1 00:00:15,396 --> 00:00:24,036 Speaker 1: Pushkin from Pushkin Industries. This is Deep Background, the show 2 00:00:24,076 --> 00:00:27,276 Speaker 1: where we explore the story behind the stories in the news. 3 00:00:27,796 --> 00:00:32,516 Speaker 1: I'm Noah Felt right now. On Deep Background, we're focusing 4 00:00:32,516 --> 00:00:36,996 Speaker 1: on power and the media. Today's guest is someone who 5 00:00:36,996 --> 00:00:40,356 Speaker 1: can speak about this topic perhaps better than almost anyone 6 00:00:40,396 --> 00:00:44,196 Speaker 1: else working in journalism today, because she's not merely a 7 00:00:44,236 --> 00:00:49,036 Speaker 1: supremely successful journalist, but she has also herself become the 8 00:00:49,076 --> 00:00:52,996 Speaker 1: subject of a deep national discussion around the power of 9 00:00:53,076 --> 00:00:56,516 Speaker 1: journalism and the effects it can have. I'm talking about 10 00:00:56,676 --> 00:01:00,636 Speaker 1: Nicole Hannah Jones. Nicole Hannah Jones is a Pulitzer Prize 11 00:01:00,636 --> 00:01:03,436 Speaker 1: winning journalist, a staff writer for The New York Times, 12 00:01:03,716 --> 00:01:06,716 Speaker 1: and the winner of a MacArthur Genius Grant. She is 13 00:01:06,756 --> 00:01:10,476 Speaker 1: the creator of the sixty nineteen Project, a long form 14 00:01:10,636 --> 00:01:15,916 Speaker 1: journalism project drawing on history, sociology, and journalism together that 15 00:01:16,036 --> 00:01:19,436 Speaker 1: seeks to highlight the contributions of African Americans to the 16 00:01:19,436 --> 00:01:24,036 Speaker 1: story of the United States, while simultaneously recentering the historical 17 00:01:24,116 --> 00:01:28,396 Speaker 1: role of slavery and segregation to American history. The sixteen 18 00:01:28,476 --> 00:01:32,836 Speaker 1: nineteen project, as you know, both proved wildly successful in 19 00:01:32,916 --> 00:01:36,556 Speaker 1: terms of stirring and creating a national discussion and being 20 00:01:36,556 --> 00:01:40,116 Speaker 1: adopted into curriculates some places, but it has also stirred 21 00:01:40,196 --> 00:01:43,836 Speaker 1: up a significant amount of controversy. That controversy has gone 22 00:01:43,836 --> 00:01:47,436 Speaker 1: so far as to lead Republican state legislators to propose 23 00:01:47,516 --> 00:01:50,996 Speaker 1: laws that would ban the teaching of what's called critical 24 00:01:51,076 --> 00:01:53,196 Speaker 1: race theory. In those laws will leave aside the fact 25 00:01:53,236 --> 00:01:55,316 Speaker 1: that it's not exactly the thing that has historically been 26 00:01:55,356 --> 00:01:58,076 Speaker 1: identified as critical race theory, but those are laws that 27 00:01:58,116 --> 00:02:01,996 Speaker 1: are motivated by an attempt to argue against the teaching 28 00:02:02,116 --> 00:02:05,476 Speaker 1: that slavery played a central and indeed perhaps definitive role 29 00:02:05,756 --> 00:02:09,116 Speaker 1: in the creation of our national experience. The sixty nine 30 00:02:09,476 --> 00:02:14,236 Speaker 1: project is therefore an extraordinary and important example of journalism 31 00:02:14,276 --> 00:02:17,396 Speaker 1: having power and on the relationship between the power of 32 00:02:17,436 --> 00:02:23,756 Speaker 1: institutional journalism, institutional history, and political response and reaction. We're 33 00:02:23,876 --> 00:02:26,516 Speaker 1: very grateful that Nicole was open to appearing here on 34 00:02:26,636 --> 00:02:30,396 Speaker 1: deep background, and we're thrilled that she is here now. Nicole, 35 00:02:30,516 --> 00:02:35,236 Speaker 1: thank you so much for being here. Nicole, I want 36 00:02:35,276 --> 00:02:39,716 Speaker 1: to begin by asking you about the extraordinary range and 37 00:02:39,836 --> 00:02:44,036 Speaker 1: impact that the sixteen nineteen project has had. I'm really 38 00:02:44,036 --> 00:02:47,676 Speaker 1: fascinated by that kind of complex, hybrid nature of the project. 39 00:02:47,756 --> 00:02:52,036 Speaker 1: You know history and journalism and public policy and education 40 00:02:52,436 --> 00:02:54,916 Speaker 1: for a couple of reasons. One is I'm just, at 41 00:02:54,916 --> 00:02:58,196 Speaker 1: a basic intellectual level, completely sympathetic to the idea that 42 00:02:58,316 --> 00:03:00,916 Speaker 1: part of journalism's job is to explain how things got 43 00:03:00,916 --> 00:03:03,196 Speaker 1: to be the way they are. I mean, that's why 44 00:03:03,196 --> 00:03:06,396 Speaker 1: I have a podcast called Deep Background, and I don't 45 00:03:06,396 --> 00:03:08,236 Speaker 1: think it's plausible at all that you could explain the 46 00:03:08,316 --> 00:03:12,116 Speaker 1: way things are except by looking into their deep historical past. 47 00:03:12,236 --> 00:03:15,556 Speaker 1: So I love it because that makes perfect sense to me, 48 00:03:15,796 --> 00:03:18,516 Speaker 1: and I'm fascinated by the ways that it was so innovative. 49 00:03:18,996 --> 00:03:20,796 Speaker 1: The second reason I'm interested in it is that, you know, 50 00:03:20,836 --> 00:03:23,316 Speaker 1: we're exploring here on Deep Background, this idea of the 51 00:03:23,396 --> 00:03:27,796 Speaker 1: power of different institutions and different modes of thinking. And 52 00:03:27,876 --> 00:03:30,396 Speaker 1: it seems to me I have a hypothesis that one 53 00:03:30,396 --> 00:03:33,236 Speaker 1: of the reasons for the amazing power and influence of 54 00:03:33,276 --> 00:03:36,916 Speaker 1: this project is exactly that you didn't think, oh, we 55 00:03:36,996 --> 00:03:39,876 Speaker 1: have to stay in our lane. You didn't think, oh, well, 56 00:03:39,916 --> 00:03:43,396 Speaker 1: that's history and that's a job for historians and we're journalists. No, 57 00:03:43,516 --> 00:03:46,196 Speaker 1: you thought, this is a job for a newspaper and 58 00:03:46,436 --> 00:03:49,516 Speaker 1: a magazine, and we're going to include historians in our work. 59 00:03:49,556 --> 00:03:52,756 Speaker 1: But we also think that that can be contiguous with journalists, 60 00:03:52,756 --> 00:03:56,076 Speaker 1: And I wonder whether you agree that part of the 61 00:03:56,116 --> 00:04:00,836 Speaker 1: power of this project is that you broke the genre lines. God, 62 00:04:00,916 --> 00:04:04,476 Speaker 1: I mean, I'd never thought that that's what we were 63 00:04:04,516 --> 00:04:07,796 Speaker 1: doing or setting out to do, though clearly because of 64 00:04:07,836 --> 00:04:10,796 Speaker 1: the response to the Pride, I see that that is 65 00:04:10,996 --> 00:04:17,156 Speaker 1: how people understand what we did. But again, I've always 66 00:04:17,156 --> 00:04:23,396 Speaker 1: done my own archival research, unearthed original documents, dug through 67 00:04:24,116 --> 00:04:27,116 Speaker 1: the archives of cases that I was writing about and 68 00:04:27,156 --> 00:04:29,636 Speaker 1: people I was writing about. I feel like I've been 69 00:04:29,636 --> 00:04:32,556 Speaker 1: trying to do that in my work for more than 70 00:04:32,596 --> 00:04:37,356 Speaker 1: a decade now, where all of my writing is deeply historical, 71 00:04:37,596 --> 00:04:41,996 Speaker 1: that all of my writing has been talking about modern 72 00:04:42,076 --> 00:04:46,356 Speaker 1: day phenomena and trying to unearthed history in order to 73 00:04:46,396 --> 00:04:48,516 Speaker 1: help us understand how did we get there and to 74 00:04:48,596 --> 00:04:53,076 Speaker 1: explain you know, usually school segregation or housing segregation, or 75 00:04:53,316 --> 00:04:59,196 Speaker 1: racialized policing. I've always always done journalism that didn't just 76 00:04:59,276 --> 00:05:01,436 Speaker 1: kind of drive by history. But you know, if you 77 00:05:01,476 --> 00:05:04,956 Speaker 1: look at my work on school segregation, on housing segregation, 78 00:05:05,236 --> 00:05:07,276 Speaker 1: two thirds of it is about the past and the 79 00:05:07,276 --> 00:05:11,116 Speaker 1: rest is about what's happening right now. So when people 80 00:05:12,356 --> 00:05:16,276 Speaker 1: talk about breaking genre. I've just like, this is journalism. 81 00:05:16,276 --> 00:05:18,796 Speaker 1: This is the way that I've always done journalism, and 82 00:05:18,836 --> 00:05:22,316 Speaker 1: that the journalists I've admired have done journalism. I think 83 00:05:22,356 --> 00:05:25,716 Speaker 1: what was different, though, What was different was it wasn't 84 00:05:25,756 --> 00:05:30,476 Speaker 1: just a single article, but an entire project that was 85 00:05:30,516 --> 00:05:33,396 Speaker 1: an entire issue of the magazine, a special section of 86 00:05:33,436 --> 00:05:37,436 Speaker 1: the newspaper, live events, as well as a podcast series. 87 00:05:37,476 --> 00:05:41,556 Speaker 1: So we were doing something that, at least for The 88 00:05:41,596 --> 00:05:44,836 Speaker 1: New York Times, had not been done before, and that 89 00:05:44,876 --> 00:05:48,316 Speaker 1: we very explicitly set out the aims of the project, 90 00:05:48,436 --> 00:05:51,356 Speaker 1: which was not just saying, hey, We're going to tell 91 00:05:51,436 --> 00:05:54,756 Speaker 1: you something about your country that you didn't know, but 92 00:05:54,996 --> 00:05:59,076 Speaker 1: saying we were explicitly seeking to reframe the narrative and 93 00:05:59,196 --> 00:06:02,236 Speaker 1: understanding that we have all had about our country. And 94 00:06:02,316 --> 00:06:04,956 Speaker 1: that is different. I mean, that's something that I think 95 00:06:05,756 --> 00:06:08,556 Speaker 1: journalists don't typically do. Even if that is their aim, 96 00:06:08,596 --> 00:06:12,636 Speaker 1: they're not blastically stating it. So maybe that's that's what 97 00:06:12,716 --> 00:06:16,956 Speaker 1: was so different. But I really I just felt like 98 00:06:16,956 --> 00:06:20,316 Speaker 1: this was an extension of the work that I've always 99 00:06:20,356 --> 00:06:25,076 Speaker 1: done and the way that I believe journalism should be. 100 00:06:25,716 --> 00:06:30,996 Speaker 1: And we included history, we included historians, but historians are 101 00:06:31,036 --> 00:06:33,996 Speaker 1: writing for journalistic organizations all at the time now, So 102 00:06:34,476 --> 00:06:37,276 Speaker 1: I guess I just didn't and maybe I was naive. 103 00:06:37,996 --> 00:06:40,476 Speaker 1: I mean, I felt naive in some ways just because 104 00:06:40,476 --> 00:06:45,396 Speaker 1: of how visceral and kind of unrelenting the attacks on 105 00:06:45,396 --> 00:06:48,076 Speaker 1: the project have been. That to me, it just was 106 00:06:48,116 --> 00:06:50,716 Speaker 1: a project that in that moment made sense and was 107 00:06:50,756 --> 00:06:52,796 Speaker 1: part of the work I've always seen myself as doing. 108 00:06:54,316 --> 00:06:58,276 Speaker 1: That's a fascinating answer. It may be that the combination 109 00:06:58,956 --> 00:07:01,916 Speaker 1: of the topic of race and racial justice, which is 110 00:07:01,956 --> 00:07:05,556 Speaker 1: such a central topic to not only the American historical 111 00:07:05,596 --> 00:07:10,876 Speaker 1: path between American present, and the enhanced institutional centrality of 112 00:07:10,876 --> 00:07:14,836 Speaker 1: the New York Times in an era when other mainstream 113 00:07:14,956 --> 00:07:18,556 Speaker 1: journalism is in certain ways declining and the power of 114 00:07:18,556 --> 00:07:21,196 Speaker 1: the Times is in many ways greater than it's ever been. 115 00:07:21,516 --> 00:07:24,756 Speaker 1: You know, the historians, sociologists and others who participated in 116 00:07:24,796 --> 00:07:27,716 Speaker 1: the project alongside you and other journalists have been saying 117 00:07:27,716 --> 00:07:29,676 Speaker 1: the stuff that you've all been saying for a long 118 00:07:29,716 --> 00:07:32,836 Speaker 1: time without it generating this kind of backlash. And so 119 00:07:32,956 --> 00:07:35,716 Speaker 1: I guess I want to ask about the institutional power 120 00:07:35,796 --> 00:07:38,596 Speaker 1: of the idea here of the New York Times. You know, 121 00:07:38,636 --> 00:07:40,156 Speaker 1: do you think one reason that the people who are 122 00:07:40,236 --> 00:07:43,076 Speaker 1: upset are so upset. Is part of it that you 123 00:07:43,116 --> 00:07:46,236 Speaker 1: think the objectors said, well, it's the New York Times 124 00:07:46,276 --> 00:07:47,796 Speaker 1: saying it, and if it's in the New York Times, 125 00:07:48,076 --> 00:07:50,596 Speaker 1: people will think it's true, and we really don't want 126 00:07:50,596 --> 00:07:52,316 Speaker 1: people to think these things are true. Could that be 127 00:07:52,356 --> 00:07:57,916 Speaker 1: part of it? Yes? I think absolutely that this project 128 00:07:58,116 --> 00:08:00,916 Speaker 1: ran in the paper of record, the New York Times, 129 00:08:00,956 --> 00:08:04,716 Speaker 1: as you said, probably the most powerful news organization, at 130 00:08:04,756 --> 00:08:07,396 Speaker 1: least a news organization that's not television in the world. 131 00:08:07,756 --> 00:08:11,676 Speaker 1: That has been a major part of the response, both 132 00:08:11,676 --> 00:08:15,436 Speaker 1: of those who support the project who were really surprised 133 00:08:15,436 --> 00:08:17,476 Speaker 1: that the New York Times would run something like this, 134 00:08:17,956 --> 00:08:19,876 Speaker 1: and those who have opposed a project who are also 135 00:08:19,956 --> 00:08:22,596 Speaker 1: very surprised that the New York Times would run something 136 00:08:22,636 --> 00:08:26,396 Speaker 1: like this. And as a historian, you know this project 137 00:08:26,436 --> 00:08:29,316 Speaker 1: is based on decades of scholarship, but that there has 138 00:08:29,396 --> 00:08:34,516 Speaker 1: been kind of this wall between the scholarship and a 139 00:08:34,556 --> 00:08:38,716 Speaker 1: popular understanding of the scholarship, right, it hasn't really breached 140 00:08:38,836 --> 00:08:42,516 Speaker 1: for many people. The role of slavery, the role of 141 00:08:42,516 --> 00:08:47,476 Speaker 1: flavory and the Revolution, Abraham Lincoln's racial views, slavery, capitalism, 142 00:08:47,476 --> 00:08:50,796 Speaker 1: and developing the American economy. These are not radical thoughts 143 00:08:50,836 --> 00:08:55,596 Speaker 1: within the academy. But as you understand, history is academic, 144 00:08:55,636 --> 00:08:58,436 Speaker 1: and then history is what is popularized, and what most 145 00:08:58,476 --> 00:09:02,396 Speaker 1: Americans think of its history is often not what's actually 146 00:09:02,476 --> 00:09:06,036 Speaker 1: in books written by actual historians. So to kind of 147 00:09:06,036 --> 00:09:09,836 Speaker 1: breach that line with this project and then for it 148 00:09:09,876 --> 00:09:15,476 Speaker 1: to be really embraced by high school teachers and by 149 00:09:15,876 --> 00:09:19,156 Speaker 1: public schools, I think is where the huge backlash has 150 00:09:19,196 --> 00:09:22,876 Speaker 1: come from. It's one thing for Alan Taylor to write 151 00:09:22,916 --> 00:09:26,796 Speaker 1: about slavery and the revolution in his poet Surprising books. 152 00:09:26,836 --> 00:09:30,476 Speaker 1: It's another thing for high school students to now be 153 00:09:30,596 --> 00:09:33,556 Speaker 1: questioning the role of slavery might have played to motivate 154 00:09:33,836 --> 00:09:37,116 Speaker 1: the men that we are taught popularly to treat as demigods. 155 00:09:37,116 --> 00:09:41,796 Speaker 1: And then we also can't discount who brought this project fourth, 156 00:09:41,996 --> 00:09:45,556 Speaker 1: which is you know, a black woman, quite outspoken, who 157 00:09:45,636 --> 00:09:49,796 Speaker 1: doesn't present the way that some people believe I should present. 158 00:09:49,876 --> 00:09:54,716 Speaker 1: I've been credentialed a lot, people asking well, how can 159 00:09:54,796 --> 00:09:58,276 Speaker 1: she write this, she's not a historian, as if historians 160 00:09:58,276 --> 00:10:01,676 Speaker 1: don't use journalism in their work every day consulting, you know, 161 00:10:01,716 --> 00:10:03,996 Speaker 1: the New York Times. You know, My question to that 162 00:10:04,036 --> 00:10:08,596 Speaker 1: has always been who did historians write for? If historians 163 00:10:08,876 --> 00:10:11,956 Speaker 1: don't don't want lay people like myself, you know, I'm 164 00:10:11,996 --> 00:10:14,876 Speaker 1: majored in history in Underground, but I'm not clearly an 165 00:10:14,916 --> 00:10:18,756 Speaker 1: academic historian. If historians don't want lay people to read 166 00:10:18,756 --> 00:10:21,596 Speaker 1: their texts and use them in real life to understand 167 00:10:21,676 --> 00:10:24,956 Speaker 1: their world, which is what I do as a journalist, 168 00:10:25,076 --> 00:10:28,196 Speaker 1: then what why are historians produced in history? And who 169 00:10:28,236 --> 00:10:30,316 Speaker 1: are they? Who are they doing it for? So I 170 00:10:30,436 --> 00:10:34,556 Speaker 1: found that credentialing to be actually quite interesting, both from 171 00:10:34,596 --> 00:10:37,356 Speaker 1: you know, the small group of academic historians who have 172 00:10:37,396 --> 00:10:40,836 Speaker 1: publicly criticized the project, but also from many people who 173 00:10:40,916 --> 00:10:44,676 Speaker 1: just don't believe the project should exist at all. Nicole, 174 00:10:44,796 --> 00:10:46,796 Speaker 1: there's so many fascinating strands and what you just said, 175 00:10:46,876 --> 00:10:48,556 Speaker 1: let me just plug out three and maybe we'll talk 176 00:10:48,556 --> 00:10:52,236 Speaker 1: about them in turn. First the idea of the New 177 00:10:52,276 --> 00:10:54,956 Speaker 1: York Times as this incredibly powerful institution and the fight 178 00:10:55,036 --> 00:10:57,436 Speaker 1: over what it would or wouldn't do. Then the national 179 00:10:57,556 --> 00:11:00,036 Speaker 1: narrative point about the high school teachers. And then third 180 00:11:00,116 --> 00:11:03,396 Speaker 1: the credentialing argument focused on you with the idea that 181 00:11:03,396 --> 00:11:05,516 Speaker 1: an African American woman who doesn't have a PhD in 182 00:11:05,556 --> 00:11:07,476 Speaker 1: history how could she be the person setting the tone 183 00:11:07,476 --> 00:11:09,556 Speaker 1: for this whole national conversation. So I want to talk 184 00:11:09,556 --> 00:11:11,796 Speaker 1: about all three of those strands. Let's start with The 185 00:11:12,276 --> 00:11:15,356 Speaker 1: Times and its power in the center of the story. 186 00:11:15,596 --> 00:11:18,316 Speaker 1: Is it a good thing that The New York Times 187 00:11:18,676 --> 00:11:23,556 Speaker 1: is as extraordinarily institutionally powerful as it is right now? 188 00:11:23,596 --> 00:11:25,676 Speaker 1: I mean, I tend to think better to still have 189 00:11:25,836 --> 00:11:27,636 Speaker 1: The Times than not to have The Times, given that 190 00:11:27,676 --> 00:11:30,596 Speaker 1: the alternative would be to have no institution like this. 191 00:11:31,236 --> 00:11:33,636 Speaker 1: That said, would we be better off in a world 192 00:11:33,676 --> 00:11:38,556 Speaker 1: where there were more news organizations that had credibility and 193 00:11:38,676 --> 00:11:41,756 Speaker 1: some claim to use a term that will come to 194 00:11:41,876 --> 00:11:47,156 Speaker 1: later quote unquote objectivity. So I would say yes to 195 00:11:47,316 --> 00:11:51,756 Speaker 1: both of those things. I think The Times is critically 196 00:11:51,796 --> 00:11:57,036 Speaker 1: important for our democracy and for understanding our world. There 197 00:11:57,076 --> 00:12:01,836 Speaker 1: are few news organizations that have the resources to cover 198 00:12:01,876 --> 00:12:03,916 Speaker 1: the globe the way that The New York Times does, 199 00:12:04,436 --> 00:12:10,116 Speaker 1: and it has done no unparalleled reporting that I think 200 00:12:10,196 --> 00:12:14,636 Speaker 1: is necessary. And there aren't many places that could have 201 00:12:14,756 --> 00:12:18,876 Speaker 1: produced a project like the sixteen nineteen project period, not 202 00:12:18,956 --> 00:12:23,036 Speaker 1: just because of amount of money or resources put into it, 203 00:12:23,076 --> 00:12:26,956 Speaker 1: but because of the platform that The New York Times provides. 204 00:12:27,316 --> 00:12:30,316 Speaker 1: So I think that's critical. But I also think that 205 00:12:31,876 --> 00:12:36,836 Speaker 1: in order for news to be the firewall of our democracy, 206 00:12:36,876 --> 00:12:41,676 Speaker 1: news itself needs to be democratized, and that the fewer voices, 207 00:12:41,756 --> 00:12:46,876 Speaker 1: the fewer institutions, particularly local news, that are out there 208 00:12:46,916 --> 00:12:51,036 Speaker 1: and have the resources to publish and do accountability journalism 209 00:12:51,316 --> 00:12:54,876 Speaker 1: and do journalism that's just more reflective of our very 210 00:12:54,876 --> 00:13:00,356 Speaker 1: diverse nation and very diverse world. I think that we 211 00:13:00,396 --> 00:13:03,956 Speaker 1: are less informed because of that. I think power is 212 00:13:04,036 --> 00:13:06,716 Speaker 1: less held to account because of that, And so I 213 00:13:06,756 --> 00:13:09,396 Speaker 1: think that, yes, it's absolutely critical to have both the things. 214 00:13:09,396 --> 00:13:11,956 Speaker 1: I think we need institutions like the New York Times 215 00:13:11,996 --> 00:13:16,196 Speaker 1: that are unparalleled, and I think we also need institutions 216 00:13:16,956 --> 00:13:20,356 Speaker 1: like local news reporting, you know, ethnic press. I mean 217 00:13:20,436 --> 00:13:23,036 Speaker 1: all of that. We need to be in a news 218 00:13:23,196 --> 00:13:26,876 Speaker 1: rich environment, particularly in the world that we're in right now. 219 00:13:27,316 --> 00:13:29,116 Speaker 1: But we need to be in a news rich environment 220 00:13:29,596 --> 00:13:33,676 Speaker 1: where the people providing that news actually have some ethics 221 00:13:33,676 --> 00:13:37,796 Speaker 1: and standards of the trade. And I'm worried about how 222 00:13:37,836 --> 00:13:40,996 Speaker 1: some of that is eroding. Yeah, I worry about that too, 223 00:13:41,036 --> 00:13:43,916 Speaker 1: And I worry about, you know, since a newspaper does 224 00:13:43,996 --> 00:13:45,916 Speaker 1: have as part of its DNA the idea of holding 225 00:13:45,916 --> 00:13:48,836 Speaker 1: power to account there's also the question of, you know, 226 00:13:49,076 --> 00:13:51,756 Speaker 1: who holds the newspaper to account, and in the past 227 00:13:51,756 --> 00:13:55,236 Speaker 1: the answer was other newspapers. And in that in that extent, 228 00:13:55,436 --> 00:13:58,436 Speaker 1: if there's an institution that is sees that as its job, 229 00:13:58,876 --> 00:14:01,276 Speaker 1: but there isn't a rich environment of other newspapers that 230 00:14:01,356 --> 00:14:04,236 Speaker 1: see their job as holding that newspaper to account, you 231 00:14:04,276 --> 00:14:07,436 Speaker 1: know that that potentially in the long run complicates things, 232 00:14:07,516 --> 00:14:09,636 Speaker 1: especially if there are people, you know, let's say you're 233 00:14:09,676 --> 00:14:11,756 Speaker 1: your political conservative and you think the New York Times 234 00:14:11,836 --> 00:14:14,356 Speaker 1: skews liberal, which on certain things on its editorial policy, 235 00:14:14,356 --> 00:14:17,236 Speaker 1: of course it does. Then you might think, well, what's 236 00:14:17,276 --> 00:14:20,956 Speaker 1: my alternative. It's Fox News And you know I love 237 00:14:21,156 --> 00:14:24,796 Speaker 1: a journal. Yeah, the Journal on its editorial page, I agree, 238 00:14:24,836 --> 00:14:27,876 Speaker 1: But the journal has such a rigorous distinction between its 239 00:14:27,956 --> 00:14:33,316 Speaker 1: editorial page and its newspaper the national narrative point that 240 00:14:33,356 --> 00:14:35,876 Speaker 1: you were raising, that is fascinating to me as well. 241 00:14:35,996 --> 00:14:40,036 Speaker 1: One of the reasons that the City nineteen project is 242 00:14:40,196 --> 00:14:44,156 Speaker 1: so significant is that it actually you conceived it as 243 00:14:44,236 --> 00:14:47,996 Speaker 1: planning to reach curriculum, and it is indeed reaching curriculum. 244 00:14:48,196 --> 00:14:51,196 Speaker 1: And then that in the backlash has produced these proposed 245 00:14:51,236 --> 00:14:55,156 Speaker 1: pieces of legislation around the country purporting to outlaw something 246 00:14:55,196 --> 00:14:57,596 Speaker 1: called critical race theory, which, since I'm a law professor, 247 00:14:58,396 --> 00:15:00,476 Speaker 1: you know, I'm I know the critical race theory was 248 00:15:00,516 --> 00:15:04,436 Speaker 1: produced by Derek Bell and Kimberly Crenshaw as a rich 249 00:15:04,476 --> 00:15:07,996 Speaker 1: theoretical apparatus that was not actually primarily about the historical 250 00:15:07,996 --> 00:15:09,596 Speaker 1: issues that you were writing about, so as a kind 251 00:15:09,596 --> 00:15:13,436 Speaker 1: of terminological mismatch there. But in practical terms, it's a 252 00:15:13,476 --> 00:15:17,276 Speaker 1: reaction to you, guys into the sixty nineteen project. Why 253 00:15:17,316 --> 00:15:21,156 Speaker 1: do you think the fight over the national narrative is 254 00:15:21,196 --> 00:15:24,476 Speaker 1: so brutal right now? Is it just the polarization that 255 00:15:24,476 --> 00:15:26,356 Speaker 1: we're already familiar with, or does it have something to 256 00:15:26,396 --> 00:15:28,716 Speaker 1: do with the idea that we still don't want to 257 00:15:28,716 --> 00:15:32,876 Speaker 1: recognize in many quarters, that are founders were not pure, 258 00:15:32,996 --> 00:15:35,756 Speaker 1: and that they that they had a complex set of 259 00:15:35,756 --> 00:15:38,996 Speaker 1: beliefs and attitudes, and that their institutions were in many 260 00:15:38,996 --> 00:15:42,876 Speaker 1: ways profoundly inflected by by the structure of racism and 261 00:15:42,956 --> 00:15:47,476 Speaker 1: of slavery. Well, first, let me just correct the record 262 00:15:47,516 --> 00:15:51,796 Speaker 1: a bit. The project was not originally conceived as curriculum. 263 00:15:51,876 --> 00:15:54,356 Speaker 1: The project. I did not know that. Fascinating, Okay, thank you, Yeah, 264 00:15:54,396 --> 00:15:58,116 Speaker 1: I conceived of the project as a work of journalism. 265 00:15:58,156 --> 00:16:00,436 Speaker 1: That's what we set out to create. And it was 266 00:16:01,116 --> 00:16:05,796 Speaker 1: later months down, once the project was already fully formed 267 00:16:05,836 --> 00:16:08,956 Speaker 1: and conceived and that we were beginning to report and 268 00:16:09,316 --> 00:16:13,036 Speaker 1: write the pieces, that we started talking about turning it 269 00:16:13,076 --> 00:16:16,356 Speaker 1: into curriculum. So I think that that has become the 270 00:16:16,436 --> 00:16:21,156 Speaker 1: narrative that the project from conception was designed to infiltrate 271 00:16:21,196 --> 00:16:24,596 Speaker 1: America's classrooms. It wasn't. I'm a journalist and I was 272 00:16:24,636 --> 00:16:27,316 Speaker 1: producing a work of journalism and the Times, you know, 273 00:16:27,356 --> 00:16:29,996 Speaker 1: it's a huge organization with many, many arms, and we 274 00:16:30,036 --> 00:16:32,916 Speaker 1: actually have a curriculum division. So we started discussing that 275 00:16:32,996 --> 00:16:35,516 Speaker 1: and then ultimately decided, you know, to partner with the 276 00:16:35,556 --> 00:16:40,116 Speaker 1: Pulitzer Center, which turns regularly turns journalism into curriculum. And 277 00:16:40,156 --> 00:16:41,836 Speaker 1: no one has a problem with that. But it's just, 278 00:16:42,116 --> 00:16:44,436 Speaker 1: you know, the sixteen nineteen project. So just to clear 279 00:16:44,476 --> 00:16:46,716 Speaker 1: that up. But I've you know, I've thought a lot 280 00:16:46,756 --> 00:16:52,916 Speaker 1: about the response to the project, particularly, I don't know 281 00:16:52,996 --> 00:16:56,756 Speaker 1: another work of journalism that has been as legislated against 282 00:16:56,796 --> 00:16:59,356 Speaker 1: as the sixteen nineteen project. You know, the project has 283 00:16:59,756 --> 00:17:03,596 Speaker 1: been mentioned in both of Donald Trump's impeachment trials for 284 00:17:04,076 --> 00:17:06,836 Speaker 1: god knows why, except it's you know, being used as 285 00:17:06,876 --> 00:17:09,956 Speaker 1: a tool of white resentment, these laws that are being 286 00:17:09,956 --> 00:17:12,276 Speaker 1: passed all across the country, including in my home state. 287 00:17:12,756 --> 00:17:15,036 Speaker 1: And I've thought a lot about why that is. And 288 00:17:15,276 --> 00:17:20,476 Speaker 1: it's hard to sometimes grasp when you're in the middle 289 00:17:20,476 --> 00:17:22,236 Speaker 1: of something, what are all the causes. This is why 290 00:17:22,236 --> 00:17:24,916 Speaker 1: we like to study history, because with some distance you 291 00:17:25,196 --> 00:17:28,436 Speaker 1: can get more understanding of all of the forces. But 292 00:17:28,996 --> 00:17:32,596 Speaker 1: several things are happening. The project came out in twenty 293 00:17:32,676 --> 00:17:36,196 Speaker 1: nineteen during the Trump presidency, which some on the right 294 00:17:36,276 --> 00:17:39,116 Speaker 1: saw as planned, though I certainly couldn't have planned for 295 00:17:39,156 --> 00:17:42,156 Speaker 1: the four hundred anniversary to fall in twenty nineteen. That 296 00:17:42,876 --> 00:17:45,716 Speaker 1: was put into motion four hundred years ago, and I 297 00:17:45,876 --> 00:17:48,876 Speaker 1: was very careful at the project really not to mention 298 00:17:48,916 --> 00:17:51,436 Speaker 1: Donald Trump at all, because the project was not about 299 00:17:51,476 --> 00:17:53,996 Speaker 1: a single moment in American history. The project was about 300 00:17:54,036 --> 00:17:56,676 Speaker 1: the sweep of four hundred years, and whether Donald Trump 301 00:17:56,716 --> 00:17:59,196 Speaker 1: was a president or Obama was a president, everything in 302 00:17:59,236 --> 00:18:01,756 Speaker 1: the project would have been just as true. But I 303 00:18:01,796 --> 00:18:05,836 Speaker 1: think because it landed in that moment when we had 304 00:18:05,916 --> 00:18:08,876 Speaker 1: replaced the first black president with I would say, an 305 00:18:09,276 --> 00:18:13,676 Speaker 1: the white nationalist president, where we were seeing a lot 306 00:18:13,756 --> 00:18:16,716 Speaker 1: of Americans really trying to understand because they believed that 307 00:18:16,796 --> 00:18:20,836 Speaker 1: the election of Obama had somehow banished racism in America 308 00:18:20,836 --> 00:18:23,796 Speaker 1: and we had reached this post racial age, and then 309 00:18:23,956 --> 00:18:27,476 Speaker 1: a white minority alex A white nationalists as president. And 310 00:18:27,516 --> 00:18:29,796 Speaker 1: then after the project comes out, of course, we see 311 00:18:30,196 --> 00:18:34,916 Speaker 1: George Floyd, Brianna Taylor, and the largest protests for civil 312 00:18:34,996 --> 00:18:37,956 Speaker 1: rights in the history of our country. And with that 313 00:18:38,116 --> 00:18:41,356 Speaker 1: is coming, I think a lot of fears being stoked 314 00:18:41,356 --> 00:18:44,876 Speaker 1: about the changing demographics of our nation, a changing sense 315 00:18:44,916 --> 00:18:48,156 Speaker 1: of power. You started seeing, of course, all these companies 316 00:18:48,156 --> 00:18:52,996 Speaker 1: embracing Black Lives Matter, a massive shift in white Americans 317 00:18:53,156 --> 00:18:55,996 Speaker 1: embrace of Black Lives matter for the first time, more 318 00:18:56,036 --> 00:18:59,796 Speaker 1: than fifty percent of white Americans supported that movement. White 319 00:18:59,836 --> 00:19:04,156 Speaker 1: Americans were starting, I think large percentages of them were 320 00:19:04,156 --> 00:19:07,876 Speaker 1: really starting to believe that maybe there is something systemic 321 00:19:07,916 --> 00:19:11,036 Speaker 1: going on in this country that not just about individual 322 00:19:11,236 --> 00:19:14,396 Speaker 1: black people choosing to take advantage. And the sixty nineteen 323 00:19:14,396 --> 00:19:16,396 Speaker 1: Project is in the middle of all of that. And 324 00:19:16,436 --> 00:19:19,756 Speaker 1: I think what happens then is there as a tremendous 325 00:19:19,876 --> 00:19:23,676 Speaker 1: pushback by those who are in power. We're talking about 326 00:19:23,956 --> 00:19:28,276 Speaker 1: sitting us senators, We're talking about the Secretary of Defense, right, 327 00:19:28,316 --> 00:19:31,556 Speaker 1: we're talking about Nicky Haley, who was at the United Nations. 328 00:19:31,916 --> 00:19:36,956 Speaker 1: People who are standing for institutional power in a almost 329 00:19:37,116 --> 00:19:41,356 Speaker 1: entirely white political party began to see the sixty nineteen 330 00:19:41,396 --> 00:19:44,556 Speaker 1: project as as symbolic of some larger I think, cultural 331 00:19:44,596 --> 00:19:47,796 Speaker 1: shift and that this could be something that could be 332 00:19:47,836 --> 00:19:51,836 Speaker 1: a useful political tool because it was, I think they 333 00:19:51,876 --> 00:19:55,236 Speaker 1: were tapping into a feeling amongst many white Americans like, well, 334 00:19:55,316 --> 00:19:58,036 Speaker 1: maybe maybe things have gone too far. Okay, I support 335 00:19:58,076 --> 00:20:01,036 Speaker 1: Black Lives Matter, But now are they saying I have 336 00:20:01,116 --> 00:20:03,716 Speaker 1: to hate this country's founding. Now they want me to 337 00:20:03,716 --> 00:20:06,796 Speaker 1: talk about the fact that George Washington wasn't Enslaver and 338 00:20:06,836 --> 00:20:09,556 Speaker 1: Thomas Jefferson wasn't Enslaver. And we have a g deal 339 00:20:09,556 --> 00:20:12,276 Speaker 1: of investment in the mythology of America. I mean, every 340 00:20:12,276 --> 00:20:16,076 Speaker 1: country has investment in its own mythology. But what's so 341 00:20:16,196 --> 00:20:19,236 Speaker 1: hard about the United States is no other country was 342 00:20:19,276 --> 00:20:22,436 Speaker 1: founded on these ideals of liberty where their entire identity 343 00:20:22,756 --> 00:20:25,116 Speaker 1: as a country is on this belief that we are 344 00:20:25,156 --> 00:20:29,476 Speaker 1: the freest, greatest, most liberatory country in the world. And 345 00:20:29,516 --> 00:20:32,236 Speaker 1: so we have not wanted to grapple with what it 346 00:20:32,276 --> 00:20:35,716 Speaker 1: means to be founded on slavery and freedom. That freedom 347 00:20:35,716 --> 00:20:38,596 Speaker 1: for white people in this country was actually created on 348 00:20:38,756 --> 00:20:41,276 Speaker 1: the enslavement of black people. That's why the project had 349 00:20:41,316 --> 00:20:43,716 Speaker 1: to exist in the first places. We haven't wanted to 350 00:20:43,756 --> 00:20:45,996 Speaker 1: deal with that, and so to have this project come 351 00:20:45,996 --> 00:20:50,276 Speaker 1: out and then this really turbulent time with Black Lives 352 00:20:50,276 --> 00:20:53,916 Speaker 1: Matter protests and our president who is openly stoking white resentment, 353 00:20:54,156 --> 00:20:57,396 Speaker 1: I think we got this really combustible mix, and that's 354 00:20:57,436 --> 00:21:00,916 Speaker 1: where we are right now. We're seeing a massive pushback 355 00:21:01,236 --> 00:21:04,356 Speaker 1: against the belief that black people's gains are coming too 356 00:21:04,396 --> 00:21:07,516 Speaker 1: swiftly and they are coming at the cost of white Americans. 357 00:21:07,596 --> 00:21:11,076 Speaker 1: And we've seen this before, So that to me is 358 00:21:11,116 --> 00:21:15,516 Speaker 1: why this is so fundamentally difficult and why we fight 359 00:21:15,636 --> 00:21:19,476 Speaker 1: so hard not to be truthful about our past. Is 360 00:21:19,476 --> 00:21:22,436 Speaker 1: we don't feel like the narrative of our nation can 361 00:21:22,476 --> 00:21:26,956 Speaker 1: withstand the truth. And you know, I guess I'm just 362 00:21:27,036 --> 00:21:29,436 Speaker 1: not sure what as a as a black person in 363 00:21:29,436 --> 00:21:31,796 Speaker 1: this country who always say we're the most you know, 364 00:21:31,876 --> 00:21:37,196 Speaker 1: inconvenient people to this nationalistic narrative that Americans need to have. 365 00:21:37,916 --> 00:21:40,556 Speaker 1: What are we then supposed to do with that? We 366 00:21:40,596 --> 00:21:44,156 Speaker 1: are just supposed to ignore that we didn't have freedom, 367 00:21:44,236 --> 00:21:47,196 Speaker 1: that we were held in bondage, that we're still fighting, 368 00:21:47,276 --> 00:21:49,836 Speaker 1: you know, for equality. Now I can't do that and 369 00:21:49,836 --> 00:21:52,956 Speaker 1: I won't do that. That's a fascinating and I think 370 00:21:53,036 --> 00:21:55,716 Speaker 1: very astute historical analysis of the moment that you're in. 371 00:21:55,796 --> 00:21:58,836 Speaker 1: And I agree that the fact of the social movement 372 00:21:58,836 --> 00:22:01,276 Speaker 1: of Black Lives Matter and it's its successes and the 373 00:22:01,316 --> 00:22:05,596 Speaker 1: relevant historical moment has to be understood in conjunction with 374 00:22:05,636 --> 00:22:08,196 Speaker 1: the with the response to Black Lives Matter. That also 375 00:22:08,236 --> 00:22:11,116 Speaker 1: explains some of the personal attacks on you, you know, 376 00:22:11,156 --> 00:22:14,236 Speaker 1: which may come in the form of attacking credentials, but 377 00:22:14,316 --> 00:22:17,316 Speaker 1: are presumably also included in a very fundamental way, the 378 00:22:17,356 --> 00:22:20,796 Speaker 1: idea that you're a black woman telling people, Hey, this 379 00:22:20,876 --> 00:22:23,396 Speaker 1: is the truth, and here's all the proof that hits 380 00:22:23,436 --> 00:22:24,996 Speaker 1: the truth, and it's hard for people to say it's 381 00:22:25,036 --> 00:22:28,156 Speaker 1: not the truth because it is, and so their responses, 382 00:22:28,156 --> 00:22:30,196 Speaker 1: who are you right? I mean, you don't have the 383 00:22:30,276 --> 00:22:33,276 Speaker 1: relevant credential. I mean that's sort of like the worst 384 00:22:33,356 --> 00:22:36,236 Speaker 1: least convincing form of argument that can be imagined. But 385 00:22:36,236 --> 00:22:38,436 Speaker 1: it doesn't mean it's not pretty difficult to have to 386 00:22:38,476 --> 00:22:41,556 Speaker 1: sustain it on a day to day basis. Yeah, and 387 00:22:41,596 --> 00:22:45,236 Speaker 1: it's been I mean, it's actually been fairly successful. I 388 00:22:45,276 --> 00:22:48,836 Speaker 1: think that argument because I mean, and you know this 389 00:22:48,916 --> 00:22:53,076 Speaker 1: as as someone who works at academia, that disagreement is 390 00:22:53,116 --> 00:22:59,476 Speaker 1: inherent to academia, and that history and the field of 391 00:22:59,516 --> 00:23:05,076 Speaker 1: historiography is about interpretations of fact, and you can look 392 00:23:05,116 --> 00:23:07,636 Speaker 1: at two historians can look at the same exact facts 393 00:23:07,636 --> 00:23:10,836 Speaker 1: and come up with different and interpretations of them, and 394 00:23:10,876 --> 00:23:14,196 Speaker 1: that's not seen as disqualifying. But what has occurred with 395 00:23:14,276 --> 00:23:18,076 Speaker 1: the sixteen nineteen project is really I can't even say 396 00:23:18,116 --> 00:23:20,996 Speaker 1: the sixteen nineteen project. It's almost been exclusively just my 397 00:23:21,156 --> 00:23:24,436 Speaker 1: opening essay in the sixteen nineteen project is the fact 398 00:23:24,436 --> 00:23:27,676 Speaker 1: that some historians felt I made an argument too strong 399 00:23:27,716 --> 00:23:31,276 Speaker 1: about the American Revolution and the role of slavery. That 400 00:23:31,396 --> 00:23:35,036 Speaker 1: that has been used then to justify trying to discredit 401 00:23:35,076 --> 00:23:37,876 Speaker 1: the entire project as well as me as a journalist. 402 00:23:38,156 --> 00:23:41,516 Speaker 1: And that's what I think we've been fighting against ever since. 403 00:23:42,076 --> 00:23:46,156 Speaker 1: It doesn't matter how many times I put up pieces 404 00:23:46,196 --> 00:23:50,356 Speaker 1: written by other historians who say, actually their interpretations are 405 00:23:50,396 --> 00:23:53,916 Speaker 1: well within the range of accepted scholarship, we agree with 406 00:23:53,916 --> 00:23:56,916 Speaker 1: their interpretations, it doesn't matter, because there really is a 407 00:23:56,996 --> 00:24:00,876 Speaker 1: vested interest that really spans the political spectrum. It's not 408 00:24:00,916 --> 00:24:03,836 Speaker 1: just a vested interest of white conservatives. I think there's 409 00:24:03,836 --> 00:24:07,476 Speaker 1: a vested interest of many white moderate and progressives as 410 00:24:07,556 --> 00:24:10,436 Speaker 1: well to believe that we may have been a country 411 00:24:10,476 --> 00:24:12,756 Speaker 1: that has failed in some ways, but that we are 412 00:24:12,756 --> 00:24:15,956 Speaker 1: fundamentally good and we are founded by fundamentally good people. 413 00:24:16,276 --> 00:24:18,556 Speaker 1: And I'm saying I don't it's not an argument about 414 00:24:18,556 --> 00:24:21,276 Speaker 1: whether our founders were good or bad. Right, every human 415 00:24:21,316 --> 00:24:24,636 Speaker 1: being is capable of doing really terrible things and really 416 00:24:24,756 --> 00:24:28,676 Speaker 1: great things. It's just a matter of what they did 417 00:24:28,756 --> 00:24:31,316 Speaker 1: is what they did, and what they said about how 418 00:24:31,356 --> 00:24:34,196 Speaker 1: they felt about black people is what they said. And 419 00:24:34,476 --> 00:24:37,596 Speaker 1: I just don't see the benefit of obscuring that, even 420 00:24:37,636 --> 00:24:39,636 Speaker 1: if it makes us very uncomfortable. We have to be 421 00:24:39,676 --> 00:24:42,916 Speaker 1: able to have complex discussions about who we are as 422 00:24:42,916 --> 00:24:56,476 Speaker 1: a people in a nation. We'll be right back, Nicole. 423 00:24:56,556 --> 00:25:00,396 Speaker 1: I'm glad that you raised this issue of interpretation as 424 00:25:00,476 --> 00:25:03,356 Speaker 1: the kind of day in and day out work of 425 00:25:03,476 --> 00:25:07,556 Speaker 1: historians and then the relationship of that to the work 426 00:25:07,556 --> 00:25:11,796 Speaker 1: of journalism, because it leads us to one of the 427 00:25:11,796 --> 00:25:14,076 Speaker 1: topics that to me is most important here, and that 428 00:25:14,236 --> 00:25:17,836 Speaker 1: is the contested idea of objectivity. Yeah, and so I 429 00:25:17,876 --> 00:25:20,876 Speaker 1: want to spend a minute talking with you about, first 430 00:25:20,916 --> 00:25:24,356 Speaker 1: of all, whether the word objectivity has different meanings in 431 00:25:24,396 --> 00:25:27,956 Speaker 1: the context of journalism and the context of history, and 432 00:25:28,036 --> 00:25:30,836 Speaker 1: second of all, about whether that word is useful at 433 00:25:30,876 --> 00:25:34,196 Speaker 1: all to us in either of those contexts, because I 434 00:25:34,196 --> 00:25:35,956 Speaker 1: think that's a hard question. I don't think there's a 435 00:25:36,516 --> 00:25:38,116 Speaker 1: simple answer to it, but I think it does have 436 00:25:38,196 --> 00:25:41,476 Speaker 1: something to do with why the fights here have been 437 00:25:41,556 --> 00:25:43,436 Speaker 1: enabled to be so brutal. I'm not in any way 438 00:25:43,636 --> 00:25:46,476 Speaker 1: disputing what you're saying about there being vested interests, but 439 00:25:46,596 --> 00:25:48,116 Speaker 1: you know, there are different kinds of vested interests. They 440 00:25:48,156 --> 00:25:50,876 Speaker 1: are vest interests that are grounded in economic, interests that 441 00:25:50,956 --> 00:25:52,916 Speaker 1: are grounded in capital, and then they're vested interests that 442 00:25:52,956 --> 00:25:56,236 Speaker 1: are grounded into people's deeply held beliefs that may have 443 00:25:56,276 --> 00:25:59,836 Speaker 1: something to do in some instances with underlying economic interests, 444 00:25:59,876 --> 00:26:01,756 Speaker 1: but also have a life of their own. So I 445 00:26:01,756 --> 00:26:04,796 Speaker 1: guess I want to start with objectivity in journalism and 446 00:26:04,796 --> 00:26:06,676 Speaker 1: then talk about objectivity in history, and then we'll talk 447 00:26:06,676 --> 00:26:09,276 Speaker 1: about how they bump into each other. So you've you've 448 00:26:09,316 --> 00:26:15,476 Speaker 1: spoken about this before. What's your view on objectivity in journalism? Yeah? 449 00:26:15,516 --> 00:26:18,156 Speaker 1: Thank you, for that, and let me just just quickly 450 00:26:18,196 --> 00:26:21,116 Speaker 1: back up. I don't think the opposition to the sixteen 451 00:26:21,156 --> 00:26:23,956 Speaker 1: nineteen project, or to kind of the rendering of history 452 00:26:24,756 --> 00:26:29,836 Speaker 1: and society that the sixteen nineteen project poses is merely economic. 453 00:26:29,876 --> 00:26:32,876 Speaker 1: I don't even know that it's primarily economic. It really 454 00:26:32,956 --> 00:26:36,436 Speaker 1: is about the power to shape identity and how we 455 00:26:36,516 --> 00:26:39,996 Speaker 1: think about ourselves as a nation and the fundamental goodness 456 00:26:40,036 --> 00:26:43,396 Speaker 1: of America that we're indoctrinated into from when we take 457 00:26:43,436 --> 00:26:46,236 Speaker 1: our first breath. What that said, I think your question 458 00:26:46,996 --> 00:26:51,516 Speaker 1: about objectivity and history and objectivity in journalism is a 459 00:26:51,596 --> 00:26:54,876 Speaker 1: very interesting one and not one that I've gotten though 460 00:26:54,916 --> 00:26:58,916 Speaker 1: I'm clearly working around both areas, and after I answer, 461 00:26:58,956 --> 00:27:01,036 Speaker 1: I'd actually love to hear your answer on that. Sure 462 00:27:01,236 --> 00:27:05,196 Speaker 1: so one. I think in some ways they're slightly different 463 00:27:05,276 --> 00:27:11,116 Speaker 1: because journalism encompasses not to is kind of daily reporting, 464 00:27:11,916 --> 00:27:16,636 Speaker 1: just the facts reporting, but also opinion writing. You know, 465 00:27:16,676 --> 00:27:21,156 Speaker 1: we do reporting that is accountability reporting, and I don't 466 00:27:21,156 --> 00:27:23,516 Speaker 1: think you can when you're writing about Watergate, you're not 467 00:27:23,556 --> 00:27:25,876 Speaker 1: being objective. You don't think the government should be corrupt, 468 00:27:26,316 --> 00:27:31,756 Speaker 1: and there's explanatory reporting, and I think history you don't 469 00:27:31,796 --> 00:27:34,756 Speaker 1: tend to think of of being about opinion, but really 470 00:27:35,276 --> 00:27:39,756 Speaker 1: of unearthing what happened, in helping us understand why and 471 00:27:39,796 --> 00:27:42,916 Speaker 1: what it meant. So I think there's there's some differences there, 472 00:27:43,196 --> 00:27:47,116 Speaker 1: but I do think both of them both field really 473 00:27:47,156 --> 00:27:50,676 Speaker 1: do I would say, hide behind, but certainly offer up 474 00:27:50,876 --> 00:27:58,196 Speaker 1: the armor of objectivity, that the person who is producing 475 00:27:58,196 --> 00:28:01,796 Speaker 1: the work is not operating from their own personal sense 476 00:28:01,836 --> 00:28:04,676 Speaker 1: of things or their own personal politics, that they're just 477 00:28:05,196 --> 00:28:08,676 Speaker 1: going where the facts lead us. Of course, that's never 478 00:28:08,756 --> 00:28:11,796 Speaker 1: bench true. I mean, we know that that's never been true. 479 00:28:11,996 --> 00:28:14,476 Speaker 1: And you know, you look at someone like Sean wilentzon 480 00:28:14,596 --> 00:28:18,676 Speaker 1: no property in men. There's been plenty of other historians 481 00:28:18,716 --> 00:28:22,516 Speaker 1: who have disagreed with the way that he sees the 482 00:28:22,636 --> 00:28:26,716 Speaker 1: role of slavery and the Constitution in James Madison motivations 483 00:28:26,756 --> 00:28:33,916 Speaker 1: for putting that right. So one could say that objectively, 484 00:28:33,996 --> 00:28:38,636 Speaker 1: based on his understanding of that history, that's why he 485 00:28:38,676 --> 00:28:42,036 Speaker 1: writes that. But I would say that's not actually coming 486 00:28:42,076 --> 00:28:45,116 Speaker 1: from an objective perspective. That he is a man with 487 00:28:45,236 --> 00:28:49,036 Speaker 1: certain beliefs about this nation. He is a man who 488 00:28:49,156 --> 00:28:52,356 Speaker 1: grew up in this nation racialized and genderized in a 489 00:28:52,396 --> 00:28:55,076 Speaker 1: certain way, with a certain class status and that all 490 00:28:55,156 --> 00:29:00,836 Speaker 1: of these things play into your and even your field 491 00:29:00,876 --> 00:29:02,476 Speaker 1: of study. Right, have you spent a ton of time 492 00:29:02,516 --> 00:29:06,316 Speaker 1: studying slavery in particular or not? And I think all 493 00:29:06,356 --> 00:29:09,996 Speaker 1: of those things then go into how you're interpret these 494 00:29:09,996 --> 00:29:13,196 Speaker 1: different documents and the motivations, because what that really is 495 00:29:13,236 --> 00:29:16,436 Speaker 1: about is trying to interpret the motivation and that is 496 00:29:16,476 --> 00:29:19,356 Speaker 1: not unless the person you know, James Madison said I 497 00:29:19,396 --> 00:29:21,756 Speaker 1: am putting this in here because I feel this way 498 00:29:21,796 --> 00:29:25,796 Speaker 1: about slavery. Then we are trying to surmise based on 499 00:29:25,836 --> 00:29:28,276 Speaker 1: a lot of contextual things. And that's similar, I think 500 00:29:28,276 --> 00:29:32,036 Speaker 1: to what journalism does, which is what we choose to 501 00:29:32,036 --> 00:29:35,636 Speaker 1: study in the first place, both as historians and journalists 502 00:29:35,956 --> 00:29:40,636 Speaker 1: rarely objective, almost always subjective, Who we study, what primary 503 00:29:40,676 --> 00:29:43,116 Speaker 1: documents we use, what is going to be the focus 504 00:29:43,156 --> 00:29:47,436 Speaker 1: of the work. These are not objective decisions. And when 505 00:29:47,436 --> 00:29:51,916 Speaker 1: I think about objectivity, I think we should all strive 506 00:29:51,956 --> 00:29:55,236 Speaker 1: for objectivity of method. And the word is useful in 507 00:29:55,356 --> 00:30:01,596 Speaker 1: that way. Right. Am I being fair? Am I being accurate? 508 00:30:01,956 --> 00:30:06,556 Speaker 1: Am I accurately describing the events as they happened? And 509 00:30:06,596 --> 00:30:10,316 Speaker 1: am I being fair to the parties involveolved in my 510 00:30:10,436 --> 00:30:13,276 Speaker 1: rendering of the events that happened. But that's very different 511 00:30:13,276 --> 00:30:16,196 Speaker 1: than pretending that what I'm doing is in and of 512 00:30:16,236 --> 00:30:21,516 Speaker 1: itself objective. When I choose to write about school segregation 513 00:30:21,836 --> 00:30:25,596 Speaker 1: as opposed to writing about something else in education, that's 514 00:30:25,636 --> 00:30:28,716 Speaker 1: a subjective choice. I think that it's important other journalists 515 00:30:28,756 --> 00:30:31,916 Speaker 1: did not, and they didn't write about it that much, 516 00:30:32,036 --> 00:30:34,676 Speaker 1: And I think we should just be more honest about 517 00:30:35,916 --> 00:30:38,356 Speaker 1: the limits of this notion of objectivity, and that it 518 00:30:38,396 --> 00:30:41,396 Speaker 1: has never existed, and that all of us are pursuing 519 00:30:41,476 --> 00:30:45,876 Speaker 1: work through the framework of our own lived existence and 520 00:30:46,236 --> 00:30:48,996 Speaker 1: what makes sense to us as we study scholarship, how 521 00:30:49,076 --> 00:30:51,916 Speaker 1: we interpret it. I write about this actually in the 522 00:30:51,956 --> 00:30:54,316 Speaker 1: new in the preface for the sixteen nineteen book, and 523 00:30:54,396 --> 00:30:58,916 Speaker 1: I talk about Abraham Lincoln and the offense that, you know, 524 00:30:58,956 --> 00:31:01,916 Speaker 1: the small group of scholars took to thinking I was 525 00:31:01,956 --> 00:31:05,116 Speaker 1: calling Abraham Lincoln racist, which actually didn't call him racist. 526 00:31:05,196 --> 00:31:07,716 Speaker 1: I did say that, according to his own words, he 527 00:31:07,756 --> 00:31:13,116 Speaker 1: didn't believe in equality for black Americans. But two different 528 00:31:13,196 --> 00:31:18,796 Speaker 1: historians can look at Lincoln's view on colonization, for instance, 529 00:31:18,916 --> 00:31:23,276 Speaker 1: and one could argue that he believed in colonization as 530 00:31:23,276 --> 00:31:26,796 Speaker 1: a political argument because he just didn't think white moderates 531 00:31:26,796 --> 00:31:28,796 Speaker 1: would agree to abolish slavery if there were going to 532 00:31:28,836 --> 00:31:31,716 Speaker 1: be a bunch of free black people living in America. 533 00:31:31,756 --> 00:31:35,756 Speaker 1: And I think you could justify that based on what 534 00:31:35,796 --> 00:31:38,716 Speaker 1: we know about Lincoln. And others might say, well, we 535 00:31:39,076 --> 00:31:41,676 Speaker 1: think Lincoln actually didn't believe black people had a place 536 00:31:41,676 --> 00:31:44,396 Speaker 1: in our democracy and that they were going to be 537 00:31:44,476 --> 00:31:47,116 Speaker 1: the troublesome presence, and that the best thing to do 538 00:31:47,396 --> 00:31:50,116 Speaker 1: would be to leave them. That these were his personal beliefs. 539 00:31:50,116 --> 00:31:51,916 Speaker 1: And I think you could support both of those things, 540 00:31:52,156 --> 00:31:54,956 Speaker 1: which is the objective view in that case. But as 541 00:31:54,996 --> 00:31:58,756 Speaker 1: you know, most Americans don't have a real understanding of 542 00:31:58,756 --> 00:32:00,756 Speaker 1: how the field works, and so they think there is 543 00:32:00,836 --> 00:32:04,516 Speaker 1: an answer, a single right answer. But historians know better. 544 00:32:04,556 --> 00:32:07,316 Speaker 1: And I think that's why some of the criticism, not 545 00:32:07,356 --> 00:32:09,836 Speaker 1: the criticism, but the efforts to actually credit the facts 546 00:32:09,836 --> 00:32:12,956 Speaker 1: that the project felt personal to me, which is I'm 547 00:32:12,956 --> 00:32:15,036 Speaker 1: getting off on a TANTISI apologize. No no, if no, 548 00:32:15,236 --> 00:32:16,876 Speaker 1: don't apologize, And it's not a tangent. I mean, I 549 00:32:16,916 --> 00:32:19,636 Speaker 1: think everything you said hung together. Let me take up 550 00:32:19,636 --> 00:32:21,676 Speaker 1: your invitation to just say a word about how it 551 00:32:21,716 --> 00:32:25,596 Speaker 1: looks from high perspective, I hear. I tend to agree 552 00:32:25,636 --> 00:32:30,396 Speaker 1: with you that it's helpful to try to distinguish, both 553 00:32:30,396 --> 00:32:33,676 Speaker 1: in journalism and in history the part of the work 554 00:32:34,076 --> 00:32:38,076 Speaker 1: that is focused on getting facts and which should strive 555 00:32:38,196 --> 00:32:40,716 Speaker 1: to objectivity. I'm not saying it can never perfectly reach it, 556 00:32:40,756 --> 00:32:45,876 Speaker 1: but should strive to reporting and setting down factual events 557 00:32:45,956 --> 00:32:48,556 Speaker 1: in as accurate a way as possible. Right, So, let's 558 00:32:48,556 --> 00:32:51,036 Speaker 1: say we're trying to figure out what Abraham Lincoln said 559 00:32:51,116 --> 00:32:54,236 Speaker 1: to the group of five prominent Washington, DC African Americans 560 00:32:54,396 --> 00:32:56,916 Speaker 1: who were invited to meet with him in the White 561 00:32:56,916 --> 00:33:00,196 Speaker 1: House in the period right before he announced the Emancipation 562 00:33:00,236 --> 00:33:03,436 Speaker 1: Proclamation or after he'd mentioned his draft. There was a meeting, 563 00:33:03,476 --> 00:33:06,196 Speaker 1: there was a conversation there. We'll never get the exact 564 00:33:06,276 --> 00:33:08,476 Speaker 1: transcript of what was said, because it's not Watergate. There 565 00:33:08,476 --> 00:33:10,836 Speaker 1: were no tapes, but we have various reports of what 566 00:33:10,916 --> 00:33:13,716 Speaker 1: was said, and both a journalist and a historian would 567 00:33:13,716 --> 00:33:16,036 Speaker 1: try really hard to get the facts of what was 568 00:33:16,116 --> 00:33:18,876 Speaker 1: said at that meaning to the extent possible and knowing 569 00:33:18,876 --> 00:33:20,476 Speaker 1: full well that there are gaps in the record. So, 570 00:33:20,516 --> 00:33:23,356 Speaker 1: for example, you know, we've got some accounts of what 571 00:33:23,396 --> 00:33:26,916 Speaker 1: Lincoln said, the accounts of what the African Americans who 572 00:33:26,916 --> 00:33:29,636 Speaker 1: had been chosen for that delegation said are harder to 573 00:33:29,676 --> 00:33:31,836 Speaker 1: come by. They're there, but there it takes more work 574 00:33:31,876 --> 00:33:33,956 Speaker 1: to find them. And you know, we weren't in the room. 575 00:33:33,996 --> 00:33:36,316 Speaker 1: We don't know exactly what went down. But that's the 576 00:33:36,356 --> 00:33:38,716 Speaker 1: part that I think we can strive for objectivity on. 577 00:33:39,076 --> 00:33:43,236 Speaker 1: Then comes the interpretation part, and there it's tricky because 578 00:33:43,276 --> 00:33:46,836 Speaker 1: I think all working historians know and except that the 579 00:33:46,916 --> 00:33:49,396 Speaker 1: job of historian isn't just to say what happened in 580 00:33:49,396 --> 00:33:51,756 Speaker 1: the meeting, but to say what it meant, you know, 581 00:33:51,836 --> 00:33:54,276 Speaker 1: how it fit together, and to try to speculate on 582 00:33:54,356 --> 00:33:56,556 Speaker 1: why people said what they said, and also to specul 583 00:33:56,716 --> 00:33:58,876 Speaker 1: on what they might have meant when they said what 584 00:33:58,916 --> 00:34:00,836 Speaker 1: they said. So, you know, we know with pretty high 585 00:34:00,876 --> 00:34:04,116 Speaker 1: degree of objectivity that Lincoln told that that group of 586 00:34:04,156 --> 00:34:06,916 Speaker 1: men they were men. You African Americans are the cause 587 00:34:06,956 --> 00:34:09,636 Speaker 1: of the war. It's your fault. You know. He used 588 00:34:09,676 --> 00:34:12,276 Speaker 1: this metaphor that Frederick Douglas was so horrified by afterwards, 589 00:34:12,276 --> 00:34:14,676 Speaker 1: and it's still very horrifying today where he you know, 590 00:34:14,716 --> 00:34:17,116 Speaker 1: he basically told them white people are killing each other 591 00:34:17,276 --> 00:34:20,676 Speaker 1: over you, so you're you're the problem. That's very close 592 00:34:20,716 --> 00:34:23,876 Speaker 1: to verbat him. What Lincoln said, but to understand what 593 00:34:23,996 --> 00:34:26,916 Speaker 1: he meant by that requires a work of interpretation, and 594 00:34:26,956 --> 00:34:29,236 Speaker 1: that part, I think is much harder to describe as 595 00:34:29,516 --> 00:34:32,236 Speaker 1: objectives because it's reconstructive. You know, it's an effort of 596 00:34:32,236 --> 00:34:34,636 Speaker 1: trying to figure out what was in somebody's mind and 597 00:34:34,636 --> 00:34:37,516 Speaker 1: what were the political circumstances. In means, that's true in 598 00:34:37,556 --> 00:34:40,436 Speaker 1: journalism as well, and to that extent, there's an interpretive 599 00:34:40,476 --> 00:34:43,516 Speaker 1: component to journalism as well, otherwise it would just be 600 00:34:43,516 --> 00:34:46,836 Speaker 1: a transcript. And so I think, you know, in both contexts, 601 00:34:47,116 --> 00:34:50,596 Speaker 1: striving for objectivity, even knowing we'll never get there, is 602 00:34:50,596 --> 00:34:52,836 Speaker 1: pretty valuable. But I also think at the same time 603 00:34:53,116 --> 00:34:56,156 Speaker 1: that that claim to objectivity gives a lot of authority. 604 00:34:56,196 --> 00:34:58,196 Speaker 1: What you were describing as the armor or the power 605 00:34:58,196 --> 00:35:00,676 Speaker 1: of objectivity, it gives a lot of power, right, The 606 00:35:00,676 --> 00:35:03,796 Speaker 1: claim to objectivity is itself a claim to power. So 607 00:35:03,836 --> 00:35:06,436 Speaker 1: that's my first thought on it, and my second has 608 00:35:06,436 --> 00:35:08,676 Speaker 1: to do with what you were saying, Nicole about you know, 609 00:35:08,676 --> 00:35:11,196 Speaker 1: each of us has it come from where people of 610 00:35:11,236 --> 00:35:14,356 Speaker 1: a certain race and gender and historical context. I think 611 00:35:14,396 --> 00:35:17,956 Speaker 1: that's all true, and it contributes to why we see 612 00:35:17,996 --> 00:35:20,476 Speaker 1: things the way we see things. But I'm not sure 613 00:35:20,676 --> 00:35:24,236 Speaker 1: that it's ever fully determinative, because you know, we could 614 00:35:24,276 --> 00:35:27,796 Speaker 1: look at Sean Willentz and his interpretations, say of James Madison, 615 00:35:28,196 --> 00:35:32,036 Speaker 1: and then some other white guy historian. I'll use myself 616 00:35:32,036 --> 00:35:35,436 Speaker 1: as an example who reads the same sources and reaches 617 00:35:35,436 --> 00:35:39,556 Speaker 1: a different conclusion about James Madison's views based on Madison's 618 00:35:39,556 --> 00:35:41,756 Speaker 1: own words. I think some of it is just the 619 00:35:41,836 --> 00:35:44,396 Speaker 1: human work of interpretation is hard, and people will reach 620 00:35:44,396 --> 00:35:49,876 Speaker 1: different conterpretations. Yeah, I mean, I certainly would not argue 621 00:35:49,956 --> 00:35:54,556 Speaker 1: that your race, gender, or class dat is determinative. I 622 00:35:54,596 --> 00:35:59,916 Speaker 1: would argue that it is influential, and that even within 623 00:36:00,396 --> 00:36:04,116 Speaker 1: white men of a certain age who grew up in 624 00:36:04,156 --> 00:36:06,956 Speaker 1: a certain place, of a certain class, dad is they 625 00:36:06,956 --> 00:36:10,356 Speaker 1: were certainly raised with different values, right, and raise with 626 00:36:10,636 --> 00:36:14,516 Speaker 1: different backgrounds and histories. Maybe one is one step out 627 00:36:14,516 --> 00:36:17,676 Speaker 1: of poverty, maybe his family came from immigrants. There's lots 628 00:36:17,676 --> 00:36:21,396 Speaker 1: of factors, but my larger point is is this belief 629 00:36:21,516 --> 00:36:25,996 Speaker 1: somehow that we can share ourselves of our identity and 630 00:36:26,116 --> 00:36:29,236 Speaker 1: just become objective kind of arbiters. I just don't think 631 00:36:29,276 --> 00:36:32,116 Speaker 1: that that is realistic. And that's why when I say 632 00:36:32,836 --> 00:36:35,116 Speaker 1: what I strive for and what I think we should, 633 00:36:35,836 --> 00:36:39,796 Speaker 1: you know more honestly strive for is again objectivity of method, 634 00:36:39,876 --> 00:36:43,996 Speaker 1: and objectivity of method is getting down all of your facts, right, 635 00:36:44,076 --> 00:36:46,556 Speaker 1: Like you said, who said what at that meeting? When 636 00:36:46,556 --> 00:36:49,396 Speaker 1: did it occur, where did it occur, why did it occur? 637 00:36:49,756 --> 00:36:53,636 Speaker 1: And then what is an accurate kind of presentation of 638 00:36:53,956 --> 00:36:56,756 Speaker 1: based on what we know about Lincoln what we think 639 00:36:56,876 --> 00:36:59,836 Speaker 1: he might have been trying to do with that meeting? Right, That, 640 00:36:59,956 --> 00:37:02,436 Speaker 1: to me is what we're trying to do. But to 641 00:37:02,556 --> 00:37:06,676 Speaker 1: then say, as Sean Mullins argued in his essay against 642 00:37:07,076 --> 00:37:10,716 Speaker 1: the sixty nineteen project, it's just about the facts. To me, 643 00:37:10,756 --> 00:37:16,676 Speaker 1: it's false and it is giving the idea of I 644 00:37:16,916 --> 00:37:19,516 Speaker 1: know the truth and this is not the truth. Now 645 00:37:19,556 --> 00:37:22,036 Speaker 1: you could say that about did this meeting occur on 646 00:37:22,076 --> 00:37:24,196 Speaker 1: this day? If I got the date wrong, then that 647 00:37:24,316 --> 00:37:27,196 Speaker 1: is just about the facts. But saying the role of 648 00:37:27,236 --> 00:37:30,476 Speaker 1: slavery in the revolution, when we know that slavery played 649 00:37:30,476 --> 00:37:33,476 Speaker 1: a role, it's that type of credentialing that I think 650 00:37:33,516 --> 00:37:35,276 Speaker 1: I'm up against. And that's the same thing that I 651 00:37:35,316 --> 00:37:40,756 Speaker 1: face in journalism when I say we don't see objective coverage, right, 652 00:37:40,796 --> 00:37:45,636 Speaker 1: the fact that for years you weren't seeing any real 653 00:37:45,636 --> 00:37:49,236 Speaker 1: accounting of police violence, and what we were seeing was 654 00:37:49,836 --> 00:37:53,956 Speaker 1: newspapers and TV news again and again running the police 655 00:37:53,996 --> 00:37:57,116 Speaker 1: report is fact. The police said that they shot him 656 00:37:57,156 --> 00:38:00,076 Speaker 1: because he went for the gun, and then citizen journalists 657 00:38:00,076 --> 00:38:03,356 Speaker 1: started putting up video showing actually he was running away 658 00:38:03,356 --> 00:38:05,316 Speaker 1: and got shot in the back, right. But we were 659 00:38:05,316 --> 00:38:07,436 Speaker 1: saying that that was just subjective. We were just reporting 660 00:38:07,636 --> 00:38:10,916 Speaker 1: the facts. That was I would argue a subjective decision. 661 00:38:11,196 --> 00:38:12,796 Speaker 1: And I think that's what I'm trying to get at 662 00:38:12,916 --> 00:38:15,716 Speaker 1: is to really help us understand that so much of 663 00:38:16,516 --> 00:38:19,516 Speaker 1: the people who are helping us interpret our world that 664 00:38:19,556 --> 00:38:22,356 Speaker 1: it's impossible to be interpreting that world through a sheerly 665 00:38:22,396 --> 00:38:26,356 Speaker 1: objective lens, because objective means I'm completely impartial. I have 666 00:38:26,396 --> 00:38:28,836 Speaker 1: a neutral point of view, and I'm just telling you 667 00:38:28,876 --> 00:38:30,956 Speaker 1: what happened. What I'm actually telling is what I think 668 00:38:31,036 --> 00:38:33,036 Speaker 1: is important for you to know, and that's what I'm 669 00:38:33,036 --> 00:38:35,476 Speaker 1: reporting on, and I think we should just be more 670 00:38:35,476 --> 00:38:39,716 Speaker 1: honest about that. I agree with you, and I think 671 00:38:39,716 --> 00:38:42,596 Speaker 1: that's very powerfully put. What I always keep in the 672 00:38:42,636 --> 00:38:45,356 Speaker 1: back of my mind is a debate between you and 673 00:38:45,356 --> 00:38:47,276 Speaker 1: Sean Lenz is a debate at least in my view, 674 00:38:47,276 --> 00:38:49,556 Speaker 1: between people of goodwill trying to get it right, and 675 00:38:49,596 --> 00:38:51,756 Speaker 1: then off on the other side somewhere there's Donald Trump, 676 00:38:52,276 --> 00:38:55,276 Speaker 1: for whom a debate about objectivity is just an opportunity 677 00:38:55,276 --> 00:38:57,516 Speaker 1: to say, look, it's all relative, there is no truth, 678 00:38:57,716 --> 00:38:59,756 Speaker 1: and then he can tell you with the Washington Post 679 00:38:59,796 --> 00:39:03,676 Speaker 1: counted what thirty thousand lies. And so if we undercut 680 00:39:03,716 --> 00:39:06,476 Speaker 1: the idea of objectivity to such a degree that we 681 00:39:06,476 --> 00:39:08,916 Speaker 1: don't think there is objectivity at all, that can make 682 00:39:08,956 --> 00:39:11,556 Speaker 1: your really hard to say, well, wait, there are some 683 00:39:11,596 --> 00:39:13,076 Speaker 1: things that are true, and there are always some things 684 00:39:13,076 --> 00:39:15,556 Speaker 1: that are false. We shouldn't fall into relativism. So I 685 00:39:15,596 --> 00:39:18,916 Speaker 1: think what's best, at least in my view, and I 686 00:39:18,956 --> 00:39:21,276 Speaker 1: think you and I probably agree about this, is that 687 00:39:21,436 --> 00:39:25,116 Speaker 1: we should acknowledge objectivity as a goal and as a 688 00:39:25,116 --> 00:39:29,036 Speaker 1: possibility with respect to facts, and therefore not feel like 689 00:39:29,076 --> 00:39:30,836 Speaker 1: we have to give in to the Trumpian line that 690 00:39:30,876 --> 00:39:33,636 Speaker 1: it's all interpretation, it's all relative their facts and then 691 00:39:33,636 --> 00:39:36,916 Speaker 1: they're alternative facts, while still being able to say honestly 692 00:39:36,956 --> 00:39:39,116 Speaker 1: that when it comes to the interpretation of facts, whether 693 00:39:39,196 --> 00:39:43,436 Speaker 1: in journalism or in history, there's no true objectivity and 694 00:39:43,436 --> 00:39:45,756 Speaker 1: there probably can't be anything like true objectivity, and a 695 00:39:45,796 --> 00:39:47,996 Speaker 1: lot of life is interpretation. A lot of life is 696 00:39:48,236 --> 00:39:50,236 Speaker 1: picking and choosing which which facts you're going to focus 697 00:39:50,276 --> 00:39:53,436 Speaker 1: on in order to interpret agree. But that's not the 698 00:39:53,556 --> 00:39:55,556 Speaker 1: sound by society we live in. I mean, I think 699 00:39:55,796 --> 00:39:59,196 Speaker 1: is right. This is the struggle with my work, with 700 00:39:59,316 --> 00:40:01,996 Speaker 1: your work, I think with being the country that we 701 00:40:02,076 --> 00:40:06,876 Speaker 1: are is these are complex issues, but we want to 702 00:40:06,916 --> 00:40:11,116 Speaker 1: be able to summarize them in very simplistic terms. And 703 00:40:11,156 --> 00:40:15,316 Speaker 1: I think your example of Madison is a great you know, 704 00:40:15,396 --> 00:40:19,596 Speaker 1: it's like I'm trying to complexify the narrative of history. 705 00:40:19,836 --> 00:40:22,676 Speaker 1: And that's not saying we should hate James Madison and 706 00:40:22,716 --> 00:40:25,796 Speaker 1: never talk about James Madison. It is to say, however, 707 00:40:26,596 --> 00:40:30,636 Speaker 1: that our founders were human beings. They were deeply contradictory. 708 00:40:30,796 --> 00:40:35,276 Speaker 1: They both just like a drug dealer understands that selling 709 00:40:35,356 --> 00:40:38,156 Speaker 1: drugs is wrong but has a financial, vested interest in 710 00:40:38,516 --> 00:40:41,036 Speaker 1: still doing something that they know is wrong. That it's 711 00:40:41,076 --> 00:40:44,436 Speaker 1: possible to hold contradictory views. In fact, most of us do. 712 00:40:44,996 --> 00:40:47,876 Speaker 1: Most of us do, and that can be hard to 713 00:40:47,956 --> 00:40:51,356 Speaker 1: have that complex conversation. Like even as I was saying 714 00:40:51,356 --> 00:40:54,516 Speaker 1: that to you, I was just seeing the Fox News 715 00:40:54,516 --> 00:40:57,476 Speaker 1: headline is probably going to run as soon as this 716 00:40:57,516 --> 00:41:01,836 Speaker 1: podcast posts, says Nicole. Hannah Jones compares James Madison to 717 00:41:01,836 --> 00:41:05,076 Speaker 1: a drug dealer, like this is the society I'm telling you. 718 00:41:05,116 --> 00:41:08,356 Speaker 1: I've spent the last few days with Fox News running 719 00:41:08,396 --> 00:41:12,276 Speaker 1: NonStop one sentence of of a clip I talked about 720 00:41:12,316 --> 00:41:15,396 Speaker 1: Cuba in an hour long interview, one sentence, you know, 721 00:41:15,396 --> 00:41:17,716 Speaker 1: to make an argument against me. And this is this 722 00:41:17,756 --> 00:41:19,676 Speaker 1: is the world that we're living in where very few 723 00:41:19,676 --> 00:41:22,476 Speaker 1: people are wanting to verify. They're not interested in the 724 00:41:22,516 --> 00:41:26,316 Speaker 1: more complex, nuanced story. What gets, you know, through the 725 00:41:26,356 --> 00:41:30,196 Speaker 1: fray of all of this information we have and disinformation 726 00:41:30,196 --> 00:41:34,116 Speaker 1: and misinformation we have, are these tiny simplistic ways of 727 00:41:34,156 --> 00:41:37,716 Speaker 1: saying someone hates America or someone loves America. Our founders 728 00:41:37,716 --> 00:41:39,716 Speaker 1: were all good, or we're saying that they were evil, 729 00:41:40,036 --> 00:41:42,436 Speaker 1: and it can be hard to do this kind of 730 00:41:42,476 --> 00:41:45,396 Speaker 1: complex work and understanding that I think we're both working 731 00:41:45,436 --> 00:41:50,756 Speaker 1: towards in that environment. Thank you for that, And you know, 732 00:41:50,756 --> 00:41:52,876 Speaker 1: if it'll add to their clip, I'll say that, you know, 733 00:41:52,916 --> 00:41:55,556 Speaker 1: maybe Madison could be compared more to a drug addict 734 00:41:55,596 --> 00:41:58,396 Speaker 1: and a drug drug dealer there so far as you know, 735 00:41:58,436 --> 00:42:00,476 Speaker 1: he was born into the arms of an enslaved person, 736 00:42:00,516 --> 00:42:03,356 Speaker 1: and an enslaved person closed his eyes when he died. 737 00:42:03,716 --> 00:42:06,796 Speaker 1: His entire economic existence, the thing that enabled him to 738 00:42:06,836 --> 00:42:09,556 Speaker 1: do the work he did for the country was based 739 00:42:09,596 --> 00:42:12,876 Speaker 1: on slavery, and in that sense, he was completely dependent 740 00:42:12,956 --> 00:42:15,116 Speaker 1: on it. He couldn't do without it, And he also 741 00:42:15,196 --> 00:42:17,156 Speaker 1: knew it was wrong at some level. I'm not sure 742 00:42:17,196 --> 00:42:20,436 Speaker 1: Jefferson entirely knew that, but I think that Madison did 743 00:42:20,436 --> 00:42:22,596 Speaker 1: know that slavery was fundamentally wrong and immoral, and the 744 00:42:22,676 --> 00:42:25,316 Speaker 1: enslaving another human being was fundamentally wrong, and he went 745 00:42:25,356 --> 00:42:27,836 Speaker 1: on doing it. I'm comparing him to a drug addict 746 00:42:27,836 --> 00:42:29,476 Speaker 1: in that sense, who knows. I don't want to be 747 00:42:29,476 --> 00:42:31,436 Speaker 1: on drugs, but I'm stuck on it, and you know what, 748 00:42:31,476 --> 00:42:33,236 Speaker 1: I'm not going to not going to change my ways. 749 00:42:33,236 --> 00:42:36,516 Speaker 1: So people are complicated. I think I agree with you there, 750 00:42:36,596 --> 00:42:40,276 Speaker 1: and it is a great challenge to contemplate our history 751 00:42:40,316 --> 00:42:43,036 Speaker 1: and connect it to our future in the honest, acknowledgment 752 00:42:43,436 --> 00:42:46,076 Speaker 1: that people in the past were deeply flawed and that 753 00:42:46,156 --> 00:42:50,836 Speaker 1: people in the present, including us as well. And I want, 754 00:42:50,916 --> 00:42:53,836 Speaker 1: I really want to thank you, Nicole for your extraordinary 755 00:42:53,836 --> 00:42:56,516 Speaker 1: body of work and for your ongoing work in trying 756 00:42:56,556 --> 00:43:00,196 Speaker 1: to complexify the way we think about our past, our present, 757 00:43:00,276 --> 00:43:04,196 Speaker 1: and our future. And congratulations on your new position at Howard, 758 00:43:04,636 --> 00:43:06,796 Speaker 1: and congratulations to the students that you're going to have 759 00:43:06,876 --> 00:43:11,116 Speaker 1: whom you're going to teach journalism alongside the journalism that 760 00:43:11,156 --> 00:43:12,756 Speaker 1: you continue to do in the history that you continue 761 00:43:12,796 --> 00:43:15,156 Speaker 1: to do. Thank you, Thank you so much. I really 762 00:43:15,236 --> 00:43:29,756 Speaker 1: enjoyed this conversation. We'll be right back listening to Nicole 763 00:43:29,836 --> 00:43:33,196 Speaker 1: Hannah Jones. I was struck again and again by just 764 00:43:33,276 --> 00:43:38,076 Speaker 1: how important and complicated the sixteen nineteen project is, and 765 00:43:38,196 --> 00:43:41,796 Speaker 1: how thoughtful she is about the controversies that have arisen 766 00:43:41,996 --> 00:43:45,276 Speaker 1: around it if you really think about it. The fact 767 00:43:45,276 --> 00:43:48,036 Speaker 1: that the sixteen nineteen project appeared in The New York 768 00:43:48,036 --> 00:43:52,276 Speaker 1: Times gave it a kind of institutional centrality to our 769 00:43:52,316 --> 00:43:56,436 Speaker 1: American debate from the get go, because it appeared in 770 00:43:56,516 --> 00:44:00,156 Speaker 1: what is still broadly considered the paper of record. People 771 00:44:00,196 --> 00:44:03,436 Speaker 1: who might have passed by this project altogether, either in 772 00:44:03,476 --> 00:44:05,796 Speaker 1: support of it or in opposition to it, had it 773 00:44:05,836 --> 00:44:09,716 Speaker 1: been produced in an academic journal focused and took it seriously. 774 00:44:10,396 --> 00:44:12,996 Speaker 1: People who are attracted to the narrative of the sixteen 775 00:44:13,076 --> 00:44:16,836 Speaker 1: nineteen project appreciated that the New York Times was willing 776 00:44:17,076 --> 00:44:20,596 Speaker 1: to put its institutional prestige on the line by publishing 777 00:44:20,636 --> 00:44:24,636 Speaker 1: something that had both historical and contemporary relevance and importance. 778 00:44:25,236 --> 00:44:27,676 Speaker 1: At the same time, people who were opposed to that 779 00:44:27,836 --> 00:44:32,076 Speaker 1: narrative were particularly upset. I think because The New York 780 00:44:32,076 --> 00:44:35,996 Speaker 1: Times stands for a journalistic objectivity, and if you wish 781 00:44:36,036 --> 00:44:39,796 Speaker 1: to contest the historical interpretation that the sixteen nineteen project 782 00:44:39,796 --> 00:44:43,556 Speaker 1: coalesces around, it's a lot harder to do so given 783 00:44:43,556 --> 00:44:45,676 Speaker 1: that it did appear in The New York Times, which 784 00:44:45,716 --> 00:44:49,996 Speaker 1: brings with it the association of journalistic objectivity than it 785 00:44:50,076 --> 00:44:52,756 Speaker 1: would have been had these arguments appeared, as in many 786 00:44:52,796 --> 00:44:57,676 Speaker 1: cases they had before, in academic journals. Thus, the question 787 00:44:57,876 --> 00:45:02,676 Speaker 1: of journalism's power was central to a debate that then 788 00:45:02,796 --> 00:45:05,476 Speaker 1: quickly became a debate about another form of power, the 789 00:45:05,596 --> 00:45:09,356 Speaker 1: power to set our national narrative. Who gets to do that. 790 00:45:09,756 --> 00:45:13,116 Speaker 1: Politicians in state legislatures believe they should have the right 791 00:45:13,156 --> 00:45:16,356 Speaker 1: to do that by determining by law what gets taught 792 00:45:16,396 --> 00:45:20,396 Speaker 1: in American schools about our history. Historians believe that they 793 00:45:20,436 --> 00:45:22,996 Speaker 1: should have the institutional power to do that through their 794 00:45:23,076 --> 00:45:25,836 Speaker 1: historical interpretation and through the work that they do in 795 00:45:25,876 --> 00:45:30,476 Speaker 1: credential scholarly journals. And yet in reality, everybody who has 796 00:45:30,516 --> 00:45:33,396 Speaker 1: a voice has the capacity to contribute to that national narrative, 797 00:45:33,556 --> 00:45:37,956 Speaker 1: and that includes journalism. In this sense, legacy media and 798 00:45:37,996 --> 00:45:40,396 Speaker 1: The New York Times is the very essence of legacy 799 00:45:40,596 --> 00:45:45,916 Speaker 1: media actually still plays a crucially important role, even in 800 00:45:45,956 --> 00:45:49,356 Speaker 1: the age of social media, in defining who we think 801 00:45:49,396 --> 00:45:52,716 Speaker 1: we are and in getting people to argue about that 802 00:45:52,836 --> 00:45:56,876 Speaker 1: core question of who we are. A further theme that 803 00:45:56,956 --> 00:46:00,676 Speaker 1: emerged from Nicole Hannah Jones's analysis is the theme of 804 00:46:00,716 --> 00:46:05,676 Speaker 1: objectivity and figuring out exactly what it means. Nicole believes 805 00:46:05,676 --> 00:46:08,596 Speaker 1: in what she calls objectivity of method, where you try 806 00:46:08,756 --> 00:46:11,596 Speaker 1: very hard to get the facts right, whether those facts 807 00:46:11,596 --> 00:46:15,196 Speaker 1: are journalistic or historical. And yet the moment that we 808 00:46:15,236 --> 00:46:18,516 Speaker 1: start asking which facts are we adducing to make a point, 809 00:46:18,836 --> 00:46:22,276 Speaker 1: which facts matter, and what do the facts mean, we are, 810 00:46:22,396 --> 00:46:25,556 Speaker 1: she says, out of the realm of objectivity and into 811 00:46:25,676 --> 00:46:29,396 Speaker 1: a different realm, a realm of opinion and interpretation. In 812 00:46:29,396 --> 00:46:33,356 Speaker 1: her view, where you come from, what your sociological background is, 813 00:46:33,796 --> 00:46:37,196 Speaker 1: those are important factors in determining what you end up thinking. 814 00:46:37,636 --> 00:46:40,636 Speaker 1: If there was any nuanced disagreement between us. I think 815 00:46:40,676 --> 00:46:43,356 Speaker 1: it may have been over how much of what we 816 00:46:43,396 --> 00:46:45,996 Speaker 1: know about a person's point of view can be deduced 817 00:46:46,156 --> 00:46:49,996 Speaker 1: from those come from about the person. Finally, I think 818 00:46:49,996 --> 00:46:53,236 Speaker 1: a key takeaway from what Nicole Hannah Jones has to 819 00:46:53,276 --> 00:46:56,356 Speaker 1: say is that we do need to insist on getting 820 00:46:56,356 --> 00:47:01,476 Speaker 1: the facts right. We shouldn't be relativists about facts. We should, however, 821 00:47:01,756 --> 00:47:06,036 Speaker 1: be grown ups who recognize that interpretation is complex and 822 00:47:06,236 --> 00:47:11,436 Speaker 1: that historical figures were complex. Plexity is for grown ups. 823 00:47:11,796 --> 00:47:14,996 Speaker 1: If we can recognize that our foundation as a country 824 00:47:15,276 --> 00:47:18,516 Speaker 1: grew simultaneously out of the impulse to liberty and the 825 00:47:18,596 --> 00:47:21,796 Speaker 1: impulse to slavery. If we can accept the reality that 826 00:47:21,836 --> 00:47:25,076 Speaker 1: there were contradictions in people like James Madison and Thomas 827 00:47:25,196 --> 00:47:28,596 Speaker 1: Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, then we can realize that our 828 00:47:28,676 --> 00:47:31,836 Speaker 1: own world is a complex one where we two are 829 00:47:31,876 --> 00:47:36,276 Speaker 1: imperfect and we two are full of contradictions. Taking that 830 00:47:36,396 --> 00:47:39,116 Speaker 1: on board may not be easy, but it is a 831 00:47:39,156 --> 00:47:42,676 Speaker 1: crucial step towards being the kinds of grown ups we 832 00:47:42,756 --> 00:47:46,116 Speaker 1: need to be as a nation to lead us into 833 00:47:46,316 --> 00:47:50,276 Speaker 1: a better future. Deep Background is taking a two week 834 00:47:50,316 --> 00:47:53,196 Speaker 1: summer break. We will be back to you soon. With 835 00:47:53,316 --> 00:47:57,476 Speaker 1: new and exciting episodes until the next time I speak 836 00:47:57,516 --> 00:48:01,636 Speaker 1: to you. Breathe deep, think deep thoughts, and have a 837 00:48:01,676 --> 00:48:06,316 Speaker 1: little fun. Deep Background is brought to you by Pushkin Industries. 838 00:48:06,556 --> 00:48:10,116 Speaker 1: Our producer is Mola Board, our engineer is Ben Tolliday, 839 00:48:10,276 --> 00:48:14,356 Speaker 1: and our showrunner is Sophie Crane mckibbon. Editorial support from 840 00:48:14,396 --> 00:48:18,596 Speaker 1: noahm Osband. Theme music by Luis Gara at Pushkin. Thanks 841 00:48:18,596 --> 00:48:23,356 Speaker 1: to Mia Lobell, Julia Barton, Lydia Jeancott, Heather Faine, Carlie Migliori, 842 00:48:23,476 --> 00:48:27,716 Speaker 1: Maggie Taylor, Eric Sandler, and Jacob Weisberg. You can find 843 00:48:27,716 --> 00:48:30,396 Speaker 1: me on Twitter at Noah R. Feldman. I also write 844 00:48:30,396 --> 00:48:32,796 Speaker 1: a column for Bloomberg Opinion, which you can find at 845 00:48:32,796 --> 00:48:37,036 Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot com slash Feldman. To discover Bloomberg's originals later 846 00:48:37,076 --> 00:48:40,876 Speaker 1: of podcasts, go to Bloomberg dot com slash Podcasts, and 847 00:48:41,036 --> 00:48:43,356 Speaker 1: if you like what you've heard today, please write a 848 00:48:43,396 --> 00:48:47,036 Speaker 1: review or tell a friend. This is Deep Background.