Support for this show comes from Polestar. Polestar is an electric performance car brand that is focused on innovation for both cutting-edge technology and design. And their all-electric SUV, Polestar 3, is for those unwilling to compromise. For those who believe they shouldn't have to choose between the spacious comfort of an SUV and the agile handling of a sportscar, for those who need an intuitive infotainment system and a dashboard designed with minimalism
in mind. Polestar 3 is for drivers who won't settle for anything less. Book a test drive for Polestar 3 at Polestar.com. Food and security still affects millions of individuals around the globe. And Nestlé, a global leader in nutrition, health, and wellness, understands the importance of working together to create lasting change. Nestlé's partnerships extend beyond just financial support, from building urban hoop houses to producing custom seasoning for food banks.
Nestlé and their partners actively engage with local communities, listening to their needs, and working together to find innovative solutions. Nestlé is committed to helping support thriving resilient communities today and for generations to come. Together, we can help to build stronger, healthier communities. Learn more at Nestlé.com. From the Vox Media Podcast Network, this is Channels with Peter Kafka. That's me.
I'm the Chief Correspondent at Business Insider. And we need to do a tiny bit of preamble today. Because I'm recording this late in the day on Tuesday, November 5th. The earliest you're going to hear this will be the morning of Wednesday, November 6th. So I am not going to have timely election content for you on this episode. If you want that, check back next week. I hope. But I do want to give you some thoughts about politics and media and
tech. So I chat with Charlie Worsold, the also Atlantic writer. He's been guiding us through a lot of this stuff for years. We love him. And for this episode, I specifically wanted to talk about Elon Musk and Twitter and what it means for Donald Trump's most prominent backer to also own a big social media platform. So we have that discussion. You will like it. On the other hand, maybe today is not the day you want to hear politics in your podcast. So I get it. Some days I don't want that either.
We got you here as well. The second half of this podcast is about what we used to call newspapers. One newspaper in particular. That's the San Francisco standard three-year-old publication. Online only. No actual paper involved. It is owned by billionaire Mike Moritz. And every time I go out to the Bay area, the people I talk to are reading it. I want to do more about it. So I talk with Griffin Gaffney. He is the CEO publisher of the standard. And he has been in media for three years.
You see the connection there. We talk about what he's learning on the job running a paper slash online publication. We talk about how the standard might make a profit one day because it's not. And we talk about what it's like to have a billionaire owner funding those losses. That could be a fraught discussion. If you've been following with the likes of Jeff Bezos and Mark Benioff have been up to recently. In any case, I think it's pretty interesting. I think you're going to like it.
So we've got two conversations in one podcast. You can listen to them in whatever order you want. I do not judge. I don't do about that. All right. Here's me and Charlie Worsow. The Capital Ideas podcast now features a series hosted by Capital Group CEO Mike Gitlin. Through the words and experiences of investment professionals, you'll discover what differentiates their investment approach, what learnings have shifted their career trajectories,
and how do they find their next great idea? Invest 30 minutes in an episode today. Subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Published by Capital Client Group Inc. Support for the show comes from Polestar. Innovation is at the heart of every Polestar car and their SUV. Polestar 3 is no different. From the intuitive infotainment system to its head-turning design, Polestar 3 is for drivers unwilling to compromise. That means merging a spacious,
comfortable interior with the torque and handling of a sports car. Now you can go from 0 to 60 in as little as 4.8 seconds and get an EPA-estimated range of up to 315 miles per charge. Polestar 3 even allows the driver to optimize the powertrain between performance and range mode, depending on your drive's needs. Experience an uncletter dashboard showing you everything you want
to know and nothing you don't. The innovation doesn't stop there. Because you can just have Google turn on your favorite podcast and be immersed in 3D sound by Bowers and Wilkins. Polestar has put in the time designing and refining Polestar 3, and that means the time you spend in it will be the best time of your day. Book a test drive at Polestar.com.
Food and security still affects millions of individuals around the globe. And Nestle, a global leader in nutrition, health, and wellness, understands the importance of working together to create lasting change. Nestle's partnerships extend beyond just financial support, from building urban hoop houses to producing custom seasoning for food banks. Nestle and their partners actively engage with local communities, listening to their needs, and working together to find innovative solutions.
Nestle is committed to helping support thriving resilient communities today and for generations to come. Together we can help to build stronger, healthier communities. Learn more at Nestle.com. Imagine what the world looks like November, December, January, next year, about the stuff that you write about all the time, sort of tech and politics, how they intersect. And there's one super obvious thing that I think none of us, very few of us, has spent enough time on. You wrote about recently.
It's this just basic idea that Elon Musk, Worlds, or Just Man, owns the thing that used to be called Twitter. And he is also, I think, the biggest backer for Donald Trump. Certainly, maybe the most prominent backer for Donald Trump. How should we think about the world's richest man owning a platform and also campaigning for Donald Trump at the same time?
Oh, man. So I think we've talked about it, like, the media has talked about it a fair bit, but I still don't think enough has been made about the fact that there were like years of dragging tech executives in front of Congress, and just this big conservative, Jim Jordan, lead ethics, or whatever investigation against the big tech companies for perceived biases and like, slits, right? Like some of these things were like, hey, we think we can tell that the culture there
is going to censor conservative thought. And just true, true outrage about perceived bias. It was an article that faith that big tech was biased against conservatives. And that also obviously that this was a bad thing because even if these things weren't weren't part of the government, they still should have non-bias. Even though these are privately owned platforms, they should still be available to political thought across the spectrum. This was an important idea.
Yeah, I mean, like, truly, five, six, seven, eight years of this. And something that to be also very fair, Democrats took seriously, like the ref working worked in a sense, right? And tech companies took this very seriously. And then you have Elon Musk sort of barging into the fray. And there's no perceived sense of bias as you've just laid out. He is, you know, the number one funder he's going to, you know, we're recording this on Tuesday afternoon.
He's going to spend election night tonight, reportedly, with Donald Trump. There is, you know, like a true advocacy. He's running the get out the vote camp. Right. Yes, he's paying. Not even just throwing money at it. He's actually organizing the Trump election.
Cutting like, you know, a million dollar golf checks to swing state voters in Pennsylvania and Michigan and etc. So I just think that needs to be said that there, like the silence on behalf of people like Jim Jordan or, you know, the judiciary committee, whatever in the house, I just think it's worth pointing out that if you were even remotely concerned about bias in a nonpartisan way, that might be just at least of interest to you. So hypocrisy noted and will underline it a
couple of times. But beyond hypocrisy, does it matter? Why does it matter if Elon Musk Trump fan is also Elon Musk Twitter owner? What does it mean? How does it affect what Twitter does and doesn't mean to that? From what you can prove, right? There's a lot that you can't prove and there's a lot of innuendo. You can, you know, insinuation that you can do to say the algorithms have changed to
favor conservative content. There's been like the Washington Post did a look into this just how Republican and Democratic lawmakers, how much they're tweeting, how visible their tweets are, how many followers they're gaining. There seems to be, you know, an imbalance there in terms of favoring Republican lawmakers. People like myself have done, you know, an experiment with a Twitter onboarding system just to try to see if you were coming to the platform and knew what Twitter would
be showing you. And it was, it was honestly pretty, pretty stark. When you're a new user and you show up on Twitter, what do you get? I created an account and said that I was only interested in gaming and technology and sports. And it asked me to follow this whole battery of accounts, many of them, you know, Elon Musk and the Charlie Kirk's of the world, whatever. And all I followed was ESPN's main account. Just all I want is sports scores. There's some politics. You said,
no, thank you. Just sports for me. Don't show me politics. Just this is what I want. And because I'd only followed one account, it populated me right into the for you feed on my new Twitter account. And Elon Musk was the first thing that I saw some battleground state political tweet followed by Donald Trump, Libs of TikTok, Charlie Kirk, Jack Pisobeck, the far right influencer. It just down the line, you know, and some of the stuff was like truly a little like out there.
Like I wasn't well versed enough in the, you know, the internet far right lore to understand what I was seeing. But this just goes to say it's definitely there are parts of Twitter, whether it's intentional or not that that are really pushing a specific type of follower. And it's and just generally the issue of politics, right? Let's just even step back and just say it's really asking you to engage
with politics. Right. And the Wall Street Journal, I should say, did the same experiment you talked about. They did it with more controls and across multiple states. And, and, and, you know, it wasn't just a casual thing, but basically replicated what you found, which is you show up. You say, I'm not explicitly not interested in politics. What do you got for me Twitter? And they give you
politics broadly and really right-wing politics starting with Elon Musk. And, and so this is all a kind of a long-winded way to say that I think why we ought to care about this, why people ought to care about this is because it's a, it's a communications platform that it's not open source in terms of its algorithms. You can't audit their algorithms. But also Twitter has been for a very long time ever since the, you know, straight reverse chronological
feed got replaced by an algorithmic feed. It is one that like many other platforms is making decisions on what you can see. So the ownership of that, the value of that, the political interference or not is always noteworthy. And I don't think that from the social media era, we've certainly seen a Silicon Valley preference in let's say, you know, the mid 2010s for,
you know, the traditional democratic party or something like that. But we've never seen an ownership system with an owner who is this involved, this much of an activist himself, having control over a platform that will ultimately make decisions for what people see. And that is a platform that has outsized influence on the political conversation. That has always been Twitter's thing. It's always been very good at that. That's where the lawmakers come to,
you know, make their pronouncements, it's where celebrities go. It's where a lot of journalists still are. And, you know, there is, there is a fair amount of influence. Like when you look at what $44 billion bought Elon Musk, it, it bought him a ton of influence. I mean, you could argue he is important right now in a way that he couldn't have been two and a half years ago. Just simply
because he is the owner. I mean, we've gone back and forth over the years, sort of overstating Twitter's influence and arguing that it should win the Nobel Peace Prize for bringing democracy to the Middle East. And then saying, actually, it's a hellside. Actually, it's a hellside, but Elon Musk should know it because he's going to wreck it. Actually, he's wrecked it. No, actually, all the journalists are still there. We go back and forth. So we can just say at least
it exists. People still use it. I still use it grudgingly because there's people that are there that I want to reach. But does it matter if it's owned by someone whose politics I don't like? Again, I can still use it to communicate what people like care about. My curated feed seems to be undamaged by whatever Elon is doing in the four-year feed. Can those two things exist at the same time? Yeah, I think so. I mean, it's hard always to talk about this because it's very easy to be framed
or be perceived as being against the idea of free speech, right? Or saying, we need to shut this down because it doesn't- We certainly aren't arguing that someone's politics should preclude them
from owning a printing press or a media outlet or even a platform. Right. And I think if you look at the way that people own media platforms before, I think there were a lot of people who in the you know, lead up to 2016 and after said Fox News is a dangerous platform where Fox News has an outsize influence in creating a mega narrative and helping bring Donald Trump to power or helping
to program his administration, whatever it is, right? I think Elon Musk is running X in a way that is kind of akin to the way that a Roger Ailes or a Rupert Murdoch had influence over those things. It's not ever to say that we're going to pull up license for Fox News. It's that it's being run
in a very political way. And one example of this, I think, that brings it away from this idea of like, oh, are his politics bad or not my politics and just kind of brings it down to the actual impact is this election integrity community that Elon Musk, his Super PAC America's pro Trump Super PAC created this community and it basically said, this is going to be the home on X for people to subscribe to it and then drop in any examples you see of voter fraud in the lead up to the election
or on election day. And very quickly, tens of thousands of people joined and it became this repository for any unverifiable rumor. And you know, some of these start out and they're like kind of harmless. They're like, hey, you know, I, I saw there's, you know, there's a line here and there's some people who look like they're trying to intimidate us. Okay, that's always happened, right? It very quickly became this incitement weapon, right? People sending photos of, have you
seen this man? You know, we believe that he just stole ballots, etc. And then someone saying, okay, it's so-and-so they live here, right? And it becomes a direct harassment target. But, but also even more broadly, it, it creates this sense, this unverified rumor-filled sense that something is happening, right? It is laying the ground for an election denial situation. And it's sort of doing so at scale. And in this way that, that Musk, who set it up, seems very
happy to perpetuate. And that I think is- So it's different, right? It's qualitatively different than if Twitter X on its own was just filled with this stuff and people were, were doing it on their own, or even if they were organized in some way to have the owner saying, spew your, your unverified rumors here about something that I'm politically interested in. That's meaningful. I, I think so. I think if Elon Musk had said, hey, guys, you know, in, almost in the way that,
that Joe Rogan just did recently and said, I endorse Donald Trump, right? If Elon Musk had said, yeah, that's, that's who I am, that's who I'm supporting. X is a free speech platform. And there was like a lot of stuff that was rampant. And he was like, yeah, you, people could very easily
and would make the case that Twitter was biased in this way. But the way that Elon Musk is, is running this, this platform at the moment, the things that he is setting up, like this election integrity community, the things that he is sharing, the posts that he is amplifying by either commenting on them or, or, you know, retweeting or whatever, it, you know, they have a desired intent. And that is to, you know, create this kind of confusion and set the stage for this idea that should this
not go their way tonight, something nefarious has happened. And I think that that's dangerous. I want to ask you to make a prediction that is totally irresponsible for you to ask you to make anyway, but I'm going to do it. What do you think will be more important for this election? The fact that Elon Musk Trump supporter owns Twitter, may or may not be changing the site to, to achieve his political ends or that he's donated $160 million to the Trump campaign. What do you think matters
more in the end? Well, I don't know because the get out the vote stuff has been, uh, that, that some of that money has gone towards some of that pack money has been full of, um, it seems to be pretty disorganized. It's a little bunch of dollars on flame. Yeah, maybe, not the best use of the money. Um, I'm, I'm not sure. And I want to be clear that like this, all of this stuff that's happening on X, I don't see it in the sense of brainwashing people
and all of a sudden making them randomly vote Trump. What I see is it, it's a poisoning of sorts of an information environment, right? It is making it more and more difficult to sort what is happening on the ground, right? By, by kind of creating these rumor mills and incentivizing this and, and not doing anything whatsoever to try to, and I'm not even talking about, you know, censoring the poster or anything, but just making sure that it's not like a prominent feature of your website. So,
I don't see it as him having some like influence on the outcome of the election. I see it as having an influence on the way that people are getting their information and sort of the way that it will be interpreted, whatever happens. Uh, I think that that's the really important thing. And to be clear, regardless of how the election turns out, Elon Musk will continue to own Twitter. Maybe he'll, he'll, he'll find himself sort of discouraged by politics and bored by it and he
moves on to something else. It seems to me that now he's got a taste for it. He's not going to give that up and that, and that, and that Twitter will become more and more and explicitly Elon's political views platform, which seems to be a double-edged sort. Uh, if, if you own a platform like that, it seems that the Charlie Worshils and Peter Kafka's are less likely to hang out there in the future. And he probably knows that doesn't care. It's my guess. Yeah, I mean, I think too there's, there's
this real question of if Harris wins. And I think that Twitter is actually like a, a great political proposition for him, right? I think it's kind of, you know, becomes this almost like resistance platform thing for him. It's, it's a great way for him to kind of run the playbook that he's been running for the past two years. In the same way that if you put up the Murdoch's to a lie detector test, Fox News is more valuable in a Harris administration than a Trump 2.0 administration.
Right. And I think that there's an element to of, you know, musk could end up being the guy that the dog that caught the car, right? And if Trump is to win. Because I think if Trump becomes president again, you will inevitably have a situation or potentially, I should say, potentially have this situation where, you know, Elon Musk ends up with, you know, some unofficial or maybe quasi-official government role or something, right? Plus he's the owner of this communications
platform. It's very easy to see his ego budding into Donald Trump's ego, right? In terms of, I think there's a number of people who have said, oh, you know, he's he's going to be the, he could be the shadow president of a Trump administration. And I think that that's probably incorrect. Because like, we don't know too many things about Donald Trump for sure, other than he does not like when other people start to quote unquote manage him or feel like they
are managing it, right? Yes. And his allies tend to have sort of a difficult time being his allies. Before I let you go, stew in, in, in, in election results, did want to ask you about an article you wrote about a month ago, great headline called, I'm running out of ways to explain how bad this is. I want you to, first of all, give me a very brief synopsis of what the piece was and then tell
us what happened after you published it. The piece was essentially a way for me to talk about what I had been seeing online over the past couple months, but really in the aftermath of the two hurricanes, the one that devastated Asheville and other areas in North Carolina and the South, and I think Milton, the one that hit in Florida and the misinformation around them, right? These, these ideas that the storms were engineered by the government to, you know, make them worse and, you know,
the, it was all a plan of the Biden administration to. I think that was going to take your house. Right. That all the anti-famous stuff, which resulted in a lot of harassment of eight officials and people in the real world. I wanted to also speak to this idea of the limits of our understandings of misinformation or misinformation as a word, right? And there's this idea, I think a lot of people, when they hear or say misinformation, they mean it in terms of persuasion,
right? This idea that like you're just a person going about your, you know, your day or your understanding of the world and you see a couple of tweets and you ultimately abandon your world view and go down the rapidol, right? And I think that that idea of doaps of being, of people being doaps is it's a little infantilizing to a lot of people. And I think I wanted to communicate this idea from this scholar Michael Callfield at the University of Washington who said that misinformation
isn't about persuasion necessarily. It's about keeping people in their world view. It's like an inoculation from outside information that's, you know, that's troubling, that's dangerous, that that feels like it could change your world view. And I think that is just a really important
thing to think about. And the reason why I felt like I could make that connection during this time period is because in the aftermath of Helene and in Nashville lawmakers and just regular folks were sharing AI generated images of the destruction of the city and, you know, female aid failing and etc. And saying that they were real. And when they would get called out for not being real for sharing, you know, AI generated stuff, they would say, well, it feels real. It represents
something that is real. Therefore, I'm not going to delete it. And it's true or the true. And I think that that is a bit of a departure, right? It is sort of an order of magnitude different than the idea of sharing some fake stuff and then getting your account deleted or whatever or disappearing or, you know, denying or whatever. It's this idea of, it's really the Stephen Colbert truistiness idea,
right? I just saw one of those today in my, in on November 5th, someone circulating a picture of Jamie Raskin, the Democratic lawmaker, and it says something effective like, well, even if he wins, we're never going to seat these people and we'll stop it no matter what. And of course, it's a totally fabricated quote. And someone, Twitter has eventually pointed out that this is a made up quote. And one of the people retwitting it said, well, it's the
idea. He said he has said it in so many words, which is wild. I think that's a real departure, right? When people are no longer saying, oh, that's, that's not true. Oh, geez, like, or, or, right, you know, it's that I don't care. And in fact, the reality that you purport to be living in is one I don't really want to live in, right? That's sort of what the admission is there. And I think that that's incredibly meaningful and concerning. And not from like
a pearl clutching perspective, like this is just very real. This is just people who don't care anymore. And I think that's wild. It's a great piece. You should all go read it. You publish it. And then what happens? I think you can guess, but just even though I could guess, it's still amazing. You tell us what happened. So I was ready for a lot of people as they tend to do to get mad about
it, right? The content of the piece and and screenshot it and, you know, maybe screenshot it out of context, but, you know, have have stuff that was going to rightfully criticize me in whatever ways they wanted to. You're going to get dunked on. You're ready for the dunking. Ready for the dunking, as always. And, and I started instead to see a bunch of people, well, first there was like a screenshot, some a commenter, a YouTuber had screenshot in my piece and said, you know, I think,
you know, this is why free speech was a mistake or something to that effect, right? Which is not the argument of my piece at all. Nothing I can do about that. But Elon Musk and Mark Andres and, you know, screenshot at that or quote, tweeted that and basically, you know, used that comment to criticize my article, which, you know, never makes a mention of free speech being a mistake or censoring anyone. Do you think they knew that they were retweeting a thing that was falsely
describing what your piece was about and what you were saying? I'm not really sure and I don't mean to say this in the sense that I'm like, not interested in the truth there, but I just don't think it matters. Like I think for them, it was an effort to, you know, they basically said, oh, this is the game. The mask is off. This is what they really want. This is some fancy pants from the Atlantic. It says that we Americans and people of the world can't be trusted to learn on our
own. Instead, they, the ivory tower east coast elite are going to come down and fix it. Yes. And then shortly after that, you know, I thought that, okay, that will be the thing that I have to deal with, right? A misinterpretation, which is also somewhat normal, even though Elon Musk
getting involved always makes it not normal. But then some people and I don't know what some message board for Jan somewhere, wherever, some back channel thing created a fake screen shot of a fake headline that had the, you know, the subhead of my story, but a different headline. And it was, excuse the language, but it was basically anyone who says the words gay and
retargeted be put into camp by Charlie Worsell. And then with like the very, you know, Atlanticie, like, subhead that I actually wrote, which is just like misinformation is blah, blah,
right? Obviously not what I wrote even remotely, like completely not. And my inbox was flooded with over a thousand at the end of the day, you know, at the end of the time period emails from people who were absolutely furious, like tens of thousands of tweets, people using this, you know, I did like a search for it, like reverse image search the thing to just try to see if I could figure out where it came from and just saw it all over all kinds of some percentage of those people
probably thought it was a funny joke. Some, some, but I got this one email from the same way that, by the way, that like lots of people understood that the J.D. Vance was not having sex with a couch. Right. Yeah. No, no, that totally makes sense. I did though get this email that kind of stopped me on my tracks and made me kind of question like I basically think I don't know what, like, what people know, right? Or like how I don't understand what the level of literacy is with stuff like
this. And the thing that the email that kind of gave me pause was this guy who said one of my really good friends works in an intelligence agency and he's kind of gone down the far right rabbit hole and he sent me this text and it was a text with that. And so he believed the Atlantic published that and he was like, oh buddy, like no, here's the headline like can't you see it's pixelated and it's the wrong font and all this stuff and he goes, oh well, I don't know, fuck the Atlantic.
And he said this person works in a government intelligence agency. It was all they told me. And I was just like, whoa, that's pretty wild that like either they don't care, which makes more sense to me than they can't understand what it is. But it was another example of getting called out
for something that was just like false and saying that they didn't mind. And I guess my last thought on all of that is it's just I think it's really indicative of this whole, you know, of what the point of the article was, which was rather than engage with the piece, which I think was very dunkable. Like you could have called me a snowflake, you know, to the ends of the earth and I would have
you know, just had to sort of nod my head or whatever, right? But instead they were like, no, let's just make up some crazy argument so that you know, it's easier to dunk on him. So there's a part two of this conversation, which has to where we'd say, okay, given this, given that there's a market failure here, the platforms are not going to self correct for this sort
of stuff. And we know that government isn't capable of really police-hitting this stuff. And unless you're doing an authoritarian sort of state way, and it's certainly not on the table politically here, there is the what to what is there to be done about the state of this. Luckily and unlikely, we don't have time for that conversation. We're going to come back to it. I don't know when, but we'll figure out a time to do it in the nearest, not so near, in the future. Some point.
Who knows what tomorrow is going to look like or what to do tomorrow looks like. Yeah, thank you for helping me get through part of Tuesday and I will come back to you in the future. All right, stay sane out there. Thanks again to Charlie Wreselt in a minute. We'll hear from Griffin Gaffey from the San Francisco Standard, but first a word from a sponsor. Support for the show comes from Indeed. If you need to hire, you may need Indeed.
Indeed is a matching and hiring platform with over 350 million global monthly visitors, according to Indeed data. And a matching engine that helps you find quality candidates fast. Listeners of this show can get a $75 sponsored job credit to get your jobs more visibility at Indeed.com slash podcast. Just go to Indeed.com slash podcast right now and say you heard about Indeed on this podcast Indeed.com slash podcast terms and conditions apply need to hire you need Indeed.
Support for the show comes from Alex partners in business disruption brings not only challenges but opportunities as artificial intelligence powers pivotal moments of change.
Alex partners is the consulting firm chief executives can rely on. Alex partners is dedicated to making sure your company knows what really matters when it comes to AI as part of their 2024 tech sector report Alex partners spoke with nearly 350 tech executives from across North America and Europe to dig deeper and out tech companies are responding to these changing headwinds.
And in their 2024 digital disruption report Alex partners found that 88% of executives report seeing potential for growth from digital disruption with 37% seeing significant or even extremely high positive impact on revenue growth. You can read both reports and learn how to convert digital disruption into revenue growth at www.AlexPartners.com slash box. That's www.alixpartners.com slash V-O-X. In the face of disruption businesses trust Alex partners to get straight to the point and
deliver results when it really matters. Support for the show comes from Polestar. Innovation is at the heart of every Polestar car and their SUV Polestar 3 is no different. From the intuitive infotainment system to its head turning design Polestar 3 is for drivers unwilling to compromise. That means merging a spacious comfortable interior with the torque and handling of a sports car. Now you can go from 0 to 60 in as little as 4.8 seconds and get an EPA estimated range of up to
315 miles per charge. Polestar 3 even allows the driver to optimize the power train between performance and range mode depending on your drive's needs. Experience an uncletter dashboard showing you everything you want to know and nothing you don't. The innovation doesn't stop there because you can just have Google turn on your favorite podcast and be immersed in 3D sound by Bowers and Wilkins. Polestar has put in the time designing and refining Polestar 3 and that
means the time you spend in it will be the best time of your day. Book a test drive at Polestar.com. I'm here with Griffin Gaffney. He is the CEO of the San Francisco standard. It is the thing that everyone I talk to in the Bay Area reads which I think is a good thing. I think it's a great thing. Welcome Griffin. Thank you. Thanks for having me. Let's explain what the standard is to a big slice of the listership that does not hang out in the Bay Area. We are now one of the largest
local media companies in San Francisco. You call yourself a local media company. I would say local newspaper but you don't print them. There's a lot of baggage with those terms. Like newspaper, what even is that anymore? I think news is not very comprehensive and exciting and it doesn't really embrace all the fun parts of being in local media. Okay, but you cover local
news. I'm going to call you a local newspaper until you force me to do otherwise. One reason I wanted to talk to you is because whenever I go to the Bay Area, when I say this is really cool, I really like it. The other reason I'm always really interested in local news, writing and ignoring it for a decade plus because everyone tries to figure out a business model for local news. No one can or the models they come up with involve anything but hiring people to cover the local area they're
in. What's your approach? I think the approach is embracing that San Francisco is a global city with huge impact politically, socially, economically, and telling those stories so the world and frankly, I think a lot of East Coast publishers do a better job of that. Though we started with the very, very narrow focus on local politics at a time when San Francisco was seen as maybe a little off the rails and providing that service to our core readership in San Francisco and will continue
to do that. I think there's a massive opportunity for us to be the ones that tell the story of San Francisco to the people who live there and also to the world. So that's a mission statement. In terms of actually how you do it, I was trying to lead you to, you actually employ people to go out and report news about what's happening in the neighborhood. We do. Yeah, absolutely. How big is this? Almost 50 people. And how many of those are editorial versus business? It's vast majority
editorial, about 35 people in the editorial staff, reporters, and editors. So you've got 35 people working to put out a publication plus 15 other people on the business side. How's that working economically? And is that working economically? Yeah, well, we're currently financed by my business partner, Michael Moritz. We can talk about the whole story of how I met and I don't have a
news background. We're learning this all as we fly, but we'll actually be launching a meter pay wall in December in a subscription product that has some other stuff in it, which you'll learn about in December that we think will be pretty popular with our readers. We also make modest revenue now from advertising in our newsletters on the site, social partnerships. So there's a lot in there. Let's let's back up. Michael Moritz billionaire. Highly so yes. Highly so. But he's
funding this. So he's losing money right now. How long has the standard been up and running? We've been up for about three years. Three years funding it, losing money. How much money are you losing right now? We don't talk about that. I heard five million. Is that in the ballpark of your don't need to talk about it. At least I asked you. But you're losing money, but the plan
is not to lose money forever. No, he and I share a principle that which I've learned in my little crash course the past few years in the news industry feels wildly optimistic that this can be a business and the thing that about Michael is not just what he has achieved in his venture capital career. It's that he started his career as a journalist. He understands that this takes time and then is hard and then you do have to be patient and you do have to understand how the
news industry works. We're going to go to your history in a bit, but just to get to the news, I guess we'll be news. This is free now as we're speaking, but there is going to be some sort of paywall on the front of the site. Yeah. You've been pretty clear from the outset. Michael and me and with the team and with the world that we would spend time building trust with our audience
and then figure out ways to monetize the product. But one of the key assets that we have is him and the ability to experiment for a bit of time before we understand that. So step one to building a successful local newspapers have a billionaire fund you. It certainly helps. It helps. But again, I wouldn't just call him that. I would say he's,
I in conversation call him one of one. I'm not aware of anyone else who has what he has, which is the experience in journalism and the commitment to doing it right mixed with the incredible on the ground experiences had with all these massive tech companies. So maybe not replicable of crowd around the country around the world. You need a lot of different billionaires to each fund
their local newspaper. I think what we are learning can be replicated. I think that we have a very special circumstances and it's not just him and me and the team, the incredible team that we've assembled at the standard. It's also the time that we got started and the place that we got started. There's a lot of things I think that are working in our favor. I want to come back to them like more. It's of it all. But let's just talk about the standard and sort of what it is.
Again, I asked you when you said, well, it's sort of a news brand. It's a newspaper. You guys cover local news. Without the paper. There's crime news. Who is the audience for the standard? Our core reader is about 30 to 50 years old. They live in the Bay Area. Obviously, when we have a story about San Francisco, as I said earlier, San Francisco is of interest across the globe. We get readers from all over the planet. But our core reader is in the Bay Area. They're younger. They're slightly
higher income than the area average and demographically race. They sort of fall in the same bucket that you would see in the Bay Area. I'm picturing an upper middle class readership again. That's a little bit based on who I talk to when I'm out there, which is a little telling on my true. Yeah, that's certainly maybe we're over indexed on that. But we have readers across all income levels. It really depends on, and this is where you pushing me earlier on the actual local news coverage
of it all. Certain stories are very popular with certain communities that we are serving in San Francisco. So it flexes with what we're reporting on. I kind of think of it as a newspaper for readership that lives in the Bay Area and thinks property crime is bad, as opposed to some apologists who you'll see. There's a crime story. Well, that's just property crime. It doesn't really matter. You guys cover property crime. You cover weird shit that happens in San Francisco that would
freak people out if they didn't live in San Francisco. Like the raccoon on the bus. It's not a dead raccoon. Yeah, top four story this week. Man tries to ride Muni with dead raccoon, which you can you can frame that a bunch of different ways. It's a crazy story. It's a look what's happening in San Francisco story. It's what's happened to this man's mental health that he thinks swinging a dead or alive. Yeah, I don't think it was a live. Well, you you click on. Yes. What do you think
sort of? Is that the sort of stuff that performs best for you? The holy shit look what's happening to our city? Not always. No. The way I think about what we do and answering this question of the readership is to just listen to them. And by that, I don't mean we like many publishers have all of this audience data. We live broadcasted in the office. Reporters and editors have access to it on their computers. I do not mean look at the thing that got the most paid. Do more of that. Do more
of that. Yeah. Which by the way is a pretty tried and true way to run a lot of businesses. Yeah. Do the thing that was successful again. But what I think you lose sight of in that pursuit or that strategy is looking at your audience a little bit more holistically and asking the question like, well, what is the bigger product that we can provide to them that is actually
worth paying for and is valuable? And sometimes the dead raccoon story or a viral crime story is part of what's people are thinking about as they're navigating the Bay Area and they're reading the standard. And other times it's like a 2000 word essay about the mayor. Both of those things are valuable to our audience. And I think there is no one type of content or reporting that we can do that will is the thing. And how big is that audience? It's a few million readers a month. A few
million readers a month. So I saw a number for truth social yesterday that pegged at four million. So you're doing half the audience. The Donald Trump is getting, which is good. Generally though, you know, modern web publishing, you would say that is that is not a sustainable business to many people a month. It's small. It's not sustainable. I think if you're looking at it as a business model that needs to be supported by programmatic ads, I think our audience absolutely
can be bigger. But in our current iteration, we don't have ambitions to have 50 million readers a month because that would suggest that we're pushing really hard to reach a bunch of readers outside of the Bay Area. And I don't think that we have a product that serves those people today. So why would we do that? Big sense. And then you mentioned there's going to be a paywall. So how is that going to work? More details to come. We're not going to get into it yet.
Some sort of free. As a classic startup, we're mere weeks away from the launch and still working on a lot of the details. Still figuring out. But you're going to get some stuff for free. You're going to come to your core reader and go, we know you like this. It's time to pay up. Yeah, also you can probably afford it. That is not wrong. It will be priced in a way that I think for most people in the Bay Area in our readership is a no-brainer. But I think what's important
about it too is not just asking our readers to pay for access to the site. There'll be a lot of other stuff that goes into it. Events, promotions and partnerships with local businesses that are actually valuable and interesting to the readership that we have. And we've been experimenting with that over the last year. And the example I always bring up is we did a private chocolate and whiskey tasting at Dandelion Chocolate Factory in the Mission in San Francisco. We put it up on the website.
It was a paid event. It sold out in an hour. I think one of our biggest assets is that we are geographically near the people who are reading us, which is why I'm not obsessed over having the highest reader count possible. There's so much other stuff that we can do for this group of people that's exciting. It's fun. It's entertaining. It's giving you a thing to do on a Friday night that it's not just the news content. Let's go over the origin story. How old is paper?
It's about three years. Three years. And you already stepped on this. I was going to sort of lead you into your previous journalism and publishing experience. But it's zero. Yeah, it's nothing. Okay. So Mike Moritz billionaire has you who has zero experience in media running a local newspaper. How'd that come about? I moved to San Francisco site unseen pretty close to that after I graduated college, not because I had any had any aspirations to work in tech, but because I needed a job.
I needed to pay the bills. I was at LinkedIn for a little while shortly there after I moved to Stripe. I loved working at the company. I did not love living in San Francisco, frankly. In part because I just didn't know anything about it. I always wanted to live in a mega city, which San Francisco is not. And as I lived there, I felt sort of icky about all the things that San Francisco is known for negatively in the press, the visible dysfunctions. I ended up leaving
San Francisco with Stripe to London. I came back and when I came back and this gets to how I met Mike and and how the standard came to be, I made a pact with myself that if I was in a living San Francisco again, I had to do something about all the ickyness that I felt. And so I threw myself
into volunteering with organizations addressing homelessness. Met people who were homeless, discovered and it shouldn't have been a surprise to me that many of the people in the population I was volunteering with had more career experience than I did as some random mid-20s kid at Stripe. So I started getting them jobs at tech companies because I knew people. You're talking the homeless people you were working with?
Yeah. Specifically at the time, I mean, it's very different now in the not 0% interest rate world, but in the mid 2010s, I mean, anyone with a pulse could get some sort of job at a tech company. And I knew that and I knew how to work the system and I got these people jobs and sort of discovered that I was a half decent social worker and I decided I was going to quit my job and do that. And I had an idea to incubate a nonprofit to help people who were experiencing homelessness get
better paying jobs in the city. And I was fundraising for that. As I have built the entire company, just sent hundreds of cold emails out to anyone that I thought would be able to fund that idea. And Mike was not one of them. I met someone who introduced me to someone else who at the end of that meeting said, if you really care about San Francisco, you should meet my friend Mike. And I
knew how that was and I was scared shitless to meet him because he is a legend. And I went to his office and I still have the notebook where I had my pitch for the nonprofit idea and like a true journalist, he cut me off two words and and grilled me on my life for an hour and at the end he said, look, I think you should think about something much bigger and tell me what it would be. And I went away for a month and I wrote him a long list of things I would try out and one of them was
in his company and here we are. I know it's a compressed story but that's a pretty wild story, right? Yeah. You go from like sort of line work here intact to crusader for homelessness. It's wild. And then somehow Mike Moore, it says, I'm going to give you a ton of money to run a newspaper. Which was not your plan. No, it wasn't. And even in the proposal that I wrote him originally, which did as I said, have other things like helping homeless people. My initial pitch
for it was just sort of broadly fixed news. And not even for some of the stuff that I've now learned and I'm really obsessed with the standard doing around making it more fun and a better digital product. It was really started from as I got more involved with the city. I felt like many of my questions were not answered by the press that the depth of the reporting I got access to was not commensored to the depth of the issues that I saw. And I felt like someone should be doing this.
I said, we're just going to have local news. It's the chronicle that's still a long-standing newspaper. People have been experiments with sort of micro-local news things like hoodline. Yeah, you felt all that was not adequate. No, not necessarily. What I would say is as a casual observer of the city, which I think many news organizations, many local and regional news organizations fall flat on thinking that they themselves, reporters and editors and their
teams are representative of the city population as a whole. And I think one of my strengths in leading this company is that I always remember what it was like to be the person who didn't know that we had as many publishers as we do locally. And I think a lot of local publishers would blame me the reader or the customer. And in my role, I think you're not subscribing to us or reading us.
Yeah, I think that the company needs to do the work of bringing you in and writing for an audience that doesn't know who the mayor is, that doesn't know what the board of supervisors is because that's where I started my journey. And anyway, bringing it back to this plan and proposal or whatever, I said, look, I don't have any news experience. And you're like one of one amazing business person who started their career in news and has this deep commitment to the Bay Area. So maybe you should
find someone else who does have the news experience. I'm just telling you that it's a problem I observe. And in true Mike fashion, he said, I don't really care. I'm going to push you off a cliff. And I think you can do it. And that's what happened. Okay. So Mike Warren says, the good news is I'm a billionaire is going to fund your local news operation. The bad news is you have no idea what you're doing. Yes. How long before that to you launching this site? It took maybe eight or nine months.
And the hardest part was finding people to join the team because my pitch at the outset was, hi, I'm Griffin, a person with no experience. Also, there's a billionaire. Can you move to San Francisco? It's a pandemic. Yeah, also, it's a pandemic. It was peak pandemic. And one of the first people, I messaged hundreds of people on LinkedIn. In fact, if you're listening to this, you should check your LinkedIn emails because I might be in there from
2020 or 21. And you're also hiring an editor in chief. We are. Yes. As a plug. Yeah. If you are our next editor in chief, it's Griffin SF standard.com. Okay. Yeah. And and one of the first people to get back to me was a woman I went to college with who was here in New York, a reporter at CNBC. And she responded. And I remember the feeling I had that anyone responded to me. And I'd said, please, can you get on the phone? And she did. And I somehow convinced her to uproot her
life and move to San Francisco. And that was really the beginning of us having a team assembled. And we brought in some other people from San Francisco and elsewhere. But we launched with a scrappy team of a handful of people and a site that absolutely could not compete even with the small publishers in San Francisco. We were tiny. We didn't publish very much. But we had this belief that if we did things a little bit differently in the ways that we could, we would probably
make progress. And that's exactly what's happened. So there's a lot of downside to you not knowing anything about the media business when you start. But there's some upside, right? Yeah, fresh eyes. What did you think from the get go, oh, I'm going to do a local newspaper, news product. It's entirely different than people who have seen before. Or I'm going to do one that reminds me of the paper. Where'd you grow up? Oregon. That reminds me of whatever the organ paper is.
Yeah. They're going to. Thank you. Yes. And we're going to do a version of that. We're we're thinking initially. I think what's been really interesting about my journey, my my very short journey in the news industry is I prior to starting the publication and hiring people who have a lot of media or news experience media, whatever you want to call it.
I had a lot of conviction that everything could be done differently. And not because it differently is not maybe not even the right word because I didn't know it to compare it against. I just said, I'm going to do this the way that I would probably run a tech company. And that comes to life in a lot of different ways. But as it pertains to the product, I had some ideas.
I didn't think we're going to blow up a newspaper other than not having paper. But really the only idea that we had at the outset that was truly different, I think for a local publisher was to be really good at video and social video, which at that time during the pandemic and the now this era, etc. was not new information to any people that already pivoted the video. But local publisher is not because it's expensive. Yes. It's difficult in theory. There's money there, but that requires
enormous scale. But we had some cash in the bank. We had room to experiment. And Sophie, who was that first employee, was a video producer at CNBC in New York. And we launched with a handful of stories. And one of them was sort of a first person walked through the tenderloin with someone who had been on the streets in the tenderloin. And it was a, I mean, if you look at the video on YouTube today, I'm sure it's not that many. It's not hundreds of thousands of people who viewed it. But I think
it was a clear line in the sand that we are going to try and do things differently. And that's the type of storytelling that you had not seen from other publishers in San Francisco before. They have the inertia of the way they've done things in the past. And I have not seen San Francisco standard video to date, but that's just maybe for research on my part. Is that still an important component
of the paper? We've pulled back on that type of like full scale. And I think we're not unique. And you've already brought up some of the issues with full scale video production like we did in the early days. And frankly, we were able to do that because we had so much lead time because we knew we were launching and we could pick the launch date. We still do a lot more social video. And that is not out. And I think the audiences are not as excited with full scale video productions
going out on social anyway. And so all of our reporters, like our food reporting, reporters take their phones out and do the video themselves. Here's the croissant. Exactly. And that's what the audience wants. And so we've moved with the audience and also with the evolution of the business. I'm assuming through trial and error, you have learned a lot about the business. Yeah. And then some ideas you thought were good ideas, turn out to not be good ideas.
Someone could have told you that early on. And some of them probably actually are good ideas. One of the things that comes, I mean, there's a lot good and bad. And I'm pretty honest with the mistakes that I've made and I'm happy to talk all about those. But one of the things that I find
myself coming back to a lot is that the product should speak for itself. And something I've heard on our team, but from other news companies as well frequently as if a story doesn't perform, it's because we, but they're usually looking at me and saying, I, Griffin didn't market it. And we don't pay. We've never paid for promotion of any kind. We don't do brand marketing. We don't boost our posts. None of it because I hold very dearly a principle that the product should
speak for itself. I don't know where that came from in, because I don't have the experience in the publishing industry, but I, that, you know, there's literal arbitrage of like trying to get your posts to go up so you can sell more ads against them. And we're lucky that we don't have those pressures. Maybe if we did, we would make different business decisions. But I think one of the most compelling things about the way the standard has grown is that we've not done that. And we've been
able to figure out the things that our audience actually really liked. Do you get a story to your audience in 2024 in a world where, you know, if this was late teens, people say, oh, well, obviously through social and we're going to work with Facebook. Of course, there's Twitter. And pretty much all of those tried and true distribution methods no longer work for publishers. Are there much, much harder to work? Google is still enormously important. Is that, is that
important for you guys? The majority of our traffic comes direct to the site, literally directly to the site or from one of our newsletters. And I think that's the way it should be. And it wasn't, oh, is that way? In 2023, as the publication grew, we started to get a ton of referral traffic from, from search, Google search. And anyone at the company can tell you I sat down in January and had an all hands meeting and said, we've got to stop. This isn't going to work. We need to focus
on loyalty and stop. Let's stop optimizing for Google. Well, not stop entirely, but we cannot get high on that supply. We have to ask ourselves, what is the stuff that people are going to come directly to us for? And that is not always the same story. Sometimes it's the dead raccoon story. But I think especially a regional publisher, you can, and we did this in 2023. We publish half as many stories on a monthly basis this year as we did in 2023. And that's because I sat down
and said, focus on loyalty. The question is, how many people who are here today? We're here yesterday. It's funny because this is now sort of a standard thing you hear from publishers. It's the homepage is newly re-reported. I don't think it's the homepage. But all versions of we have to own our own distribution. We can't rely on social. Yeah. Google is going to go away, even though we're still optimizing for Google. This is, but a couple of years ago, that would have
not been what you would have heard. Yeah. Your argument is a pretty simple one, which is, we'll make something, people will like it, and basically they'll tell their friends they like it. Essentially. And that is what's happened to us. I mean, our audience growth is organic. But how much do you want your newsroom employees, your journalists thinking about the business overall, metrics for their stories? Are they supposed to be out there promoting stories?
They're actually knocking on doors, handing printouts. Although I've been truly excited to see the degree to which the team has really gotten fully behind the subscription product. And people are asking, how do I go out and sell it? I'm like, you can't if you want, but you don't need to be doing that. I think it's everybody's job to run the business. And I say this to the team frequently. There's no, I do the news and you do the business,
or I do the business and you do the news. Everyone at the company has equity in the business. We are all the business. And the firewall absolutely needs to exist ethically, but not because it's philosophically important. It needs to exist because it's the right thing to do for the reader, which is the right thing to do for the business. Do you find that the newsroom employees on the edit side are comfortable with that? Or they're like, no, no, business. Either I
shouldn't be involved in business stuff because that's not ethical. I shouldn't be touching that. Or it's icky and gross. And I don't want to hear about it. I want to write stories. It depends on the person. And if you know any team, some people like stuff more than others. And that's okay too, but we need to operate from a place of shared understanding that we are
all in this to build a business. And if you don't want to talk about it in your reporter, like, that's okay, but we need to have the shared language, which is very different from when I started the company and started hiring people with tons of editorial experience, which is the right thing to do to build a trusted news company. And I mean, going back to the very early days, when Sophie was working on one of her stories, it was in a Google doc, and I jumped in
and started editing it. The CEO publisher was editing it. It was like a three person team, okay? So give me some grace also. No experience. I've been in a three person operation. You can see your publisher is editing a story. So I get it. Yeah. And she said to me, I don't have a problem with this, but just so you know, there's this thing called the firewall. And I said, like, Norton anti-virus, which I guess is dating me, but reminds me of my desktop
computer and our house as a kid. And she said, well, you know, you should really look into this. And I, I mean, I, I remember that moment and feeling like the life drained out of my body. Like, there's this huge thing that I'm supposed to know that I didn't know. And basic idea of there should be a divide between editorial and business at a newspaper, you know, used to be really a religion in older news products. Yeah. Less so now. You'd never heard of it.
I mean, did you that make you feel like I'm really stupid? I don't know what I'm doing or that's a bad idea. It made me feel like I'm an idiot. And sometimes I still feel like that when I meet people in the news industry. I mean, this week in New York, I've been meeting tons of editors, reporters, and they'll say names of people. Oh, do you know? And this other person, I'm like, I have never heard of them. That's a tiny little insular club. I'm aware. But this is a
whole, and I love all of them. Yeah. They're amazing people. And in those moments, I don't think you're the problem. I think I'm the problem. And I think that's a really healthy impulse to have to go inward and ask, what is it that I don't know? What can I get better at it? What can I learn? And do that. And then come back to the problem and say, here are the parts of it that I want to keep. And here's the parts that I want to change. And that's what happened with regard to this whole
my relationship with the history of news and where the firewall comes from. I don't think there's anything more important than not. There's nothing more important than making sure that your reporting is high integrity. And it doesn't cross that line. But what I won't accept is that we're going to be on different floors and we're going to be on different sides of the office and we're never going to talk, which I think is sort of that concept taken to an extreme. And then it leads to
teams that don't understand what business they're in. And more importantly, what product they can create to be valuable for the business that they're in. And that's very different from those early days when I heard about the firewall, pulled way back and thought I had everything wrong. And now I have a much stronger understanding of the way that I want that to look at the company that I have. Are you touching copy now? Are you writing headlines? Are you suggesting stories?
I'll certainly suggest a story idea as a resident of San Francisco who runs a publication and sees a dead raccoon on the bus. That wasn't actually my story. But if I see that, I'm absolutely going to bring it to the team. We all should. It doesn't matter if it's me or the person who comes in to help clean the office. Like it does, we're all on the same team and great stories can come from anywhere. But as it regards to the reporting process, absolutely not. If it's a tip that I have
with some, I'll send it to a reporter and editor and say, you do your thing. So bring back to Mike Moritz. There's a couple, there's multiple different ways to multiple theories about how you make a publication work in 2024. One is be owned by a billionaire. Obvious upside. And there's some obvious downside. And this is we're talking a week after the Jeff Bezos non endorsement story. And so there's a new round of this is why billionaires shouldn't run papers. This is why
billionaires aren't the answer to running a paper. So let me start here. What's your understanding with Mike Moritz about what input he has over day to day operations of the paper, I'm just keep calling it a paper because I'm old. And or general direction. What's what is he just writing a check and walking away? Or is he hands on? First of all, we have lots of owners, including our employees. So I push against people sort of characterized Mike as the owner in the, you know,
it's the owner. You guys are running it. He's the one funding the deficit. For sure. But just to be clear, we do have other owners and they are our employees and what is actually more accurate to say is that he's the chairman of the company. And as the chairman of the company, like, yeah, he should be involved in making sure that we have an excellent product and that we're making the best decisions
that we can. And I have a very close relationship with him to that end. And can he send me a story tip that I then send to the team? Like, sure. Do they have to report on it? Absolutely not. And he kind of on a yearly cadence. I'll do a Q&A with him in front of the whole staff. And he has said in front of the whole staff, anything you want to report on that I've done my portfolio companies that I'm invested in nonprofits politically. He was a VC at Sequoia for many, many years.
Yeah. So he's a lot a lot of relationships with a lot of companies. Fair game. He said that, not me. He said that to the whole team. Have you guys tested that thesis? We reported on the Salano County project in a way that I may not have made him look good. Tell the audience what that project is. It's an effort in part of the East Bay of the Bay Area to build a new city essentially. There's a couple of these, right? Yeah. There's another one. I'm forgetting the name, but yeah.
One that Andreson's involved in. Yeah. And this is the more it's version of it. Yeah. Well, it's not his. It's a handful. We're going to create our new version of a, we're going to create a city. Yes. You can do it. You want to do. My job is to make this a product that our readers love and he will hold me and the whole company to that standard at all times. And I often call him the Chief Typo Officer. And I think this is, it's like a gift actually to have someone who is the
chairman of the company who's that obsessed with the craft. He will find the typo and send it to me. Are there, I brought ideas and themes that he is interested in and you are reflecting those interests? I think the shared interest that he and I had and the staff and from the very early days is political accountability reporting, which is very local. Like we, we, I think for a small new publication have an outsized impact on the local political landscape because of that reporting
that we've done. We, we all share that. Is it, do we share like a particular view that one particular person is the problem? No. But do we think that there are problems? Absolutely. And we're going to go attack those. So this, this flared up end of the summer. In advance of you guys writing us, publishing a story about Brad Horowitz, Felicia Horowitz's wife, becoming basically pro-Trump
people after being, you know, very liberal for a long time. And Mark Andreessen, his partner, and Horowitz both got on Twitter, railing against you guys in general and then more specifically. And it became sort of a battle of VC billionaires. Were you anticipating that you'd get to that point at some point that eventually Mike Moritz's name and I'm just going to call it ownership of the paper would become a flashpoint. It already had in various ways that maybe, you know, you
wouldn't be paying attention to on the other side of the country, which is not a day. It's just a trip because we were doing local reporting. I mean, it happened from the day that we started it happened. I mean, I'm getting angry phone calls, emails, what are you doing? Who is this? What's the involvement? And so it didn't shock me at all because people try to spend a narrative about why he's in it, how he's involved, what he's doing. They can think what they want to think,
what I'm focused on is I know how this business operates and it's not an issue for me. It's not an issue for him. And I wouldn't even characterize it as that particular story as a fight because Mike didn't, he just moved on. He was not participating and it's, you know, to be crash about it, right? It's great marketing for you guys. Don't read this terrible story, the San Francisco standards about to publish. This trash publication. Yeah. So it was a good story.
Thank you. And then by the way, a couple of weeks later, the horror, what's it said, actually, we are going to endorse Kamala Harris. It's sort of underlined what a confusing turn that family has taken. I used to say before this job, I don't make the news, but I can't really say that anymore.
And, you know, I, as I said, like this type of spat or people getting upset with us and then dragging Mike into it or me or whoever, when it first started happening, when we, when we got going, and this is where I just like am so deeply inspired by journalists, I would get the angry phone call and accused of all these things and similar to what I described as my emotional journey with the firewall immediately think, wow, we got everything wrong because this person is so angry with me.
I must have made a mistake. And the first time it happened, a journalist on our team was like, yeah, it's helping. I was like, it was this, it was excitement and I was so confused. It's like, how could you be excited in this moment where we're being attacked? Like it's really horrifying. And as time has gone on, I'd really adopt this stance, which is when something like that happens and it gets escalated to me, I say, thank you, first of all, for reaching out. Number two is,
is there a factual error? Because in that case, I'm going to stop everything and get this fixed with the team. I'll bring it to the team. They will respond. They'll figure it out. But other than that, these are all things you should consider before you do crazy things. I want to help you recruit a new editor in chief. Yes. But I should say, this is, you've been
up and running for three years. This will be your third editor in chief. What is gone on, and we don't need to get into details about the first two, but I don't just how do you explain that you're on editor in chief three? I would say that we have like, Annie's startup changed a lot. And this is hard. For Annie's startup, what you are today may be totally different tomorrow. It just, we change with the customer base that we have with the increased ambition that we have
as a company, as we see that we can achieve more. And I'm looking for someone who isn't going to come and say, my aspiration is to build a slightly better version of an existing regional publisher. My aspiration is to have someone come in and say, we're going to own the story of this place. We are going to be fun and exciting. And we're going to keep doing all the serious accountability reporting that we're known for, but really build something new and big and exciting.
And that's not easy to find. So that's a huge goal. Yes. Do you have a even bigger goal that maybe you guys figure out how to make this work in the Bay Area? And then you can replicate it in Oregon in different parts of the country? I think I used to think about it that way, the expansion of the company. But I use this term often on the team, newspaper thinking as a pejorative. And I think thinking about how to expand our work city by city or state by state is newspaper
thinking. That is very sort of old school. I think that there's a world like not to not to dig on the East Coast folks, but you know, publications with New York in the name don't have any problem telling stories about California San Francisco and keeping New York in the name. And I think San Francisco ought to feel the same because frankly, we in California are hugely influential. I would say that many of the publishers on the West Coast are a little too thoughtful about that fact. And I would
like us to have swagger from because we are from San Francisco. You want to own the Bay Area news. Everyone in the Bay Area reads you. Everyone outside the Bay Area wants to understand it. Exactly. Yeah, goal. It is a big goal. I think we can do it. Good luck, Griffin Gaffney. Thank you. Thanks again to Griffin Gaffney. Thanks again to Charlie Worsal. Thanks to Jalani Carter who produces an edit this show. Thanks for advertising. Who bring this show to you for $0.00 and 0 cents.
Thanks to you guys for listening. Good luck with the week. Good luck to us all. We'll see you soon. Support for the show comes from AT&T. What does it feel like to get the new iPhone 16 Pro with AT&T next up anytime? It's like when you first light up the grill and think of all the mouthwatering possibilities. Learn how to get the new iPhone 16 Pro with Apple Intelligence on AT&T and the latest iPhone every year with AT&T next up anytime. AT&T. Connecting changes everything.
Apple Intelligence coming fall 2024 with Siri and device language set to US English. Some features and languages will be coming over the next year. Zero dollar offer may not be available on future iPhones. Next up anytime feature may be discontinued at any time. Subject to change. Additional fees, terms, and restrictions apply. C-A-T-T dot com slash iPhone for details. Support for this podcast comes from Stripe.
Stripe is a payments and billing platform supporting millions of businesses around the world, including companies like Uber, BMW, and DoorDash. Stripe has helped countless startups and established companies alike reach their growth targets, make progress on their missions,
and reach more customers globally. The platform offers a suite of specialized features and tools to fast-strike growth, like Stripe Billing, which makes it easy to handle subscription base charges, invoicing, and all recurring revenue management needs. You can learn how Stripe helps companies of all sizes make progress at Stripe.com. That's Stripe.com to learn more. Stripe, make progress.