Speaker 1: Thank you to Jessica Lesson and The Information for hosting
Speaker 1: this episode's conversation. And because we did this at the
Speaker 1: Yale Club, you may hear some audio that sounds a
Speaker 1: little different than the podcast we do inside the studio.
Speaker 1: Hi Katie, Hello Brian. So, Marty Baron has become kind
Speaker 1: of this generation's Ben Bradley. I was going to say
Speaker 1: he's kind of the dean of American journalism right now. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and not just because he was portrayed in the movie
Speaker 1: Spotlight by Lee of Shriver, yes, but also because he's
Speaker 1: probably the most skillful, experienced, courageous newspaper editor in America
Speaker 1: and at the Washington Post, he's really made a name
Speaker 1: for himself by having the courage to take on the
Speaker 1: new administration and to take on Donald Trump. Brian, you
Speaker 1: and I were completely geeking out because we got to
Speaker 1: talk to Marty at a conference that was organized by
Speaker 1: The Information, aation which was founded by a friend of yours,
Speaker 1: Jessica Lesson. Jess and I went to college together and
Speaker 1: she created Harvard. Yeah, your safety school came. It preempt
Speaker 1: your favorite joke. But The Information is kind of a
Speaker 1: new kind of tech newsletter where people pay for content
Speaker 1: there are no ads, and it's popular among a lot
Speaker 1: of Silicon Valley insiders. And so we talked with Marty
Speaker 1: and Jess about the future of the media industry, about
Speaker 1: d C and the Trump era, and of course about
Speaker 1: how technology is changing all of this. That's right, And
Speaker 1: just a few months after Marty became the top editor
Speaker 1: at The Washington Post, the paper was purchased by Jeff
Speaker 1: Bezos from its longtime owners, the grand Family. Now you all,
Speaker 1: I'm sure know that Jeff Bezos is Amazon dot COM's
Speaker 1: founder and CEO. And ever since the sale went through
Speaker 1: in two thousand thirteen, I've really wondered what this transition
Speaker 1: was like and how the Washington Post is merging technology
Speaker 1: and some of the greatest journal is um that's being
Speaker 1: produced today. So that was the first question I asked Marty.
Speaker 1: How has a tech owner and a tech mentality changed
Speaker 1: his job and the mission of the Washington Post. Sure,
Speaker 1: we'll have changed it dramatically and immediately. So when our
Speaker 1: mission previously had been described as foreign about Washington, certainly
Speaker 1: recognizing that Washington was the location of the nation's capital,
Speaker 1: but we were we had pretty much a regional focus. Uh.
Speaker 1: And when Jeff came in. Uh, he said that that
Speaker 1: wasn't the right strategy for us, and he immediately changed
Speaker 1: our strategy to be focused on becoming national and even international. UH.
Speaker 1: And you know, he said that the Internet had taken
Speaker 1: a lot of white things away from us, obviously the
Speaker 1: protection that we had against a competition of all sorts,
Speaker 1: but it had also given us some gifts. UH. And
Speaker 1: the primary gift that it had given us was essentially
Speaker 1: free distribution, and it would be crazy for us not
Speaker 1: to take advantage of that, particularly given the Washington Post brand,
Speaker 1: Uh that it was no nationally, it was known internationally
Speaker 1: and had the opportunity to become a national news organization.
Speaker 1: And that was the fundamental change that took place for us.
Speaker 1: You know, I've always thought that the media outlet that
Speaker 1: figures out the secret sauce between technology and content was
Speaker 1: going to win the day. And I have to say,
Speaker 1: I think the Washington Post is the closest I've seen
Speaker 1: to really making that combination. And I imagine, Marty, when
Speaker 1: you started out in this business, you had didn't have
Speaker 1: to worry about a B testing, algorithms, programmatic advertising, sponsored
Speaker 1: content and all that jazz. How do you balance sort
Speaker 1: of technology and content and are you worried that all
Speaker 1: these things are going to have a negative impact on
Speaker 1: quality journalism? Right, Well, it's true that those Uh, I
Speaker 1: didn't have to worry about those things, because those things
Speaker 1: didn't exist when I got into the business forty years ago. Uh.
Speaker 1: And there was actually, uh the people who were involved
Speaker 1: in the newsroom really weren't involved at all on the
Speaker 1: business side. There was people talked about the wall between them. Uh.
Speaker 1: You know are certain things where we we don't share
Speaker 1: with them, but there are other things where we actually
Speaker 1: have to collaborate. So you know, fundamentally, I think that
Speaker 1: UM technology has just changed the way that we tell stories. Uh.
Speaker 1: And I think I think of it as uh, the
Speaker 1: Internet and all that it is brought about. All digital
Speaker 1: platforms now represent a different medium or actually different mediums
Speaker 1: for us, in the same way that when radio came
Speaker 1: into existence, there was a different way of communicating with
Speaker 1: the audience that you didn't just get up there and
Speaker 1: read a newspaper story. And when television came along, you
Speaker 1: didn't read a radio script and you didn't read a newspaper.
Speaker 1: There was a different way of communicating with the audience.
Speaker 1: So with the Internet. The newspaper industry responded by just
Speaker 1: putting up newspaper stories on the Internet, and we expected
Speaker 1: to succeed that way because we just viewed it as
Speaker 1: a distribution platform. Uh. And that didn't really work very well.
Speaker 1: And then we said, well, let's do that faster um,
Speaker 1: and that didn't work so well either. And I think
Speaker 1: we're coming to the recognition that this is a different
Speaker 1: medium or different mediums uh. And we have to tell
Speaker 1: stories in completely different ways. But you also have to
Speaker 1: track the attention. And I'm just curious. I mean, Marty
Speaker 1: Baron and clickbait are two things that I would not
Speaker 1: put in the same sentence. So how do you How
Speaker 1: do you thank you for that? I appreciate that. Well,
Speaker 1: I don't think we do clickbait, so I think that's testing.
Speaker 1: We do a b testing, but that's not clickbait. I mean,
Speaker 1: there are you know. I was asked a few weeks ago,
Speaker 1: how do you I was actually in Spain for speaking engagement,
Speaker 1: and the students there asked me, how do you get
Speaker 1: people to read beyond the headlines? I said, write a
Speaker 1: goo to headline, uh, and then they'll read more. Uh.
Speaker 1: And that's not clickbait. That is, we can write about
Speaker 1: very substantive matters, very serious matters, but we don't have
Speaker 1: to write about them in a stuffy way. And we
Speaker 1: can certainly write about them using a more conversational, accessible style,
Speaker 1: which I think is suitable for the web. And there's
Speaker 1: what we are trying to do with at the Washington Post,
Speaker 1: and not just doing it in a different style, but
Speaker 1: using all the tools that are now available to us,
Speaker 1: so uh, displaying social media, using audio, using video, using
Speaker 1: original documents, annotating those original documents, uh, incorporating interactivity with graphics,
Speaker 1: and in all sorts of other ways. Those are tools
Speaker 1: that we can use to better tell stories. And there's
Speaker 1: no reason that we shouldn't do that. And I guess
Speaker 1: clickbate Sorry brands want every one more follow up? I
Speaker 1: think clickbait. I guess can notes, uh, you know, enticing
Speaker 1: someone to click something and then not delivering. But I
Speaker 1: did have an interesting conversation that maybe a year or so, Marty,
Speaker 1: with your boss Fred Ryan, who told me that when
Speaker 1: there was a headline about succession in Saudi Arabia, nobody clicked,
Speaker 1: but then when you changed it to Game of Thrones
Speaker 1: in Saudi Arabia. Suddenly everybody clicked on that story, so
Speaker 1: it's thrones actually applies in that country. By the way,
Speaker 1: But would you say it, it's really pushed you to
Speaker 1: be more creative in terms of how you attract consumers
Speaker 1: to the stories you're telling. You. I think it has
Speaker 1: it's it's it's pushed us to be more creative. It's
Speaker 1: pushed us to be more colloquial. It's pushed us to
Speaker 1: talk in the way that other people talk, that ordinary
Speaker 1: people talk. Uh, And look, I mean newspapers have a
Speaker 1: very structured style. We all, all of us who got
Speaker 1: into the business, we sort of learned that style. It
Speaker 1: was appropriate to that particular medium. And by the way,
Speaker 1: the headlines for newspapers were designed to fit into the
Speaker 1: space that was permitted. So you would have were short
Speaker 1: words like somebody eyed something and somebody molds something. Nobody
Speaker 1: talks that way. Nobody talks about eyeing something and mulling
Speaker 1: something and things like that, And those were words that
Speaker 1: were designed to fit. They didn't use articles like the
Speaker 1: and a and and and things like that. Those were
Speaker 1: thrown out. Well, now we can write headlines in the
Speaker 1: way that people ordinarily speak. People can identify with that.
Speaker 1: The style of writing I think is it sounds more authentic.
Speaker 1: I believe it is more authentic. It's more reflective of
Speaker 1: the voice of the author. You have a better sense
Speaker 1: of the personality of the author. And I think that
Speaker 1: that's all a good thing. I mean, this question be
Speaker 1: for both of you. I mean one change that I
Speaker 1: think technology is wrought is that, particularly on social media,
Speaker 1: reporters feel a lot more comfortable using the first person
Speaker 1: singular and expressing opinions. When and where does that cross
Speaker 1: the line into bias as opposed to just having a
Speaker 1: distinctive voice. Well, I think that's very hard to define,
Speaker 1: and it's it is risky territory. I think people want
Speaker 1: to use social media Twitter, Facebook, other read it wherever
Speaker 1: it might be to reflect who they are, give give
Speaker 1: readers a sense of who they are as persons, that
Speaker 1: it's not a nameless, faceless institution there. Uh. But um,
Speaker 1: they have to be careful that they not go out
Speaker 1: and express opinions that they would not be allowed to
Speaker 1: express actually on in a conventional news story. Uh, And
Speaker 1: that is that is tricky. I don't know exactly where
Speaker 1: the line is, but I know that we're being monitored
Speaker 1: all the time by political factions out there. Uh, And
Speaker 1: we hear from pell when they feel that we've crossed
Speaker 1: that line. And we always were always constantly evaluating that,
Speaker 1: and from time to time we have to remind people
Speaker 1: that they need to restrain themselves. But it seems to
Speaker 1: me that people do want a point of view increasingly,
Speaker 1: and and that reporters are acting generally more like calumnists
Speaker 1: these days. Um, And I think that must be tricky,
Speaker 1: but it also I think the market is demanding it
Speaker 1: in some ways, don't you think, Marty, Yeah, to some degree.
Speaker 1: And I think, as I said, I think people want
Speaker 1: more authenticity. They want to know who you are. They
Speaker 1: don't want just some anodyne presence on on on the
Speaker 1: web or on other digital report Well maybe I don't
Speaker 1: want to take it out on They do quite a
Speaker 1: good job, but that, um they. I think there's a
Speaker 1: difference between let's say, providing analysis, being honest with your
Speaker 1: readers about what your conclusions are based on actual factual reporting,
Speaker 1: as opposed to just going out the next wresting an
Speaker 1: opinion and taking sides. I mean, today we launched or
Speaker 1: this will be last week we launched Briefing, which is
Speaker 1: The Information's first commentary product. And for years our subscribers
Speaker 1: wanted not just our unique articles, but the opinions of
Speaker 1: the reporter who's covered Google for ten years on what
Speaker 1: Google just announced. And we waited a long We waited
Speaker 1: three years to offer it because I wanted to be
Speaker 1: able to offer a product where we had enough reporters
Speaker 1: we could get some breath and expertise. So we have
Speaker 1: now in its live today um last week Briefing dot
Speaker 1: the Information dot com our first stab at this. It's
Speaker 1: you know, our reporters take on the day's news. And
Speaker 1: I was leary because I think there's so much just
Speaker 1: punditry and opinion or sense that to be a great
Speaker 1: journalist you have to have a brand. So you have
Speaker 1: to be have a like brand for journalism as a personality.
Speaker 1: It's trustworthiness, knowledge, sort of influence based on your experience
Speaker 1: as a reporter. So I'm interested to see where it
Speaker 1: goes for us. Let's talk about fake news? Can we?
Speaker 1: I mean, is there anything that can be done about
Speaker 1: all these fake news stories? I know that I interviewed
Speaker 1: the guy who started Craigslist, Craig Newmark, who is here
Speaker 1: actually Hi, Craig, wherever you are, and he gave a
Speaker 1: million dollars to the Point Institute to try to figure
Speaker 1: out like should there be a good housekeeping feel of
Speaker 1: approval or something along those lines so a consumer can
Speaker 1: understand that certain journalistic practices were followed in the creation
Speaker 1: of a story. Where do you see that going, Marty,
Speaker 1: And is there anything that can be done about it?
Speaker 1: Because some of them are so artfully done, it really
Speaker 1: is hard to tell the difference. Well, I you know,
Speaker 1: it's hard to It's hard to answer. I think it's
Speaker 1: a difficult challenge. Probably the greatest challenge that we face
Speaker 1: in the industry at the moment is that there are
Speaker 1: media outlets that are propagating falsehoods, that are propagating dangerous
Speaker 1: conspiracy theories all of that. Um. Look, I mean from
Speaker 1: our standpoint, I think we just have to do our
Speaker 1: job and rooted in the reporting. We also do fact
Speaker 1: checks uh constantly, um. And we have an inordinate number
Speaker 1: of fact checks on the President at the moment, uh
Speaker 1: and that will probably continue for quite some time, but
Speaker 1: also on what other people are what other people are saying. Now,
Speaker 1: the problem is that people who are aligned with a
Speaker 1: certain political point of view, are not moved by these
Speaker 1: fact checks. In fact, they view these fact checks as
Speaker 1: part of the conspiracy, as part of an effort to
Speaker 1: suppress what they're hearing from other outlets. Uh, it is
Speaker 1: a it is a huge challenge. I do think that
Speaker 1: the social media companies have a responsibility here, which I
Speaker 1: think they are beginning to recognize and still beginning to
Speaker 1: grapple with. And that would include Google and Facebook and
Speaker 1: Twitter and some of the other they ought to be
Speaker 1: doing that they're not doing today. Well, I'm not entirely sure.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think that they they've already taken some
Speaker 1: steps to reduce the economic incentives for people to spread falsehoods.
Speaker 1: I think that's a that's a good first step. Uh.
Speaker 1: They've in Facebook has incorporated fact checks onto its site.
Speaker 1: I think that's at a very nascent stage and a
Speaker 1: very urgent, uncertain stage. You know. I think they're very
Speaker 1: sensitive to the free speech issues, and I'm sensitive to
Speaker 1: the free speech issues, and I'm sure you are as well. Um,
Speaker 1: but it's also dangerous not to do anything about it.
Speaker 1: And so I think we're at a very early stage
Speaker 1: where people are trying to figure out how do we
Speaker 1: how do we grapple with this. You know, there's another
Speaker 1: definition of fake news, which is not stories that are inaccurate.
Speaker 1: It's stories that the administration doesn't agree with, even if
Speaker 1: they are. That's how they that's that's how they define
Speaker 1: fake news. And so how do you combat that or
Speaker 1: at least the perception among you of the country that
Speaker 1: if you write something critical of the president, you're propagating
Speaker 1: fake information. Yeah, it's a tough one. Um. I think
Speaker 1: that we have to be more transparent, and I think
Speaker 1: that's where the industry is going right now. Certainly what
Speaker 1: Google is pushing with its trust prom with it's not
Speaker 1: really Google's project, but there's a trust project Google is
Speaker 1: helping to support. I think it's what David Farrenhold, who
Speaker 1: just won the pull ups are at the Post did
Speaker 1: with his investigation of Trump's charitable activities or lack thereof,
Speaker 1: as you as you noted, uh, is that he actually
Speaker 1: opened up his investigation to the public. He said, who
Speaker 1: else should I call? What else should I look at?
Speaker 1: Here are my notes? He actually took a picture of
Speaker 1: his handwritten notes, put them up on Twitter and said,
Speaker 1: here's my list. Who else do? Where? Where else should
Speaker 1: I go? And he enlisted the public and his investigation,
Speaker 1: and that was a very transparent process. And I think
Speaker 1: we have to do more of that. I think that
Speaker 1: we have to make sure that we include original documents.
Speaker 1: I think that we have to h include audio of
Speaker 1: our interviews. I think that we have to, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: do all those kinds of things, talk a bit more
Speaker 1: about how we went about our work. I'm not saying
Speaker 1: that's a total answer, it's a possible answer. I wonder
Speaker 1: how effective you know, Donald Trump was so affected during
Speaker 1: the course of campaign. Of the campaign sort of ripped
Speaker 1: eating these mantras like crooked Hillary or what was Marco Rubio?
Speaker 1: He was Marco, you know, blah blah blah. But but
Speaker 1: I think he was actually incredibly smart about kind of
Speaker 1: the repetitive nature of these monikers. And when he does
Speaker 1: that about the news media fake news. I mean, I
Speaker 1: think there's a method to the madness. And I'm curious
Speaker 1: if you feel he his de legitimization of the news
Speaker 1: media is going to start actually almost seeping in subconsciously
Speaker 1: into the minds of consumers so that they have even
Speaker 1: it's going to increase the mistrust that already exists. Well,
Speaker 1: it's evident that that's already happened. I think he's actually
Speaker 1: achieved some of his goals in that regard. There was
Speaker 1: a Quinnipiac poll that showed that something like of Republicans
Speaker 1: now believe that certain media outlets are the enemy of
Speaker 1: the people. Uh. There was just a poll that I
Speaker 1: saw this this morning that has over a third of
Speaker 1: Republican now believe that, uh, a free press can can
Speaker 1: be more dangerous, can actually be dangerous. I think that's
Speaker 1: very concerning now. Thankfully Democrats don't see it that way.
Speaker 1: Independence don't see it that way. But I think it's
Speaker 1: a it's a it's having a seriously corrosive effect on
Speaker 1: our credibility and I think ultimately on the democratic system
Speaker 1: that in this country we do our jobs. I think that, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, the day in and day out, we just
Speaker 1: have to do our jobs. We have to present actual evidence,
Speaker 1: we have to be transparent. I like to remind people
Speaker 1: that during Watergate, I was in high school at the time,
Speaker 1: but the press, the popularity, the approval of the press
Speaker 1: was at a very low state. Uh. The Washington Post
Speaker 1: was doing the investigation, other media outlets were doing their investigation.
Speaker 1: Was the press was held in extremely low regard. The
Speaker 1: press was under constant attack from the Nixon administration. Spirag
Speaker 1: knew his his first vice president was constantly going after
Speaker 1: the press. You know, we had that ati is um
Speaker 1: uh was one phrase, but there were worse. It was
Speaker 1: very illiterative, but not very not very elegant. Uh And
Speaker 1: but he had other more harsh words. And of course
Speaker 1: there was an enemy's list and all that, you know,
Speaker 1: uh Lee investigations and all that sort of thing that
Speaker 1: seemed very familiar today. But after it was over, when
Speaker 1: Nixon had to resign, when the public knew that their
Speaker 1: president really wasn't crook, the popularity of the press really
Speaker 1: rose because it showed that the press had actually been
Speaker 1: doing its job, doing it courageously, doing it accurately, and
Speaker 1: doing it in spite of this demonization by the White House.
Speaker 1: We're going to take a quick break. We'll be back
Speaker 1: though with more from Marty Baron and Jessica Lesson right
Speaker 1: after Brian reads these ads. So as a reminder, in
Speaker 1: our next couple episd ssodes, you'll hear from Sheila Evans,
Speaker 1: who is the president of HBO Documentary Films, and also
Speaker 1: Christy Todd Whitman, who was the first female governor of
Speaker 1: New Jersey and the former head of the e p
Speaker 1: A under President George W. Bush. And of course, as always,
Speaker 1: we want to hear from you guys, so please call us.
Speaker 1: We'll leave a message with your questions for Sheila Evans
Speaker 1: and Christy Whitman. Can I do the phone number please?
Speaker 1: Of course that's nine to nine, two to four four
Speaker 1: six three seven. Again, that number is nine to nine
Speaker 1: two to four four six three seven. And if you
Speaker 1: call in the next thirty minutes you get a set
Speaker 1: of GINSU knives. I sounded a little like one of
Speaker 1: those ladies, you know, an infomercial. No, not an infomercial
Speaker 1: like on a sex line. Yeah, we won't tell. We
Speaker 1: won't tell people about that part of your career. What
Speaker 1: are you wearing? Okay? All right, and now back to
Speaker 1: our interview with Marty Barren and Jessica Lesson. You know,
Speaker 1: it's interesting Silicon Valley is home to some of the
Speaker 1: only institutions that people still seem to respect, even as
Speaker 1: you know, the media goes down in public estimation corporations
Speaker 1: Washington d C. Do you think there's gonna be a
Speaker 1: point at which sort of tech gazillionaires are going to
Speaker 1: become the new Wall Street bankers who are reviled rather
Speaker 1: than celebrated. But I think it's happening. I mean, look
Speaker 1: at Ubert right, Um, a company that's a Silicon Valley darling. Um.
Speaker 1: But you know, really in a spate of bad press,
Speaker 1: many of it of their own making, I believe, But
Speaker 1: I do think that there is a I do think
Speaker 1: tech CEOs are are the new bankers. And if you
Speaker 1: look at how um, you know some of these really young,
Speaker 1: wealthy billionaires are treated, um and the scrutiny they get
Speaker 1: much of it deserved. Um. You know, there's an interesting
Speaker 1: It's it's nice being out on the East Coast and
Speaker 1: out of the Silicon Valley bubble. And I planned here
Speaker 1: in the heartland of Manhattan where I know, and then
Speaker 1: I'm going to d C next week or later this week,
Speaker 1: I'll be at another bubble. But um, look, I think
Speaker 1: that there's still It's fascinating to me how outside of
Speaker 1: Silicon Valley the valley is viewed and um, there's no
Speaker 1: doubt that right now, I think there's a big gap,
Speaker 1: and there's in the sense that the valley is viewed
Speaker 1: as people are curious, maybe a bit worried about it
Speaker 1: coming to encroach on their turf um and tech companies,
Speaker 1: but also a lot of sense that, you know, we're
Speaker 1: living in another planet with self driving cars and disconnected
Speaker 1: from reality, and I think there's a lot of truth
Speaker 1: to that. My advice to to the entrepreneurs in Silicon
Speaker 1: Valley is like, wake up and change your tone a
Speaker 1: little bit about how you're talking about things like jobs.
Speaker 1: You know, Techy's gloat about reducing jobs, right, and and
Speaker 1: that's obviously I don't think the right narrative. So I
Speaker 1: think we're probably even only at the beginning of the backlash.
Speaker 1: Let's take a brain interlude and talked to you, Marty
Speaker 1: about your background. Um, you grew up in Florida, You're
Speaker 1: the son of immigrants. I know that you worked on
Speaker 1: your high school newspaper, your college newspaper, Lehigh, Right, So
Speaker 1: what drew you to this business? And one of the
Speaker 1: biggest changes you've witnessed since you got into the business. Uh, well,
Speaker 1: you know what drew it to me was I wasn't
Speaker 1: a family that had come to the United States. They
Speaker 1: were keenly interested in what was happening in this country.
Speaker 1: Where they had arrived. They were keenly interested in what
Speaker 1: was happening around the world. We had a news news
Speaker 1: habit in the household newspaper every day, the local newspaper,
Speaker 1: which was the only one that you could get at
Speaker 1: that time. Uh, the national news with the Huntley Brinkley
Speaker 1: Report at the time, and then local news and then
Speaker 1: Time magazine every week. And that was just part of it.
Speaker 1: And we would talk about that and and they were
Speaker 1: keenly interested. So I became interested in all of that.
Speaker 1: You know, the changes are there's so many changes. I mean,
Speaker 1: obviously the Internet has been the most dramatic change. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's just changed everything about our business. Uh. We had
Speaker 1: all sorts of protections in this business. Before it was
Speaker 1: very difficult to get into the business. We didn't have
Speaker 1: as much competition or all that much competition for advertising.
Speaker 1: We didn't have as much competition for readers. People. The
Speaker 1: newspapers were the only place people could get some information.
Speaker 1: Those were huge advantages. Turns out none of those advantages
Speaker 1: were actually earned. They were just gifted to us and
Speaker 1: so uh, and then when those advantages disappeared, we had
Speaker 1: to adjust. You know, for me, it was very difficult
Speaker 1: at the beginning, I have to admit, I mean, I,
Speaker 1: like many people in my field, I sort of went
Speaker 1: through this period of mourning because you could just see
Speaker 1: staffs being cut and things like that. But at some point,
Speaker 1: you know, you have to stop mourning in the same
Speaker 1: way if you were to lose a relative, a close relative,
Speaker 1: or a friend. At some point you just go on
Speaker 1: and live your life. And I came to that conclusion,
Speaker 1: and then you start to see, well, what are the opportunities.
Speaker 1: And there are incredible opportunities in this field right now.
Speaker 1: We reach more people, we can tell stories in different ways,
Speaker 1: we can tell these stories more effectively, we can show
Speaker 1: more of our work. All of these things are really fantastic,
Speaker 1: and for someone like me, it's it's an exciting time
Speaker 1: to be in the business. Jess, you were at the
Speaker 1: Wall Street Journal for years before founding the Information curious
Speaker 1: your reaction as a as an alum of the Murdoch
Speaker 1: Empire to what's going on at Fox News, And I
Speaker 1: love to hear Marty's thoughts about that as well. You know,
Speaker 1: I think earlier today we had Jeff Sucker on stage
Speaker 1: and he was talking about Fox News is sort of
Speaker 1: the administrations, UM propaganda wing, and its just sort of
Speaker 1: when I look at it, it's just part of the
Speaker 1: continued polarization of our news landscape. And I think that
Speaker 1: it's problematic and there really aren't solutions. I mean people
Speaker 1: like say, well, we'll just sort of play it in
Speaker 1: the middle, or will be more transparent, UM put our
Speaker 1: audio online and then people will trust us more. I
Speaker 1: think people hear what they want to hear. And so
Speaker 1: one thing that I just stay laser focused on is
Speaker 1: hiring more journalists who were doing original reporting and whose
Speaker 1: job it is to go out there and get stories
Speaker 1: that no one else is writing. And Marty's absolutely right,
Speaker 1: you know, the newsroom head count is shrinking. The information
Speaker 1: We have the second largest technology reporting team and Selicon
Speaker 1: Valley behind Bloomberg, and we're three years old. And it's
Speaker 1: because we have a business model that as loud as
Speaker 1: to scale and hire a great journalists. So UM, I
Speaker 1: think when I look at one outlet or another outlet,
Speaker 1: or what they're doing or not, I'm just saying, are
Speaker 1: they hiring reporters who are going to write great stories?
Speaker 1: And I try to convince them those stories will drive
Speaker 1: their business. There's a sense that just great journalism isn't
Speaker 1: a good business. You have to have a fancy events business,
Speaker 1: or you have to have a B two B business,
Speaker 1: you have to something else. But our experience has been
Speaker 1: it's a great business. We're casually positive, we're growing fast.
Speaker 1: So um, sort of zooming out how I see the landscape?
Speaker 1: And um, I don't pay close attention to the day
Speaker 1: to day of Fox News, the the latest surveys about
Speaker 1: people's trust in the media. How concerned are you about
Speaker 1: how siloed it is? And and as just said, people
Speaker 1: hear what they want to hear. A friend of mine said,
Speaker 1: people are looking for affirmation, not information. I mean just
Speaker 1: taking a look at the big picture. How worried are
Speaker 1: you for sort of the state of democracy? You have
Speaker 1: so much division in this country and have really you know,
Speaker 1: the more you think about it. In some ways, I think, uh,
Speaker 1: Kelly and Conway, this notion of alternative facts, Um, it was.
Speaker 1: It was kind of ridiculed initially, but in some ways
Speaker 1: I think it's weirdly true. Yeah, well I call alternative
Speaker 1: facts fiction, but um, you know what I mean. I
Speaker 1: mean different points of view, you know, I unders I
Speaker 1: understand and I'm extremely worried about it, and I've talked
Speaker 1: about this a lot. As I said, I think it's
Speaker 1: the greatest challenge that our industry phases, and I think
Speaker 1: it's a challenge to civil society and democracy. I think
Speaker 1: that people are drawn to sites that affirm their pre
Speaker 1: existing point of view, and that's a concern. But when
Speaker 1: you're when you're drawn to sites that not only affirm
Speaker 1: your pre existing point of view, but present you with
Speaker 1: so called information that is in fact fiction, that's completely
Speaker 1: made up, that's full of bizarre conspiracy theories. Uh, that
Speaker 1: is incredibly corrosive to civil society. You have in order
Speaker 1: to have a democracy, you have to agree on a
Speaker 1: base set of facts. You can disagree on the analysis
Speaker 1: of that that those facts, you can disagree on the
Speaker 1: prescriptions for for solving the problems of society. But fundamental,
Speaker 1: you have to agree on a base set of facts
Speaker 1: and then work from there. Uh. And right now we
Speaker 1: can't even agree on what happened yesterday, and that is
Speaker 1: a huge challenge to civil society. Let's talk about not
Speaker 1: the facts, but the factor. What did you make of
Speaker 1: the whole bill O'Reilly incident? Well, I'm not quite sure
Speaker 1: how to answer that. I mean, you know, obviously yeah,
Speaker 1: well I'm not sure. I want to try too hard.
Speaker 1: But look, I mean I think there was good reporting
Speaker 1: that took place. Uh. The New York Times was did
Speaker 1: a fine job. Yes, I was. Uh, you know, I
Speaker 1: guess I have to be honest. Um. So you know,
Speaker 1: we had done a lot of the work on Bill Cosby,
Speaker 1: uh so, and they did a lot of work on
Speaker 1: on Bill O'Reilly. So. Um, but I do, but I
Speaker 1: am jealous. I mean, I look, I mean I think
Speaker 1: that they appeared to have done good work, appears to
Speaker 1: have been well documented, It had impact, it was sufficiently
Speaker 1: at least with there was an independent, supposedly independent investigation
Speaker 1: at Fox of the actual underlying facts. And for whatever reason,
Speaker 1: whether it was commercial or because they found the information credible, uh,
Speaker 1: they discontinued their association with with Bill O'Reilly. Uh. And
Speaker 1: you know, but there's still a public out there that
Speaker 1: may continue to be drawn to him, and and we'll
Speaker 1: have to see how that that goes. I know we
Speaker 1: have to wrap up soon, but before we go, I
Speaker 1: do want to ask you about Peter Teel and his
Speaker 1: sort of niche as the President's point man in Silicon Valley.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's famously contrarian. There's a very contrary position
Speaker 1: he's taken relative to others there. What's what's been the
Speaker 1: reaction to his role? So in Silicon Valley, I mean
Speaker 1: people didn't quite know what to make of it. Initially
Speaker 1: thought it was, you know, Peter is an investor, and so, um,
Speaker 1: he if you bet on an undervalued asset and that
Speaker 1: asset skyrocks, that value accrues to you. And so I
Speaker 1: think in the Valley a lot of people saw his
Speaker 1: endorsement of Trump and then working for Trump first as
Speaker 1: crazy Peter position and then um, honestly like a little
Speaker 1: bit of good for him for betting on the right horse. Um.
Speaker 1: I think it's notable. Right now we're not hearing as
Speaker 1: much about him, and I think that is probably reflective
Speaker 1: of the fact that he wants to and will remain involved,
Speaker 1: but is pulling back, probably because he got a little
Speaker 1: some more negative reaction as well from the Trump haters.
Speaker 1: And I mean it's just a whole mix. But besides,
Speaker 1: there's you know a little bit of entrepreneurs who had
Speaker 1: taken money from him, uh felt the need to reaffirm
Speaker 1: to their companies Facebook did this too that Uh, you know,
Speaker 1: they believe in a lot of perspectives in their organization
Speaker 1: and don't want to start blacklisting investors based on their
Speaker 1: political point of views. But um, I think it's died
Speaker 1: down a little and will probably continue. Um, but we
Speaker 1: shall see. I mean, I think Peter is a fascinating guy.
Speaker 1: It's a very strong point of views, and he when
Speaker 1: he sees an opportunity to have influence, he he'll step
Speaker 1: into it. So we'll see what happens next. And Marty
Speaker 1: and closing, Uh, what are you all doing about access?
Speaker 1: And how challenging has that been? Because I know the
Speaker 1: Trump administration has invited more sympathetic news outlets to be
Speaker 1: a part of the White House press briefing, to be
Speaker 1: sort of part of informal gaggle is in and so is.
Speaker 1: Have your reporters said, hey, we're just not getting access
Speaker 1: or does everybody and their brother want to talk about
Speaker 1: the in fighting that's going on in the Trump administration?
Speaker 1: And how how are you handling all that? Well? You know,
Speaker 1: I mean, I think our reporters have a pretty good
Speaker 1: relationship with people at the White House. It's very professionals,
Speaker 1: as it should be I think they're able at the
Speaker 1: White House, at least they're able to reach the people
Speaker 1: they need. At the agencies, I think it's much more difficult.
Speaker 1: I think the cabinet secretaries are very nervous about speaking
Speaker 1: with the press. They are underlings. Are the bureaucrats who
Speaker 1: have been there, the government workers, I should say, who
Speaker 1: have been there for a long time, who were expert
Speaker 1: in their field, are are terrified that they will be
Speaker 1: they will be fired for actually giving you background to
Speaker 1: actually help you understand an issue, or that they might
Speaker 1: say something that that doesn't conform to the administration's position.
Speaker 1: I think that's very very concerning, and it's more important
Speaker 1: that we speak to those kinds of people than necessarily
Speaker 1: that we get the the in fighting at the at
Speaker 1: the White House. We also have to make sure that
Speaker 1: what we're doing is not based entirely on access, and
Speaker 1: it is not. Some journalism requires some level of access,
Speaker 1: but not all journalism requires access, requires access to documents,
Speaker 1: it requires access to people outside of the administration. It
Speaker 1: requires our being energetic and aggressive in our reporting, and
Speaker 1: we're doing that work as well. We're not We're not
Speaker 1: dependent on access to people at the White house or
Speaker 1: even in other branches of the administration. Well, thank you
Speaker 1: so much for taking the time to We are totally
Speaker 1: speaking out here. I feel like you guys have other
Speaker 1: things to do. Thank you so much, Jessica for having
Speaker 1: us and Marty for being thank you, Thank you, Thanks
Speaker 1: as always to our intrepid producer Gianna Palmer for putting
Speaker 1: together the show, to Jared O'Connell for getting to the
Speaker 1: venue super early to mix and engineer this show, and
Speaker 1: also to Nora Richie for additional production assistance. Last time
Speaker 1: we did a podcast, everybody spent the night at my house,
Speaker 1: so we'll have to do that again. We had a
Speaker 1: slumber party It's True out at the beach, which was
Speaker 1: really fun. But I don't have room for you guys
Speaker 1: in my New York apartment. So thanks to our social
Speaker 1: media maybn Alison Bresnik, and to Emily Beena for her
Speaker 1: part in producing the show, and Mark Phillips, thank you
Speaker 1: as always for our catchy theme music. Katie Currik and
Speaker 1: I are are executive producers, and remember you can email
Speaker 1: us at comments at Currek podcast dot com. Find Katie
Speaker 1: on social media. She's at Katie Currik on Twitter, on Instagram,
Speaker 1: Katie dot Kurric on Snapchat, and I'm at goldsmith b
Speaker 1: on Twitter. Best of all, you can rate and review us,
Speaker 1: but only yes, but only if you have nice things
Speaker 1: to say. I'm very sensitive, and don't forget to subscribe
Speaker 1: as well. Thank you so much for listening. John said
Speaker 1: that on my tombstone, you know what it's going to say,
Speaker 1: thank you so much, because that's apparently what I say
Speaker 1: all the time. So, by the way, I'm getting cremated.
Speaker 1: And he said he was going to spread my ashes, No,
Speaker 1: hopefully not soon. He was going to spread my ashes
Speaker 1: all over the country because in death, as in life,
Speaker 1: I was spread too thin. Is that touching? And he
Speaker 1: also assumes he's going to be alive when you die.
Speaker 1: There's so much wrong with this. No he's not. He
Speaker 1: six years younger. I was trying to help you, cougar.
Speaker 1: All right, we digress. The bottom line is we really
Speaker 1: appreciate your listening. Thank you so much, and we'll talk
Speaker 1: to you next time.