like criticism and harsh criticism. But when you finish a
Speaker 1: political interview or doing a political segment and you start
Speaker 1: getting hateful tweets from the left and from the right,
Speaker 1: then you probably did a pretty good job.
Speaker 3: You know what's so funny. I've always believed that too.
Speaker 3: One of the toughest interviews I think I did in
Speaker 3: my entire career was when I got to sit down
Speaker 3: with Hunter Biden and I had to ask him about
Speaker 3: all of the improprieties that he was accused of. And
Speaker 3: when I had folks from the right and folks from
Speaker 3: the left saying that I was too harsh or I
Speaker 3: wasn't hard enough. But they were both upset with me,
Speaker 3: and I had that I had criticism coming from both sides,
Speaker 3: and I thought, aha, I did my job.
Speaker 2: I did my job.
Speaker 1: Probably got it right, But how now I can't imagine?
Speaker 1: So how about this is it okay? Suppose he was
Speaker 1: doing a segment a story next week on President Trump
Speaker 1: on ABC News and David Muir tosses to him, Terry
Speaker 1: Moran is at the White House force Terry, and he starts, well, David,
Speaker 1: this world class hater, this president. Well, he was heading
Speaker 1: out today on air Force one a day. Is that okay? Can? Well?
Speaker 1: Why is it?
Speaker 2: Of course?
Speaker 1: Why is If that's the case, if you are allowed
Speaker 1: to speak your mind, then speak it on TV? Why
Speaker 1: are you not allowed to speak it there? There's a
Speaker 1: reason for that. I don't understand this guy sixty five
Speaker 1: years old. He's got more time in this industry than
Speaker 1: he's got decades, more than I have in the industry.
Speaker 1: I don't know how he's coming out and making an
Speaker 1: argument that this is okay and why hasn't he done
Speaker 1: it for sixty five years?
Speaker 2: Correct? He knows better.
Speaker 3: So it's hard for us and we'll get into this
Speaker 3: a little bit for me to buy the fact that
Speaker 3: he claims nothing prompted this.
Speaker 2: He wasn't drinking, He had a normal night.
Speaker 3: Where he walked his dog in the woods and was
Speaker 3: contemplating life and the state of our politics and the
Speaker 3: state the world's in He then watched Oceans eleven with
Speaker 3: his family, put his children to bed, and then thoughtfully
Speaker 3: and carefully sat down at his computer and wrote what
Speaker 3: his heart believed was true, and that just.
Speaker 1: I don't buy it with a couple of typos.
Speaker 2: I don't buy it.
Speaker 3: With the typeos we know he is a Everything I
Speaker 3: have known of him and from him has been by
Speaker 3: the book. He is a very brilliant man. He is
Speaker 3: smart as hell. He knows grammar, and I would think
Speaker 3: he'd be somebody, especially folks who have been in the media,
Speaker 3: we know to check what we wrote twice, three times,
Speaker 3: four times to make sure there aren't any factual errors
Speaker 3: or even grammatical errors or misspellings, because that obviously can
Speaker 3: speak to your intellect. So it's a thing that I
Speaker 3: feel like most every journalist does. They know to reread, reread,
Speaker 3: think about, and then post or then submit. I have
Speaker 3: a hard time believing, with the grammatical errors that were
Speaker 3: there and the stream of consciousness type of post it
Speaker 3: was that this was something that he sat down to
Speaker 3: do with intention, with a clear head.
Speaker 1: You know what he's making. The argument that it was deliberate,
Speaker 1: right that he was. He took time, he was reflective.
Speaker 1: I'll walk through the woods thinking about where the country was.
Speaker 1: He talked about using language. He said, the harsh language
Speaker 1: was deliberate. He makes it sound as if he gave
Speaker 1: specific thought to the words that he used. If you
Speaker 1: have time to slow down and do that, you have
Speaker 1: time to slow down and punctuate and make sure you
Speaker 1: don't have grammatical errors. It's bizarre. That's something this explosive
Speaker 1: that he knew what he was doing. That he claims
Speaker 1: he but.
Speaker 3: He claims he was surprised. He told The New York
Speaker 3: Times he was surprised by the reaction.
Speaker 1: Might make strike a nerve as well.
Speaker 3: He said, Okay, possibly, come on, he had to know
Speaker 3: what he was going to do.
Speaker 1: I'm struggling with this because I'm so always respect I still,
Speaker 1: of course, will always respect what he does and has done,
Speaker 1: and the time I got I didn't get to work
Speaker 1: with him that closely, but more than plenty. I will
Speaker 1: always respect that. This is just bizarre to me to
Speaker 1: hear him defending coming out and personally attacking people. You
Speaker 1: have to cover personally, you're this is a attack, and
Speaker 1: keep your job and or or well, you can't.
Speaker 3: You can't do that and keep your job. And so I.
Speaker 1: I'm struggling to find a way to defend him. I
Speaker 1: want to find a way to explain this.
Speaker 3: Okay, But in terms of the damage this does to
Speaker 3: other journalists who are doing their best to maintain impartiality
Speaker 3: and objectivity, I have an issue with what he told
Speaker 3: the Bulwark. And this is what he said when they
Speaker 3: pushed back, Hey, aren't journalists supposed to remain objective? Isn't
Speaker 3: that what you're supposed to do. This is what Terry said,
Speaker 3: and I'm quoting him here. There is no Mount Olympus
Speaker 3: of objectivity where a mandarin class of wise people have
Speaker 3: no feelings about their society. What you have to be
Speaker 3: is fair and accurate. And that's when he said, I
Speaker 3: would refer to the interview with the President that I did,
Speaker 3: or a lot of my work, but fair and accurate.
Speaker 3: Would you say calling someone a world class hater is fair?
Speaker 3: And how do you know you're accurate? Because you can't
Speaker 3: possibly know what someone feels or is, especially if you've
Speaker 3: never met them, just because you don't like their policies
Speaker 3: or you don't like the reasoning behind their actions.
Speaker 2: It doesn't mean you know who they are deep down.
Speaker 3: So I would take issue with his point where he
Speaker 3: is basically saying that he was fair and accurate. And
Speaker 3: I also disagree that we're not talking about a mount
Speaker 3: Olympus of objectivity. And of course we're not saying that
Speaker 3: no one has feelings about things, but you certainly strive
Speaker 3: to be as objective as you can be period.
Speaker 1: Stride. You have to be. It's the job you check yourself.
Speaker 1: I cried every morning before I came into GMA and
Speaker 1: did a story on George Floyd, which I did every
Speaker 1: single day after his death. And I have to check
Speaker 1: black man, black community at the door and don't get
Speaker 1: on TV and go off and get emotional and give
Speaker 1: some of my personal feelings about things, even if I
Speaker 1: think they are the truth, my truth fact or whatever
Speaker 1: else's not. What's done? Robes? What is he talking about?
Speaker 1: So I think I didn't know this. This is from
Speaker 1: the New York Times article. Maybe this was a plan
Speaker 1: all along. Maybe they're suggesting with some of the information,
Speaker 1: at least they're reporting that his new venture is a
Speaker 1: venture that could be profitable if you are taking on
Speaker 1: the Trump administration.
Speaker 3: Yes, so this forum, it's a sub stack. According to
Speaker 3: The New York Times, I honestly had never heard of it.
Speaker 3: But a lot of anchors, journalists, reporters who have either
Speaker 3: left their networks or been forced out of their networks
Speaker 3: specifically or particularly if they take an anti Trump stance,
Speaker 3: can actually have a really very lucrative income.
Speaker 2: If you're having people pay five.
Speaker 3: Dollars a month, and it says Terry Moranner already has
Speaker 3: ninety thousand subscribers. You can do the math. You're talking
Speaker 3: about being able to make a seven figure salary if
Speaker 3: you are taking on this type of persuasion or this
Speaker 3: type of stance.
Speaker 2: Now, in terms of him.
Speaker 3: Saying he was surprised that ABC News let him go
Speaker 3: or initially suspended him, and then he's also digging issue
Speaker 3: with what ABC's news ABC News's statement was about his release,
Speaker 3: he says, we did have an oral agreement. They were
Speaker 3: renewing my contract for three more years. He said it
Speaker 3: was an oral agreement, not a written one yet. But
Speaker 3: he said for them to say that they just decided
Speaker 3: not to renew his contract, that they didn't actually have
Speaker 3: to take action because his contract was up that week.
Speaker 3: He says, that's not that's not fully truthful. Okay, he
Speaker 3: said they had a deal. Quote, we had a deal.
Speaker 1: Okay. Well, he announced the Substack deal the same day
Speaker 1: that ABC announced he wouldn't be returning. He turned around
Speaker 1: and got Substack in line in a matter of hours.
Speaker 2: Seems like he had his ducks in a row.
Speaker 1: Maybe he did, Maybe he didn't. I don't know. Oh,
Speaker 1: I don't want, I don't. I'm really am just trying
Speaker 1: to make sense of it because this is a guy
Speaker 1: who I know has to have known you don't make
Speaker 1: it as far as he did in his career by
Speaker 1: thinking you can do this, because there's plenty more he
Speaker 1: could have said along the way for a long time.
Speaker 1: It just doesn't make sense. Look, he wanted to go
Speaker 1: out and blaze of glory, not yourself out. Do you
Speaker 1: think I don't have a problem with that at all?
Speaker 1: If that's what he wanted to do. I'm just struggling
Speaker 1: to make sense of why he did it, and I'm
Speaker 1: struggling to make sense of how he's justifying it, because
Speaker 1: I just don't see how you could think that every report, now,
Speaker 1: everybody that's a Trump supporter thinks obviously he was wrong.
Speaker 1: But then you have everybody on the other side of
Speaker 1: the aisle who looks the Yeah, he spoke the truth.
Speaker 1: Leave him alone.
Speaker 3: Not everybody, because I do think journalists have acknowledged, even
Speaker 3: if they tend to be left leaning journalists, that this
Speaker 3: is doing harm to the industry and to the credibility art.
Speaker 1: I'm just talking about democrat political space.
Speaker 2: People outside of journalism.
Speaker 3: Yes, of course, of course they're saying, hey, finally someone
Speaker 3: spoke the truth. But look, you've got jd Vance, the
Speaker 3: Vice President, saying it was a full public meltdown, saying
Speaker 3: Terry pulled off his mask, exposing himself among the radicals,
Speaker 3: adopting a journalist's pose. It's just sad to me in
Speaker 3: a field that we both love, that we both have
Speaker 3: taken tremendous pride in, and I can speak for us
Speaker 3: both saying that we have I know that you and
Speaker 3: I both bend over backwards to make sure we try
Speaker 3: to not editorialize personal opinions about specific candidates. We will
Speaker 3: of course back up anything with facts, and certainly things
Speaker 3: can lean one way or the other with when the
Speaker 3: facts present themselves. But it is a fine line and
Speaker 3: it is a tough job, but this is making it
Speaker 3: even tougher. I think for folks who are really trying
Speaker 3: to walk that line.
Speaker 1: I wish him well, I really really do. I hope
Speaker 1: this for me, to be honest with you, it seemed
Speaker 1: like you knew what he was doing, and maybe I
Speaker 1: don't have to understand it, or ever will understand it,
Speaker 1: but i'd like to. I'm really really curious. But other
Speaker 1: than that, look, if he's okay and he's doing this
Speaker 1: thing like always, as long as you're not hurting yourself
Speaker 1: or anybody else, then I will support what you're doing.
Speaker 1: Knock yourself out. I just don't get how this guy,
Speaker 1: knowing what we know of him, could go out suggesting
Speaker 1: that journalists should speak this way to things they cover,
Speaker 1: people they cover.
Speaker 3: Because they think it's the truth versus it being the truth.
Speaker 3: And look, I agree with you. Terry Moran has been
Speaker 3: a consummate professional. I have relied on his reports, I.
Speaker 1: Have looked forward to him his information that leaned on him.
Speaker 3: Yes, and he has been a huge value, a huge
Speaker 3: asset to ABC News for nearly three decades, and I
Speaker 3: too wish him the very best. I just wish that
Speaker 3: perhaps I tend to believe that there could be a
Speaker 3: little bit more trans parency. I think it's hard to
Speaker 3: imagine that this was a thought out, deliberate decision that
Speaker 3: he continues to defend as a journalist. That's my only issue.
Speaker 3: I do wish him the best, and I hope he
Speaker 3: has an amazing career going forward.
Speaker 2: Where he says, and this is his.
Speaker 3: Final words that he left with The New York Times,
Speaker 3: he said, I am now free to speak my mind,
Speaker 3: and for that I wish him well.
Speaker 1: Well, folks, we always appreciate you hanging with us for
Speaker 1: a little bit. Just wanted to drop a little bonus
Speaker 1: episode because Roboq was really worked up about this one. Well,
Speaker 1: thanks as always for listener. We'll catch you'all on the
Speaker 1: next one for Angry Robot. I'm TJ.
Speaker 3: Holmes.
Speaker 1: Se y'all soon.