Hudson River Radio dot com. It beats listening to nothing, my godness, being Franklin Frank, where the only way to be is Frank. Hello everyone, and welcome to being Frank. We're the only way to be is Frank. I'm your host, Frank Lavarna, and I'd like to thank you for joining us on what we like to call the Intelligent Conversation podcast, where no
conversation is out of bounds at all points of view are welcome. We are going live to tape recording to tape on the eleventh of July twenty twenty four. Universally panned as poor or even far worse, President Joe Biden's recent debate
performance versus Donald Trump continues to reverberate weeks after their appearance on CNN. It's not hyperbole to call it a seminal moment in this year's critical election campaign for both parties, with many prominent Democrats calling for mister to step aside for a younger, more viable candidate. But is this going too far? Should Americans place this much importance on a single event like a debate? Are they that crucial in a bigger picture? Should they be? There? Are practical questions
too, like what's debate well run? What role should moderators play? And did CNN's do a good job staging the debate? And, perhaps particularly in the light of the New York Times recent very controversial editorial urging mister Biden to drop out, what role should the media play in elections? As always, let's get into some intelligent conversation to attempt to sort it out. All with my guest, I call him a renaissance man because he's a teacher, musician,
author, acknowledged expert in the art of debating. He is also the author of the best selling book It's Real Life and Alternate History of the Beatles. He is also a full professor at Fordham University School of Mass Communication and Media. My colleague, friend and freak would contribute to being frank doctor Paul Levinson. Paul, thank you once again for joining us. We always appreciate you here and your point of view. Always thank you. It's a delight
to be here. And the real reason you call me a renaissance man is I was born in the year fifteen forty three. Somehow I live that long. I don't know. Story for another day and hear my sense a podcast in that somewhere, Paul. But there is a lot to unpack, and I want to start and use your expertise as an acknowledged expert in the debate, of the art of debating, the historical support, importance of it, et cetera. So let's get into the history of debates, particularly in the
United States. When did they begin? Were they popular from the beginning, were they important from the beginning? Give us a little context of what we're dealing with when we hear the word presidential debate, Well, Abraham Lincoln had a debate when he was running for the Senate. I don't know how many people actually heard it, because of course those days were years before television and
even radio. But people did read the text of the debate. But in terms of modern debates in the United States, they become major news and crucially important in the election of nineteen sixty and the famous or infamous depending about how
you look at it, debate between JFK and Richard Nixon. And it was Marshall mcglewin who jumped on this when I'm about to tell you and everybody, and it became one of the keynotes of his book Understanding Media, which was basically an exploration of how media, behind the scenes, we don't take them all that seriously, very often have profound political events. They make things happen that wouldn't have happened because of those political consequences. So in this debate between
JFK and Richard Nixon, a very interesting thing happened. A majority of people who saw the debate on television thought that JFK won, and this was largely because, let's face a JFK was a better looking guy than Nixon, and some young the appeared dynamic. That's right, I remember it in my head. Yes, yeah, he was absolutely fabulous. He looked great, he
sounded great. Nixon looked sweaty, nervous. I don't know whether this part of this is true, but it's said that Nixon refused makeup, which anyone who knows anything about television, especially in the early days of television, you better put on all the make up you possibly can because these bright lights are shining bouncing right off your face. And Nixon allegedly said to the makeup people, no, no, I don't want any makeup. I don't want to
look like a pansy. So he let his homophobia get in the way of good practice for television. But the other shoe here is the majority of people who heard the debate on radio the same exact debate thought Nixon prevailed and did better. Unfortunately for Richard M. Nixon. By nineteen sixty, more than
ninety percent of Americans who experienced the debate saw it on television. And it was a very close election, and so many political scientists and media theorists, including me, would agree that were not for television and were it not for that debate, and again it was a very close election, JFK would have lost the election. Some people think he lost the election anywhere. I have to add, you know the joke about Chicago, the then mayor Dally,
There are a couple of generations of Delhi. He put in some election reform after the nineteen sixty election in Chicago. After the reform, a dead person could only vote once in Chicago prior to that the joke, but it's probably true dead people they stuffed in as many ballots as possible from the same dead person, So who knows, it's possible. JFK lost Illinois anyway, But
as of that debate, they became crucially important. They were held every four years, and you know, I can go over some of the highlights jumping ahead to the Mondale Reagan debate in nineteen eighty four, where Reagan, and this is obviously an issue that's come up now, was being criticized. Maybe he's too old for another term of president, maybe he's a little adult,
maybe he's losing it. And Reagan's advisors came up with a brilliant line in which Reagan says to Walter Mondel, I just want to make an announcement. You know, I'm not going to hold the age of my opponent against him in this debate, even though he's such a young man. And that was such a good funny line that Mondelle himself couldn't help it, you know, burst out laughing. Again. Was that decisive? Is that why Reagan won?
Who knows, but it certainly helped. There's another great example, though, Lloyd Benson versus Dan Quail, in which I always love the vice presidential vices. Yeah, and people have Quaile liked to compare himself to JFK. And people said to quit, Look, don't do that. You know. JFK has a very special role in the American consciousness. Basically, say whatever you want, but you're not JFK. But Will was so taken up with it when he was talking during the debate. He started talking about, hey,
you know, much like JFK I did, blah blah blah. And then of course the camera turns to Benson and delivers when Lloyd Benson in the great lines, he says, I knew JFK. JFK was a friend of mine. You, mister quayll know JFK. Can if I might jump in, Paul, because yeah, well it is a line, I mean, a punchline, for lack of a better word, or a crucial. Can that be that crucial where a single line can turn that much public opinion?
I don't know. It's a complicated thing. And of course, the Republicans lost that year that was not you know, nineteen ninety two, and you know, George hw Bush lost to Bill Clinton. So even though Benson got in that great line for the Democrats, it didn't help the Democrats win.
So look, I do think and as you know, I wrote a couple of pieces, did an episode of my own podcast in which I said, I think we need to look at the debate as not something if you think about it that really has anything to do with what a president does in office. So, you know the way I look at things, you know, word comes in that Putin has gone totally crazy and has invaded Poland. That is an incredible crisis. NATO's going to be involved. Poland is a NATO
nation. Obviously, a meeting is convened immediately with now Joe Biden, you know, chairing the meeting and all his top advisors are there, etc. Etc. What does anything that will happen in that conversation have to do with someone not doing very well in a debate? A debate is a very special media environment, very unique environment, and yes it's fun and exciting to watch.
But again getting back to JFK versus Nixon, the fact that Kennedy understood reaction shots and look good when the camera was focused on him when he wasn't talking, The fact that Nixon said, no, I don't want to put any makeup on. I don't want to look like a pansy. What did that have to do with how these people performed as president? So I think the answer is no. You know, debates are exciting, it gives people
a lot to talk about. I always watch every debate. I'm very interested in to see how the candidates speak, But at the same time, you don't have to do much in depth analysis to realize one thing has very little to do with the other, the other being how it is and how will the person perform as president? Two points here, Paul, if I might first one, then what should people take from these debates? I mean,
what should they be looking for otherwise? And obviously I watch them, You watch them people, They're enormously viewed, so they must have there must be something that we need to take away from these things when watching. What should people take from these debates? Well, I think the basic most important thing in debates is when the candidate is speaking, is he or she telling the
truth? And one of the issues which has received precious little notice, especially in the New York Times, and we'll get to my list of questions, absolutely yeah, is you know Trump lied thirty times and some of his lies were obscene. I don't know whether the word to describe a blatant lie that says in some democratic states, not only is abortion okay and permitted throughout the complete pregnancy, but even after the baby is born, you can kill the
baby. What kind of horrible monster would tell a lie like that, And so if that's the only lie that Trump told during the debate, that should be enough for any reasonable decent person to say, I would never vote for this monster in a million years. But in fact, he lied just about every time he opened his mouth, and I think that is a very important takeaway from any debate. Well, you know, in this leason, I
have so many questions they all lead into another and two. Okay, my issue then with that, and it's no secret, and I try to remain as neutral as I can, but people read my social media posts and my blog, etc. In my opinion, if Trump's mouth is moving, his lips are moving, he's lying. Okay, that's been established, Okay, and we know his baseball feed off of that. Anyway, my issue became at this point, and it's part of the questions in terms of one of
my questions in terms of rating each performance. And I was yelling at the TV at opportunities for Joe Biden to attack those laws, and he seemed to have missed that opportunity, which led to debt people doubting. In other words, I'm sitting at home, I'm not the president, and if I'm sharp enough. Let me give you a specific example, as you mentioned about the abortions to me, when Trump started talking about how black people, African Americans
love him, etc. I'm screaming at the TV Central Park five. Joe mentioned the Central Park five and nothing, not a word. That's what ultimately concerned me is, yes, I'm seeing the lies. And again you saw the lies because we're the choir, if you will. But I'm concerned about the people who didn't miss that, and who missed that because Biden missed the opportunity to hammer that home. Your thoughts on that, well, I agree
with what you just said one hundred percent. And that's why there's I think no one on this planet who said Joe Biden had a good night and you know, contributed to a good debate. Joe Biden had a horrible night. It was embarrassing, it was frightening because he's president of the United States and people were and are right to be concerned about that. And so I was spearing at the televi vision also, and so is my wife. You know,
why don't you speak up? He did a few times. I don't know what the problem was, but if we're talking though, about Biden. That was how he was during the debate, although he certainly wasn't perfect, And although George Stephanopolis did something I think totally unprofessional just yesterday saying that he thought Biden should step aside, I thought in the Stephanopolis interview of Biden that Biden was pretty good. He wasn't as good as you or I. You
know, we speak better than Biden. But look, this guy has had a stutter problem all his life. This guy has a world of problems on his head. The war's still going on in Ukraine, the Israeli Palestinian conflict that's still continuing, largely unobated, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I take as a given that he doesn't speak too well. Frankly, in my opinion, I haven't been exactly following his career, but he wasn't that great ever speaker. That wasn't you know? He was no Clarence Darrow,
now that I ever heard Clarence Darrow person. But you know, there's a Yiddish word for that. He's someone who fumfers around. The American spelling, well, the English language bung of fumfer is probably pH u m fe r. So anyone who knows a little Yiddish will know what I'm talking about. But you know what, Biden is not the first president who fumfored around.
Dwight Eisenhower didn't speak very well. If you see some press conferences, he can barely sometimes get words out of his mouth, and nobody said anything. Franklin Dolano Roosevelt spoke beautifully, but nobody knew he was in a wheelchair because he wanted to project an image of strength. So Biden, I would say, had a horrible night. It was the worst I have ever heard
him talk. I was very concerned, but I was also very heartened by the fact that later that evening he was in better shape, just you know, talking to people and I don't know, some kind of cafe. And then the next day he did a rally in North Carolina. He was pretty sharp. And I've heard him now talk six seven times and he's again he's Biden never speaks that clearly, you know, fumbles on a word here or
there, but he seems totally cogent to me. And so again, I know you wanted to get to this anyway, But to jump ahead, I understand everyone who was concerned. After the debate, I was concerned too. I didn't just I didn't even like his expression when he wasn't talking. Yes, you know, he looked like he wasn't completely there. I don't know what was but again I'm not a psychologist. You're not a psychologist. But I think it's pretty clear of God for the bid. Someone has suffering from
dementia, and that's what we were seeing. There's no way at the debate, there's no way he would have been so clear in things that took place, public events, literally the night of the day after the event, et etc. And including in the Stephanopolis interview on ABC. I don't think Biden was great because again he's not a great speaker. Yes, he missed a couple of words, but he got his points for cross And if you want my opinion, I think George Stephanopolis ows not only OHS Biden and the American
people in apology. I would call upon him right now to resign. He didn't do his job. He should have kept his opinion to himself. No one asked him. That was highly outrageously unprofessional of him to say that perfect
segue. I love when that works like that. Well, perfect segue, because I wanted to ask a little bit too about the role that in a broader sense we'll get to that the media places should play, but in specific I heard criticisms of the moderators at the debate also Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, well respected journalists from CNN overall, and many people put out and I didn't necessarily agree with that, why didn't they call out Trump more on his
lies? But is that their role? Or should they be setting up the other candidate to be able to respond to those lies, which in my mind seems like more of their role. But you're much more of an expert on it than I am. What role should the moderators play and should they have had a stronger hand in controlling some of the obvious lining that former President Trump
was doing well. First of all, my understanding is that the two moderators, Bash and Tapper were basically following the rules that the Democrats and Republicans had hashed out prior to the debate. Those rules included shutting off the microphone of the person wasn't talking so we didn't have to hear Trump braying when Biden was making a point. They included not having an audience, a live audience. I think they also included the moderators not interrupting when the candidate was making a
point by saying that's not true. They did have the option of saying something after the candidate finished, and I would have preferred seeing them the two moderators more aggressively pointing out Trump's lies. But I think we have to be honest.
The problem was Joe Biden had a very bad night, and that's really what the source of concern is. Even if the moderators had called out all the lies, I don't think Biden would have been any better, maybe slightly better, because then people would be thinking, well, he doesn't need to make these points. But I think we would expect a presidential candidate to basically after Trump starts with his lies and they ask like another question, even if
it's not a response. The first thing Joe Biden should have said is you, sir, are lying again. I've lost count of the number of lies were are you now on Lie eighteen? Are you incapable of telling the truth. That's what we wanted to hear Biden say, and so again he had a bad night. I'm not a doctor. I don't know what caused it in the absence of any other explanation for that bad night, combined with the fact that he was much better very shortly after and has been much better since
then. Look, you know, years ago, when I was a student at the New School for Social Research in Manhattan, I had a professor who you know, liked to talk like you and me. But every once in a while he would come into the class and he'd be like thirty people in the class who are like, look at us, turn us back on us, and then like write things on the blackboard for about a good five to
ten minutes. And at some point I realized the reason why he picked these times to write on the blackboard was he was either out of breath because I don't know, if you know, the New School for Social Research, most many of the classes held in a twelve story building. All too often the elevator isn't you know, running, so as a student that would have to run up the stairs not to be too late. And I was out of breath and couldn't even talk. And I was god knows how many years younger
then. So what I'm saying saying is public speakers, like everyone else, have good nights and bad nights. Biden had an atrocious night, There's no doubt about it. He made a few points, but everyone who saw the debate was shocked and upset. And I didn't know what was going to happen afterwards, And you know, I had an open mind. I was expecting it could be the worst We're going to hear. God forbid, he had
a stroke, I don't know. And therefore I was reassured when pretty much right after the debate we got the old Joe Biden back, still not completely coherent, because Biden has never been so coherent, and yeah, maybe he's getting a little worse with age, but you know, still pretty much on point, you know, making his comments and remarks, you know, emphasizing important things, you know, saying I'm not joking, you know, something like that, or all the Biden idioms by you know, Paul again,
a perfect segue into the New York Times. And I want to start again more broadly and then be more specific. And you mentioned criticism and rightful criticism, and we know, I know you can't. You cannot deny how poor performance it was. And so it's okay to criticize the president's a sitting president. It's what we do, certainly one of the things that I do as a journalist, and I took some heat form my criticism, and I did put it out there early, okay, But at one point we'll answer this,
I guess a woman order does it go too far? Because and I think people have to understand. The New York Times came out with an editorial Let's get right to it, okay, which, to simplify, basically said Joe, You've got to step down. It's time. You've done your thing. We thank you, but it's time for you to step down. Okay. There was outrage and including you thought it was somewhat outrageous to go that far. So what is the line there between legitimate criticism crossing a line where
it can actually impact and change an election in an unfair way. And within that what role and newspaper? And I think people have to understand newspapers have editorial boards which are a little different from their everyday news operation, which is supposed to be non biased, and editorial is literally that it's the newspaper's opinion of people within the newspaper. And I think sometimes people don't differentiate between the
two. But now that read a complicated set up. Within that, you have one of the great quote unquote liberal newspapers, extremely critical of a sitting president, a liberal progressive, if you will, sitting president. People go crazy? What was right about what they did? What was wrong about they did what they did? What is part of that tradition of what they were trying to accomplish there? And forgive me for the long with the question,
but I know you'll sort it out. Well, that's what you're good at all. Thanks. That was a good question. And the word tradition is very important because I've been concerned about the New York Times for at least five, six, seven, eight years now, and I've just mentioned two things
briefly. One is the election of twenty sixteen. You know where James Comy, the FBI director, then comes out, we're reopening the investigation into this nonsense about Hillary's emails being exposed to people who could find out state secrets or would have a load of nonsense, which Comy himself withdrew it a couple of
weeks later. I think though, that was a decisive factor in Hillary Clinton losing the vote in the electoral College, and the New York Times jumped on this story and they gave it major headlines like a dog with a bone, and I was really surprised, and that wasn't the first time. But you know, I'm not going to go into a whole history, but I'll just give you one other example. I think you and I maybe even talked about
it on an earlier episode of Being Frank. In the early days of the Israeli retaliation against Hamas in Gaza, there was a missile that either hit a hospital directly or hit very close to a hospital, and every said it's an Israeli missile, and Israel said, we don't think so, we're going to look into it. And this so understandably sending, you know, a rocket
into a hospital, very close to a hospital. It's so upset people that Biden had had a series of visits with Arabic countries overseas, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, et cetera. They were so upset about this, and the New York Times trumpeted this report, you know, Israeli launched missile, hits hospital
or comes close to hospital. That these Arab countries canceled their meetings with Biden, which was very unfortunate because it was still the early days of the war, and that might have those meetings might have helped somehow come up with some kind of ceasefire. Well guess what, after the Times trumpeted these things, you know, Israel launches you know, rocket attack on hospital. It turned out the next morning that not just US intelligence, but international intelligence confirmed that
the rocket was not launched by Israel. It was launched by a Hamas affiliated group and it went off course and hit the hospital. So I remember being furious at the New York Times back then, saying, what is wrong with the New York Times, Wait until the evidence is in. They're so eager to like have the breaking news store that they actually did damage. Lives were
lost because of their coverage of that story. So I'm saying this to you because I want to be honest about my feelings about the New York Times even before this happened. But yes, this editorial, it's not the news report. But this editorial actually is a continuation of op eds that the Times. They've been on this hobby horse for over a year now. I don't know if you recall last year, the summer of twenty twenty three, has Reclined
published an op ed in The New York Times. He caughte for Biden to step aside then, And I don't know whether they think it's cool, whether they're so young they're allergic to anyone who's over sixty. I don't know what their problem is, but I thought the editorial was completely out of line, based on the fact that all it was talking about was his poor performance in the debate. Why the rush? Why not wait a week or two or
three, you know, there's democratic national conventions, not until August. I mean, you talk about, you know, rush to judgment that For no other reason, they published the editor of the next day there was I was upset about the debate also, I think any reasonable person would be upset. But the New York Times is so upset they can't resist doing an editorial calling for Biden to step down. And two of the points. The Philadelphia Inquirer
they got it right. They had an editorial and they said, we support Biden one hundred percent. We call upon Donald Trump to resign because he's a pathological liar. He lied more than ever during that debate, and it is absolutely unacceptable to have someone running for president, which, as you correctly said, every other word or maybe every word out of this guy's mouth is a lie. I mean, you can almost tell what the truth is by just
thinking the opposite of what this guy is saying. So the Philadelphia Inquiry did the right thing. The New York Times not for the third time, I only gave two examples, probably for the fiftieth time in the last few years, did the wrong thing. And here let me say, they haven't let up. I just looked at an article that came out today. They take every little thing. Nancy Pelosi said she's going to go with whatever Joe decides.
This means Nancy Pelosi no longer supports Biden. That's not true. Senator Schumer had to come out and say, look, as I already said, I'm supporting Joe Biden because the New York Time Times kept on public pushing artists, and you know, some of the Democratic leaders, you know, are not that steadfast, and they're support of Biden. So I'm sorry to say.
Listen, I'm a kid. I started reading the New York Times when I was in high school, and I subscribed, you know, to the New York Times, and I would love getting the New York Times, and I associate the New York Times with eating lunch because the paper would come in.
You know, we would have our class and you know, usually I'd be saying talking to some kids, but I'd always try, you know, to leave the lunch table a little early, so I have like ten minutes to read the New York Times. So I'm talking about literally, I was in high school in the early nineteen sixties, so that's how far I go back with the New York Times. I've been a devoted reader of The New
York Times all of those years. The only reason why we haven't canceled our subscription to The New York Times is my wife still loves their crossword puzzles. Act she like stewing it up paper. But as far as the paper itself, what a rag. I think they did, you know, put in
a dismal performance and they're still at it every single day. They couldn't wait to publish George Clooney's Ourbed any time there's a shade of doubt, which is what's calling people haven't heard, which was calling also calling for for Biden to step down. That's right, that's right, and now there's a whole story about that. Actually, George Clooney consulted Obama prior uh to to writing this our ed you know, and this in all fans not the New York Times
published this politico, which is trying to emulate the New York Times. They have no reliable source, They have no sauce at all. They basically say, unnamed people have told us such and such really great journalism. You publish a story like that and you don't have a single reliable sauce. Well,
let's talk about the media coverage overall. It's something that I've noticed too, it seems, and as you mentioned, not only hinted, but actually mentioned, it seems most times most papers, not only The Times, but many seem to jump on every gaf that Biden has, every mistake, every stumble all over it, while often giving Trump great latitude on what he's saying, with the exception of some of the more progressive liberal outlets like MSNBC, etc.
Who are constantly calling him on his lies, and CNN does to a degree. But he also seems to get a pass, first of all, by being given an extraordinary amount of coverage and being allowed to say things that flat out aren't true. And I haven't seen many editorials you mentioned the Philadelphia inqu Ira being one, and I'll look for that. But I haven't seen an awful lot that have said unbalanced, Well, Biden may have stumbled.
I've seen plenty of internet memes, mind you about that. I'd rather go with a man who stutters has got an honest heart than a man who lies with every breath. He takes something along those lines, but there's been no coherent cogent. As I said, I haven't seen many editorials that say, yes, Biden may be a little weak that way in terms of speaking in public, but he's certainly not lying with every breath. Why let me broaden that a little bit. What's your few on the coverage overall? Has it
been balanced? No? It hasn't. And I think why is the Times doing this? Why is the Times working all overboard to every day have multiple negative stories about Biden and sometimes barely a mention of Trump. It's just a question of what's news. Everybody knows except the maga Republicans, and they don't read the Times anyway. Everybody knows that Trump is a liar, so it's not that newsworthy anymore. They says, another crazy thing, But it is
newsworthy that someone. In fact, the person who is going to be Trump's opponent in this crucial election may not have the intellectual capability of being president. I think that's not true. But the very question is newsworthy. And so we saw this even prior to the debate. But after the debate, this
became a news story that was ipso facto incredibly interesting and incredibly original. Really and in fact, the article that I was reading in the Times, just in Today's Times was delightful saying, you know, it's nothing new to haven't impaired. President Woodrow Wilson was half dead and his wife and his doctor YO kept things going. Nobody knew that Franklin Donald Rosevelt what illness he was suffering from after he was elected to a fourth term. No one knew about JFK's
Addison's disease, etcetera, etcetera. That's how they set the article and then they plunged ahead. Wow, what an original story that Joe Biden is suffering from whatever it is they think he's suffering from. So, but the reason why they keep hammering on it and the media in general, is because it's more newsworthy. Let me also say though about MSNBC I'm getting a little annoyed
with them. Also, frankly, there is one person on MSNBC, one anchor, Lawrence O'Donnell, who I think has his head screwed on correctly, and he has done a series of wonderful shows. For example, just last night, unlike anyone else on MSNBC, he showed uncut the whole eleven minute talk that Joe Biden gave to the a f of l CIO union leaders in
Washington yesterday. It was a very emotional moment because a woman I'm not sure if she's head of the A of l CIO, she was saying the great contribution that Biden has given to labor in America and how Biden can count on the union standing behind him, and she was moved to tears. It was really, you know, a very emotional thing. So larncel. Dale said, there have been little clips of this, I want to play the whole
eleven minute talk that he gave, and again it was Biden. He fumfered around a little bit, you know, he missed a word here or there, but he was one hundred percent cogent. His points were crystal clear, authentic. Yeah, so I'll ask MSNBC. I hope someone there is listening to that podcast. Why didn't Alex Wagner play the whole thing? Why don't you just play a little thing here or there where you can't really tell how he's speaking or what he's speaking. And frankly, it's the same thing.
And also they mentioned Trump and his problems, but that's not such exciting news. I mean, look, it's like the old joke dog bites man. That's not news. That's what dogs do. Sometimes Trump is the dog that's biting this country. But man bites dog. That you know, some man loses his mind and bites his dogs. Also have more little more graphic. If it bleeds, it leads, meaning that the more dramatic, that's better. That was all an old newspaper saying, go to the break or when
one last broad question too? Should news outlets, newspapers, news programs, half hour news show where the news stations that specialize in hard news, if you will? Should they do op eds? Should they editorialize? Is there a place for that? That's a good question because I've always thought, actually
I've been off two minds of number one. I think op eds and editorials are very interesting, but Ever since I began thinking about and studying and writing about me, I've always thought that there is a problem with op eds because for the average person, you know, maybe crystal clear to the newspaper and may be crystal clear to professors like us, but to the average person, maybe they really often can't tell where the news ends and the op ed and
the editorial begins. So I think it's a very good question. And I certainly think that this New York Times editorile did a lot of damage. And I hope that someday the New York Times will apologize for that and say we made a mistake. I know that I'm not going to forget it, and I'm looking forward to mid November, maybe doing another show with you, writing something in which I say, well, hey, New York Times, maybe you owe ys an apology. It turns out Biden did win. He seems
to still be in pretty good shape. Maybe you'll think twice in another election before you shoot your mouth off so irresponsibly like that. Time will tell Paul take a quick break here. When we come back, I do want to talk a little about the future. What can we expect There's another debate coming, Will it be more of the same. What can we expect from you to candidate? And you also want to talk a little bit about its real life, what you're doing with that. I want to talk a little bit
about your podcast. My guest is Fordham University media professor and frequent contributor. Here to Being Frank, Doctor Paul Levinson. We'll be back with more Being Frank right after these brief commercial messages. This is great as always, we can always count on doctor Paul Levinson for intelligent conversation. Don't go away, We'll be right back. Hudson River Radio dot com. Check out The angel
Quest Show with psychic media and author Karen Noe. Karen covers spiritual topics such as near death experiences, reincarnation, life after death, how your thoughts create your reality, creating peace on Earth, and so much more. Check out The angel Quest Show on Apple Podcasts, iHeart, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. Bring a dash of green into your life. Check out The Many Shades of Green with Maxine more, Argar Rubin and Malcolm Berman.
Get informed about environmental issues and current events that affect us all. Pick a shade of green and raise your eco consciousness with the Many Shades of Green, available on Apple Podcasts, iHeart, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hudson Riverradio dot com. Welcome back to Being Frank, the Intelligent Conversation podcast. Thanks for sticking with us. I'm your host, Frank Lebuono. You know we'll bring our audience a fresh topic every week and we stream from
Hudson River Radio, where Neil Richter is our engineer. I call him the Mailman because he always delivered, and that's located in beautiful and historic Stony Point, New York. But remember, you can catch any Being Frank anywhere you get your favorite podcasts like Apple, Spotify, iHeartRadio and the others. And because every Being Frank is archived, you can listen to any of our pro anytime you like. You can find the link to Being Frank on the Hudson
River Radio Facebook page or at our website Hudsonriverradio dot com. Find my icon, click on it and you're there. Leave us a comment, and please consider subscribing to the podcast, and if you really like us, why not share us. I think I think we're worthy and I hopefully you do too. My guest is a frequent contributor, Fordham Media for University media professor and my colleague, doctor Paul Levinson. We're talking everything debate, the fallout,
et cetera. With that in mind, going forward, Paul, what should we expect? There is another debate I believe on ABC coming up in another few weeks, and interestingly we will be after the Republican Convention, and since Trump is the presumptive nominee, it should be official by the time the next debate happens. But what do you see what changes my be made, particularly from the Biden camp. I mean, Trump will always be Trump. I
think we can expect that. But if Biden is the one who needs to change, he needs to find it, certainly needs to find a better formula. So going forward, what do you expect from Biden in particular? Okay, I think the second debate is set for some time in early September, so that means the Biden or, if not Biden, some other Democrats. So I don't know, you know what to expect or whether there will be a debate. Trump may be getting advice which is probably pretty a student advice
for Trump that why bother to do a second debate? Biden is so poorly in the first debate, you don't need that. And otherwise, all the second debate could do in terms of Trump is somehow Biden comes on really strong and that washes away the understandable shock that so many people had watching the first debate. As far as Biden doing another debate, I am not sure. If I were his advisor, I don't know what I would advise him.
I mean, it's certainly a very dangerous thing to do, because if there is something about the debate that, for whatever reason, Biden is just no longer that comfortable with, why put him up in that situation again, as long as he's getting out to the public in other ways, for example,
later today. We're recording this in the afternoon of July eleventh, as you mentioned at the beginning, and I know it's going to be up all over the Known and Unknown Universal podcast tonight, but I think at six point thirty this evening is going to be a press conference. So this is another hurdle for Biden and we'll see how he does. And again, so far, he's done I think very well in everything he did post debate, So Biden
may not need another debate. And at this point, I don't know what I would if I had to bet money where I would bet put my money, I would probably decline to bet, because that's how I'm sure I am. About a debate in September, here was one last point, and it came up where you were talking a little bit about Trump too. He was surprisingly quiet immediately after debate. I thought he would have jumped all over that
bandwagon. But do you think that was a strategy. Not that he ever listens, but I was kind of getting a feeling where people were saying, look, you don't have to do anything. Let them destroy themselves. And it's almost kind of seemed, at least for a little while, he took that advice. Is that your feeling? Yeah, one hundred percent. I think his advisors told him a second, have to debate. This was a fabulous night for you, You know, exactly right, keep your mouth shut
for as long as you can and let the Democrats destroy themselves. And unfortunately, that's what the New York Times editorial, that's what George Stephanopolos speaking out of turn, that's what George Clooney, all of those presumably progressive people and outlets, that's what they've been doing. So that was astute advice given to Trump if it was given, and I agree with you that it probably was. Well, sit Scers a little bit and talk a little bit about Paul
Evinston. I always tease you by calling you the renaissance man. I don't you know. I don't know how you do it. I'm a hyper character and you put me to shame. You're all to do so many things. I want to talk a little bit about real life, the alternative history of the Beatles. Uh. Your novel that it's been a radio play and getting really great reviews. What's the latest with with that? Well, first of all, apropos of Nayak, which I increasingly think of as your town a
podcast for another day. You have that town of the party ahead. Sure, no, I do because I'm so shy. That's what it is. Because you're you're a great exponent for Nayak. You're a great promoter of Nayak. And I'm delighted that Big Red Books Richie invited me back with another author to have a meet and greet on October sixth is from two is from twelve noon to two pm. Uh, and to show you how important I think
that is. There is going to also be that weekend an Edgar Allan po festival in in Baltimore, and I was invited to go there, and that's a pretty good thing also, but I said no, I'm sorry. I have a meet and greeting a bookstore in Frankstown, so you know, maybe I'll drop in through zoom or something. So that's one thing, and they're going to be more in person events. In person events, I've learned one thing as an author, the hard way, and anyone who's listening who's an
author or would be author, the way most publishers work. They publish the book and then they promote the book for about a month if you're lucky, and unless you're Stephen King, forget about it. After that, you're lucky if you can get them if you're doing a signing in a bookstore to get books there. And I learned the hard way that you really have to get behind the book and keep promoting the book and keep thinking of new people you can send it to might review it. So that's what I've been doing a
lot. But there are some excellent people. Now I'm not going to mention their names, but I think people are going to be surprised by a new set of reviews that are going to be available probably in the next couple of weeks or a month. The other thing that I very much want to do, and this is an exploration, but I can't mention any names until it becomes more definite, is making a limited TV series about its real life. Sadly, I don't think I'll get to play Pete Forna tell It was enough
that they let me play that part. He's the lead character in the radio play, so I assume they'll get a better actor to do this. But this is a long way off. But if you listeners are interested, this is being worked on, and one fine day I'll be on Frank's podcast and I'll be able to say, well, Hey, such and such is making this into a TV series terrific. Now, tell us to know a little
bit about your podcast. Of course, you had to get in and compete with me with your own podcast, but there's plenty of room for both of us, right, Paul, tell us about your podcast, what it's called, and where can people catch it? Okay, First of all, I started the podcast and it's been in play continuously since two thousand and six, when you were just a little boy. Yes, in high school. It's called light on light through, And I came up with that name because people
who are familiar with Marshall McLuhan's worked. One of the things that Marshall McLuhan said again way back in the nineteen sixties, is there are two ways that we human beings experience light. One way, and in fact the main way, is when light bounces off something. It's like you look at the world and you see the light bouncing off trees, off sidewalks, off swimming pools,
off car that's light on, light bouncing off. And when you're reading something on a piece of paper, the light is bouncing off the paper to your eyes. But there's also a much more profound way that we perceive light, and that's when it's light through. So when you look up at the sky and you see this blue sky, the light isn't bouncing off the blue sky. The light from the sun is coming through the blue sky. Or when you look at a starry night, the light isn't bouncing off the stars.
The light is coming from the stars and permeating the black sky. And McLean said, and this is why I loved his workers. He had such almost like a religiously inclined mind. Light Through is much more profound. It reaches an inner core of us in a way that light On doesn't. So me my arrogant way. My podcast is light On light Through. I do everything the super Bowl. Being Frank's not arrogant at all. Jesus, how
did I come up with a name like that? And you know, with my little, my tiny little ego, the only thing big about me is my ego. No, no's win. I guess being Frank it's the only way to be boy. Thank you as always for your intelligent conversation. You know you're always welcome here. We could go for another hour, but we got things up, so thank you, Paul always. It was my pleasure. Must we offer special thanks to our listeners who take the time to give
us a voice in their lives. You know we got a tep fresh topic every week. Catch us, swear Ever and whenever you get your favorite podcasts, Apple, Spotify, Art Radio, and all the rest. Check us out on the Hutch and River Radio Facebook page. Like us, leave us a comment. We also ask that you consider sharing Being Frank with others. Okay, it's that time where we close the show with a little slogan and some great music. First, this one's from Plato, and we always try
to do something kind of appropriate. It says democracy is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike. Pretty good stuff. I guess if you're Plato you can come up with stuff like that. And now we also have an original tune from one of my favorites, the Ruse Brothers, Billy and Steve and their alter ego with the Up South Twisters. They have a special four PM and
matinee coming up this Sunday, the fourteenth. That's a legendary turning point and they're gonna leave us with this rocking song as they always do. Rock out. If the phone don't ring for our engineer, Neil Richter the mailman. I'm your host, Frank Lebono, and we hope to have this. Have you join us on the next being Frank, We're the only way to be is Frank. Thanks everyone, I can't call you the fat time to face
the fast. I know that any of the world, it's the chefree if they go, mes go, if you leave the prom you know, added the phone, don't bring you do it's me it's dreamway. You don't call you go scream little guy, w T stop the ball in the same call it a pretty page because that's a call that's never read it free? What's letting it talk of out the matter? The ca have headed god phone, don't do tho I can't said by and this side are and why turn long
summers to present start? I know it's ball to see something retely extree and w boll plans and we didn't be found bay before you call the class the puck pray, don't do it. You don't pay when you go in go ast me when tear go flock fall speed in se call me are pa because that's a fall that's never remain free. Would let you tip the line of the health in those phones, don't bring yours in those phones, go to bring your do it's th ball, don't ring you know it's Hudson River Radio dot com m