Bob Woodward & Tina Brown: Affirmation vs. Information

about that a lot as well. Recently, I read an article in New York Magazine where one d and thirteen journalists were interviewed about all these issues, and the title of the article was the case against the Media by the media. So I'm not the only one asking all these questions. It seems as if journalists everywhere are doing some self examination about how the media has comported itself

during the course of this election. And who better to talk about these issues than two veteran reporters, I would argue, and I think Brian Goldsmith might agree, my sidekick Brian, with two of the finest journalists of our generation, Bob Woodward and Tina brown Well, I definitely agree. These are two of the heroic characters in the history of journalism,

not just journalism right now. Bob Woodward, of course, I think people have heard of half of the famous Woodward and Bernstein duo that helped to bring down Richard Nixon. He's written or co written eighteen best selling books, most famously, of course, all the presidents men. Tina Brown is probably a little less well known, but she's had just a story to a career. She was the editor of Tatler,

the great British gossip rag. She then became, at the age of thirty, the editor of Vanity Fair and transformed that magazine into what you see today, and then became the first female editor of The New Yorker. She's founded The Daily Beast, she hosted a talk show, she wrote a best selling book on Princess Diana. She edited Newsweek. So we're really lucky to be joined today by these two great journalists to discuss the state of media in

this crazy campaign. Bob and Tina. There has been so much handwringing over the way the media has been handling have been handling this election season, and I've often wondered, twenty years from now, how will journalism schools if in fact they still exist. Review the performance by journalists covering this campaign. Let me ask you straight out, Bob, what do you think have have we embarrassed ourselves or is it still a relatively noble profession. Well, I'll take a

middle ground at first. I think there's been a lot of great campaign coverage at the Washington Post. We've done this book on Donald Trump at twenty people work on it. If if you read it, you will see I think it's the best exposition of who he is. He spent twenty hours with the reporters. It's it's tough, but it lets him have his say. We're working on Hillary Clinton in the same way. I think there's no book planned

at this point. But for instance, today there was a terrific story that the Post did about how Bill Clinton got seventeen million dollars from this private for profit college while serving for five years is honorary chancellor. That's a lot of money he helped, There's no question about it. His name probably assisted in the recruitment of students and donors.

But you see the convergence here of all of the Clinton enterprises, the personal fundraising, the speeches, the Clinton Foundation, the Global Initiative, and and now this for seventeen million dollars is not bad paved for five years work, which in no way was full time. Tina, what is your overall view of media coverage this go around. I do not think it has been a you know, a stellar

journalism election in any sense. I do actually happen to agree with Bob that I think that the Washington Post coverage has been by far the best it has eating everyone's lunch on this particular cycle. The piece you mentioned today was was terrific. I will actually say, though, I think most of this coverage just seems very late to me.

I mean, it seems to me that it's almost like journalists have have come so late to the stories that are obviously I mean, they shout in holler about the big sort of the big issues of dishonest demon darcy, but where the details in the rigor that sort of drills down. I mean, what was to me a gratifying thing about today's story in the Post was that actually there was drilling down into one thing that was a really very interesting thing, a new thing that people didn't know.

I would argue that all these other stories about the Clinton most of them are so many of them are sort of innuendo and like massive drum rolling, and that turns out, I mean, nothing really there. That's what I resent, is the huge drum rolls for things that aren't really there. And on the other side, Trump just for so long just seemed to get away with absolute murder to the point that these uh sort of stereotypes were fixed very

very early in people's minds. So it's, you know, it's the stereotype of of of Hillary being the narrative of her being dishonest was fixed so early in people's minds it doesn't seem to be shiftable. The other hand, Donald Trump, all the revelations about Trump have come so late in the day that he's got away with murder all his time. So it feels to me as if you know that the journalists are just not sometimes making more noise than they are forensic searching time. Okay, first of all, can

I disagree Tina with that. The problem is so many of these stories I went back and looked at the stories the Post wrote about both Trump and Hillary. In the case of Hillary, going back toteen about the foundation about all of these things in one form or another. The difficulty is there's so much out there, a good story, uh, an important piece of the puzzle on either of these candidates. I mean, all about Trump University. We wrote about it,

Steve Brill wrote about it in Time magazine. I remember last year being on one of the cable news shows saying, what about Trump University? And people just laughed, Oh, we know all about that. That's been in the New York Times. But it hasn't. And there has to be incremental coverage on these things to dig into them. But when you look, and I'm not going to borrow you with a list of the stories that ran, but when you really look,

there was vast coverage about Hillary Clinton. You're right. Some of it is unfair, some of it contains innuendos that are not supported. At the same time, there is just a lot there on both of these candidates, and uh, I think it's not just overwhelmed journalists, it's overwhelmed the public. Well that that brings me to a question. It seems that a lot of these stories don't matter. Um. I

think this sort of overarching narrative about dishonesty. I think that's what Tina was saying about innuendo, sort of a feeling about candidates. Is this thing that seems to have a residual impact, But these sort of detailed stories, I don't know. Is it the sheer volume of material that's being written about this campaign, or is it that people just don't really respect or trust the press anymore? Bob,

I was looking at this number. Gallup reported that in nine seene seventy four, the year you helped bring down a president, sixty of the public trusted the media. Today that number is twenty percent. So is it volume? Is it trust? Why don't these stories seem to have a bigger impact. Well, one thing I feel strongly is it is the volume. That's one of the problems. I was just thinking the other day when you Katie interviewed Sarah Palin and she said she couldn't say a newspaper that

she read. Her ignorance became such a kind of defining feature that it helped to bury her. It was one of the major things that helped to bury Sarah Palin when you compare it to the amount of ignorance that Donald Trump has shown in this election again and again and again in so many different venues. That hasn't stuck, and that hasn't defined him. Why is that? Is it? Because, as as Bob was saying, the volume, the very volume of the amount of stuff means that it's just not landing.

Whereas when Sarah Palin went on that major news broadcast and said that thing, everybody saw it and everybody knew, well, what wasn't just that that Sarah Palin said? What? It was an important part of it. She said many other things too. I think, But so is Donald Trump, Bob, and it doesn't seem to be hurting him. Well, but the idea is there are let's face the facts here, and that is there are a lot of people who

support Trump. Remember he's got forty percent of the people in the polls one way or another don't really care. I've talked to some of these people. They say, I don't really care that he doesn't understand this, or that he's going to be tough, he's a leader, they like his background and so forth. So it's not and you're you're posing it. Why doesn't that hurt him? Uh? Because many many you know, I don't know obviously the number, but I think the polling shows on this people uh

really think this is Washington establishment. It's Democrats and Republicans who have alive themselves together in this kind of shadow establishment, and Trump is outside of it, and he's saying We're going to kick the hell out of it and people like that. So the details of what he knows are irrelevant. Now. The big question that's got to be addressed what would

he do as president if he became president. My answer to that question is that I think we don't know, and in many ways I think he doesn't know himself. How scary is that fair point? But you know, people say, okay, well you can be practical you get in Uh. We know, politicians get in office and they've said all kinds of things and then they do something, Uh, the opposite most prominent. I hate to go back to Nixon in he said he had a secret plan to end the Vietnam War.

Probably lots of people voted for him on the basis of that. I was in the US Navy then, and I voted for Nixon in sixty eight because I thought he had the best chance of getting us out of Vietnam. We look at the record, which is very clear now, Uh, he didn't get us out of Vietnam. He withdrew troops but he increased the bombing and certainly did not end

the war. But Bob, to your point, it's striking to me that it isn't just about Trump not knowing particular details, like when you interviewed him and he seemed not to be clear about what Abraham Lincoln did, which was a very striking thing to me. Right, and if we should say, I mean what when we interviewed Trump a number of months ago and asked why was Lincoln successful? His answer was because he did some things that needed to be done. Well, uh,

it was. It was baffling and jaw dropping. So so, but you know, if if Sarah Payton had said that, you know, my point is that, you know, why did why did it hurt Sarah Palin when she said she's could see Russia from her back door? Why did that hurt her so badly? But this comment about not even knowing, which show you didn't even know what Lincoln did. Nobody

really didn't didn't boom around or anybody. Well, and Tina, it's to me it's more than that because Trump has gotten more pants on fire ratings from fact checkers than practically any candidate ever, And that too doesn't seem to be resonating as much. But also I think you have to factor in it's now six and Sarah Palin was eight years ago, and I think the whole media landscape has changed significantly just in that eight years. And there again to go. And it's not an excuse, it's an

attempt a description. There is a volume of stuff that is staggering. If you are in the media business, you can't even follow it. May I also just say that I think that the universe has been created now with twenty years of Fox News has really come to roost.

And I'm very interested to see them the National Review, the the right wing National Review, they're actually now started to come out against Fox and say it has created a universe which has been such an echo chamber for the Republican Party that they have become a cocoon universe in which Republicans could go on talk to themselves, talk to an audience that was strictly understood from their point

of view of the world. And in a way that that volume of ignorance and cite the cycle of ignorance that the falsehoods and so forth that were put out constantly as facts has taken has taken the Land, you know, has actually borne fruit. And that's what we've got now, is isn't it isn't a less informed electorate because they're watching the silo, Tina. I don't think you can blame it on on Fox News. I think it's part of

this story, part of the story. Yeah, of course it's not all of that fool But I do think it's made a difference to the Republican Party. Look, it's it's individual voters who say they don't like what's going on. They do not like this establishment in Washington and in politics. And somebody who talks tough and kicks a lot of sand and is not up on the details of all kinds of things and all kinds of history that doesn't

matter to them. And I, you know, I don't know whether it's our job to sit in judgment of people. I think what we have people who are going to vote for Trump or vote for somebody else, but try to understand and then present who these people are in details. Well, I totally agree with that, in the sense that you know, there's every reason for people to be upset and disenfranchise. Has no doubt about that. I guess the question is much more is that why don't certain specific things make

a difference. But we may be making a mistake in making this assumption that it isn't hurting him. It's clearly hurt him a lot with college educated white voters who are normally a pillar of the Republican coalition, who are leaning toward Clinton this time. It may be helping him with blue collar voters who historically voted more Democratic, but it's clearly having an effect in terms of the electorate that he's able to attract. We'll be right back after a quick break. What do you have to lose by

trying something new like Trump? What worries you both most about the way journalism has changed. You've been in the business for a very long time, and uh as I have. And I'm curious what you think about the current state of journalism, because, yes, the sheer volume, it's hard for anything, I think, to attach itself any narrative, although Brian said

it is having some kind of impact. But but we talked about volume, and also there's such fragmentation and niche viewing or niche readers, people who want to hear their own views reflected back at them. A friend of mine set people are seeking affirmation, not information. So what worries you most about what journalism has become acknowledging that some very good work is still being done. Bob, Well, first,

it's also not just the volume. It's the pace, and it's Internet driven, and it reflects the impatience and speed of the internet. Tell me the headline, give it to me in a d forty characters. And so the whole technology of this has dumbed down the information transfer process to people. Instead of expecting a long article, uh, people expect something really short. It give give me the SoundBite, and you know yourselves when you do interviews, Uh, you know,

give us the bottom line. And so that takes people away from an in depth understanding of things. Now that that can't be changed. That's a reality, and uh quite quite frankly, and I think we have to confront this. No one has found a way in television, radio, print media, anything else. Uh, you know, Buck, Roger, Dakota Rings. No one has found a way to connect the doubts in a way that makes sense, in a way that is of sufficient length or time that people will absorb it.

I think that we should not underestimate the sheer impact is having on the professionals themselves, you know. I mean, one thing I think that is extremely dispiriting for journalists is the constant to your point, Bob, but the constant demands to keep filing, filing, filing, you know, posting five times a day, coming on Sunday and do Facebook live now, all of these things, you know the New York Times

for insts. I know that journalists feel that as the newsroom shrinks, they're being asked to do more and more and more in regard to you know, short time consuming, time wasting. You could argue, you know, bursts of this and busts of that to feed the social media beasts that are out there demanding to be fed, to be fed. And of course it means that they can't get on

with their story. I mean, they can't actually spend at time doing what you were just doing, returning the call from a source and sitting there on the phone for forty minutes and getting the story they've been pursuing. There too, busy out there having to do something down you know, Facebook live thing or whatever, which they have to keep doing to feed the beast. Well, let's get that terrible effect on the journalism because ultimately they're constantly filing before

they're ready. And what is the Washington I was going to say, what is the Washington Post, though, Bob doing differently? You just mentioned rate piece that was done today. They're obviously Marty Baron, who's a great editor in chief and somebody who cares deeply about good journalism. What kind of environment is he establishing for people at the Post that is it really liberating them to do this kind of good, solid, important,

critically important journalism. Like everything it it starts with the owner. And several years ago Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon, bought the Post and it was a year ago was last October. I had a conversation with Bezos and we were talking about Nixon and uh Bezos said, could we have found out about Nixon before he became president? My answer is I don't think so, but we could have

done more and better before he was elected. And so the owner, Maso said, Okay, what we need to do is make sure that we dig into the lives and backgrounds, do a full excavation of the two remaining candidates through after the primary process. And then he said, the editor, Marty Baron, will have he will have the resources to do this, and so the Post has hired lots of new reporters. I look at the front page or some of these stories, and I know none of the bye lines.

I do not know who these people are, but they but they are fabulous reporters with experience with the patients to dig in and who understand what matters is incremental coverage. That you have to stick with the story, chase it to ground, and at the same time be aggressively nonpartisan. Uh, and to be as fair but tough as you can. What do you two make of the of the now infamous New York Times stat that Trump got two billion

dollars in free media coverage during this campaign. He tweeted in July about the Milannia controversy, the plagiarism issue, that he believes that all press is good press. So by that standard, even if some of the two billion was negative, was that all helpful to him and propelling his rise? And let me just add to Brian's point by saying, New York Magazine interviewed a hundred and thirteen journalists, and

eight said they believe the media created Donald Trump. So how much is the media to blame for the very fact that he is the Republican nominee for President of the United States. Well, I think a weakness of obviously of the entertainment driven nature of the time we live in means that Donald Trump is a heck of a lot more fun to cover than Hillry Clinton. You know, the fact is that that journalists cannot resist where the action is, if you like, and Trump was the action.

And in that sense, I do think there was way way too much that without question, that he was allowed to go on there and blow hardaway and do interviews on the phone in the higher hour and a half rallies it's covered without interruption. That was insane. And you know, the fact is that there will be sort of one sort of slightly combative second question. He would blow blow steam and then you move on to your next question, instead of doing what should have been done on television,

which is like the just refusing to let go. It's a lot harder to challenge somebody on the phone than it is face to face. It is, but there's also the question of the second follow up and the third follow up and the fourth follow up. We actually don't let somebody stop. You don't ask one question, you get a blow up answer, and then you try a second question, you get a blow fonser, and then you just move on. You have to stay with it. If I may say and challenge that a little bit, I think that, of

course we should have done more. That's always the case. But it's the voters who created Donald Trump. Let's not kid ourselves. He was ahead in the polls, he almost from the beginning. If I recall, he won primary after primary after primary, and now he's the nominee of the Republican Party. So you have to cover that. That's our job, embedded in your right team. I mean, these rallies were expect to coals. I mean it was almost like the

Roman color situation. Absolutely yeah. But you covered those and then people followed up and there was lots of examination, and if you put all the clips together, you would be astonished what you never even read or were aware of,

because there's been so much. Well, I can remember certain really good critical moments where it did happen, like with Chris Matthews when he really nailed Trump about how when he said women who had abortion should be punished on his show, and he really was fabulous about that, and he really dressed and then Trump took it back. And

then Trump took it back his mind. He said, oh no, no punishment, absolutely, But does I mean the Hillary Clinton partisans I know would say that it isn't just about the volume of coverage, it's about the tone of coverage, the kind of coverage. The Shorenstein Center put out a study that shows that Hillary got by far the most negative coverage of any candidate in either party. Trump got pretty raw ra coverage, at least at the beginning. Um, does the press need to be held account for the

tone that they're striking. Some of the tone is has been bad, There's no question about it. But look, Hillary Clinton has been on the public stage for so long. All of her incarnations as first Ladies, Senator, Secretary of State are going to be examined. And the whole email fiasco is not something the media created. And if you look at the facts in this and you look at what we've seen, um, there are a multitude of stark

contradictions that needs to be covered. I think in a sense, the problem Secretary Clinton has had is and she now apparently is somewhat on the road to remedy that uh, to not answer questions, to not have press conferences. I've known her for decades and interviewed her some in earlier incarnations, and I think Katie, uh, you and Tina know so well when you've interview her and you listen to her,

she's fabulous, She incredibly informed. She can be very friendly, very open, very self deprecating, and that's not what we've seen in the campaign, and so maybe for the next two months we're going to get more. It is curious because actually she's at her best, one of her box against the wall. I mean, I think her finest hour in the last year really was the Benghazi hearings, where she's grilled and grilled and grilled and grilled and never

lost her cool. Seven hours. She was well informed, she was on top of it, she never lost a beat, and yet somehow seems to have been fearful of the press pack who were way less informed and very often way less hollstyle than the Manghazi hearing. So I agree that you know, it's not been a good strategy, but one that she seems to have adhered to despite everybody saying she should not. But why why are they doing that?

I mean, she held her first press conference in two hundred and sixty days she did start talking to reporters on the plane. And I'm curious why why the hesitancy to to actually talk to reporters, especially when Donald Trump was establishing the narrative every single day, um by talking to reporters and then creating a storyline that was being adhered to by almost every news organizations. A long theory which is that if your if your opponent is killing themselves,

let him go ahead and do it. Why should she go walking herself to death, like risking sound bites of her own when he's busy falling on his face it seems every ten minutes. And indeed, as bron said, it is affecting him in the polls. But I think she has a deep seated fear of not being perfect that goes back, must go back way into her. We're really getting her on the couch now. I mean, I think

it's true. I think that's always been an issue for Hillary that she can never really say yes, I got that wrong and move on like she couldn't say, you know, I got the I RAG vote wrong. All the way through the last campaign, she always gave fifteen caveats about why she yes, she was the wrong but instead of just saying, you know what, I got it wrong, bad consequences.

If I could do it again, I wouldn't I have to ask Bob about this, this Paul Krugman column and Tina, I'd loved your view on it too, that Hillary Clinton gets gored, basically saying the media coverage of her has

been patently unfair. He compared it to what happened to Al Gore against George W. Bush during that campaign, and he writes throughout the campaign, most media coverage gave the impression that Mr Bush was a bluff, straightforward guy, while portraying Al Gore, whose policy proposals added up and whose critiques of the Bush Plan were complete accurate, as slippery and dishonest. And right now I and many others have

the six sinking feeling that it's happening again. True, there aren't many efforts to pretend that Donald Trump is a paragon of honesty, but it's hard to escape the impression that he's being graded on a curve if he seems to suggest that he wouldn't round up all eleven million undocumented immigrants right away, he's moving into the mainstream, and many of his multiple scandals like what appears to be clear payoffs to state attorneys general to back off investigating

Trump University get remarkably little attention. Meanwhile, we have the presumption that anything Hillary Clinton does must be corrupt, most spectacularly illustrated by the increasingly bizarre coverage of the Clinton Foundation. Anyway, I could go on and on, but Bob, what are your thoughts on that? Okay? Paul Krugman is ardent partisan, and he has very strong views about this. In that column, he says, well, George W. Boy lied about what he

was gonna do with taxes. I spent months looking at the origins, development, and final passage of the Bush tax cuts. Bush was quite straightforward. He was gonna lower taxes for everyone, and he did. And now the economic consequences of that Krugman and others are very critical of and and and that's reasonable. Hillary Clinton's got to be accountable. Uh, she's

running for president. And uh, the idea that I mean, Look, we all know hundreds of journalists, and yes there are some who are partisan one way or another, but by and large, journalists want to get it right. They don't aren't sitting around and say, let's gore Hillary or gee, I don't like Hillary. There's too much out there. There are too many questions, there's too much history and past and it's got to be addressed, and it is. I think the answer is for her, quite frankly, is to

sit down with you too. And you know, maybe I've been trying, Bob, and they keep blowing me off. Yeah, but I mean, it isn't that. I mean, Katie, I've known you for years. I have no idea you could torture me. And I couldn't tell you what your politics are. I have no idea. You're a journalist, you're trying to figure out what happened. You would give her a fair hearing,

but a tough hearing. But you know, one of the things though that Bob, I think that they fear she fears, And what's so fascinating is that it hasn't applied to Trump. Is the flying sound bite that defines you. I mean, her comment inside of a very long interview to Diane Sawyer we were broke when we left the White House, right, that became for her like and I'll go on the internet nightmare it's like, that's what she said. Yes, it is what she said. But look and that's what that

is what she meant. It's fine. But the question is why did that end up being such a defining, uh sort of killer boomerang to Hillary? Whereas all course it is, of course, of course it was absurd, but compared to the multi absurdities of everything that Trump has said. Yeah, but but it's I don't get into this idea of well, Trump's done ten times is badly fair enough in those things around the record, and they're under the microscope, believe me,

by journalists and voters. But that doesn't mean you don't do Hillary. In fact, I mean I'm not suggesting that you don't do I think she's saying. She's saying, why why she why she's hesitant to put herself out. I'm saying, that is why she's hesitant to of course you wouldn't. Does she have somebody in her entourage who would when she said that, you know, we were dead, broke or whatever, say to her, Hey, that was a mistake. You shouldn't

have said that. That is not going to be incredible, particularly when you've gone on, uh, you and your husband to make all of this money. She made a messay she did, Well, that's that's the point, that's what she's so desperately afraid of doing. She's afraid that she's going to talk for twenty minutes about her policy about criminal justice and then use suddenly, you know, like slip and use a word like super predator, and then you know,

it undermines everything that she said before. I think that the fear of that flying sound bite being this curse of of her the next six months has made her into a fetal position of fear. You know, I'm not I don't say it's a good thing that she's in that position, but I think that is what's driving it. Okay, Tina, if that's what's driving what's going to happen if she becomes president and Vladimer Poop confronts her, Is she going to be able to hold her own I think there's

all the evidence in the world that she can. But the idea that she's sitting around and worried about, oh my god, I'm gonna make a slip, I'm going to say something that I've felt or thought. You know, we're sitting here having this conversation and it's not scripted, it's not planned. You know, probably one of us probably weren't running for president both thank God, no, no. But we we live in a spotlight, and you know, probably one of us said something we wish we hadn't said, probably me,

and that happens. Okay, But when that happens, then you kind of say, you know, I stepped on it. That was a silly thing to say. People are forgiving. Everyone knows people who say things that are silly or a mistake. And and the idea that that drives her into a defensive crouch. It is not testimony to what I know is her strength. And yet I would agree with I

would agree with Tina. I think that's true. I think it's she feels this is hers to lose, and why risk it if she's going to be really challenged, even though I agree also with Tina that that is when she is best, when when she's really challenged about some specific policy, and uh, I just I I also think combined her her unwillingness to kind of step in it, as she said, Bob, coupled with her inability to say I screwed up. That's a pretty bad combination for dealing

with the media. Okay, but whose fault is that the media's? No, Well, I think the media critique, though, is a little bit different, which is that Trump is being graded on a curve that even if, as Tina says, he makes ten times as many mistakes, if he utters ten times the number of falsehoods, the coverage is presented as as equal and and and so. For example, when she gave a very well researched speech, after what she answered no questions, so

that could be a fault. But she gave a speech in which she, you know, demonstrated in remarkable detail Trump's connections to a bunch of white supremacists and racist elements. And then Trump, in the middle of a rally the

same day, yelled Hillary Clinton's a bigot. And on a lot of the news programs, those two things were treated as equal, um and so, Bob, Tina, do you think that there is a reckoning that's going to happen after this election in which the conclusion does not know, we shouldn't cover Hillary Clinton critically, The conclusion is that there's got to be some fairness in terms of the the amount that the that the whip or the zapper is

applied to these two candidates. But but but that's the internet culture, in this impatience and speed they both effectively called the other a bigot, right, so you cover that, whether one was well researched versus one that was off the top of his head. You can make that point, and I think some people did, but you you, you kind of have to cover that, I think, And this is what's I'm one of. You know, this is almost

a constitutional point. But we have a democracy and people are going to vote, and people are gonna get it. People are a lot smarter, and the job we have is to put it out there. Jeff Bezos, the owner of the Post, said, So our goal is no one can go into the voting booth in November and say

I couldn't find out who these two candidates were. And so we have, uh, you know, a lot of his money going to hire extra reporters and editors to make this I think unparalleled monumental effort to answer that question for people. Now, the volume, I mean, you can't keep up with it? Can you two? Keep? Can you keep up with Now? That brings us back to where we were at the beginning, which is sometimes the volume. It doesn't matter what you're dealing with, what rigor if the

volume is so intense, people forget it. They have brain fade, and well, let's face it, how many people are reading these great stories in the Washington Post. I mean they don't have They don't land with the kind of impact they landed in the seventies and eighties when the paper was, you know, one of four or five major places that

people got their news. I mean, it's not like being I feel like mostly political journalists are reading what political journalists are writing, and I wonder how much it's sinking in to the general population. Which I think that's a fair question, and it's uncharted territory, but that doesn't mean we stopped doing what we're doing. Let's bring it home, Bob, and and and TEENA and Brian, I'd love to hear your perspective on this. We're about two months away from

election day. What should the media be doing and the these next two months? And I guess the second part of that question is will it really matter? Well more what matters is what the candidates do than what the media does, because it's a question of how they're going

to handle these two months ahead. Uh. I feel that Trump, when he thinks he is losing, is going to really do the kind of thing you do when a retreating army retreats and starts to kind of blaze his guns in every direction, that he will go out in a blaze of bomb attox, as it were, more and more crazily extreme, because he will want to retain that counter

of the electorate for himself for whatever he does later. Hillary, I think he's just going to try and be as cautious as she can and not be forced to answer things that could create the flying SoundBite. As as we've discussed, I think the media, I think presentation is very important. I do think that sometimes, you know, you don't get a sense that this is the big story. Pay attention.

Of course, you have to do the incremental coverage, but I do think, you know, the newsrooms have to sort of gather themselves together and say, what are the four big stories now, and just report the hell out of these defining stories and really make sure that they haven't left one stone. On Turner in the New York Times did a wonderful piece, I thought, on all of Trump's

real estate deals. Unfortunately it came out the same weekend that the pulse bombing happened in Florida, so I actually didn't have the same impact, which I think it would have had if that tragedy hadn't occurred, because of course you're also racing not just the media coverage of the election, which you're also racing the wild news environment that we've been living in. I mean the summer. I think no one was ready paying attention and apologies because of this

constant uh tragedies that were hitting at every turn. But but when, when when these stories don't land? As Tina said, Bob, do you think it's because it's more of a feeling that is motivating Trump supporters, rather than details of his business dealings or the way he's behaved in certain situations or Trump University. It's it's this overall anger and this visceral reaction to him as a candidate and what he could do. That means these stories just don't really matter. Well,

but you know you can't sit around. I if you go back to some of the Nixon Watergate coverage, I remember Ben Bradley, our editor, would say, you know, just keep doing it, keep trying to find out what's going on. And somebody would say, well, it didn't get picked up by television. No one is talking about it. In fact, no one believes it and and uh, you know, a good editor is going to say just keep going. And the answer to Katie's question, what should we do? Keep

following it? I think in September and October there is that cliche about the October surprise, something happening that really turns things around. Events are going to occur that maybe will determine or have a huge impact on the outcome of this election and how the cans respond to them, to how the candidates respond to those huge events. Yes, exactly. But a number of people have said, from the intelligence world, the CIA world, that if there is a major terrorist

attack in this country, uh, that will help Trump. Now I'm not so sure. That depends on the timing, who was behind it, how big it is, what the impact is, because a lot of people will say, well, he's tough, he's tough. Now He'll rea Clinton is tough also in a different way. But there could be occurrences like that in the security terrorism field, in the world of the economy, which is still not is robust and resilient as it should be. So you know, I think the message should

be keep your seatbelled on. And I'd add one more thing to answer Katie's question, which is I think the press ought to focus on what the candidates planned to do as president. I think often there's a uh, fake sophistication on the part of a lot of reporters that, you know, we don't really pay attention to these campaign promises because we all know that after they're elected they toss them out. But that's really not true. And the

and the political science bears this out. Campaign promises are the single best indicator of what the candidates, the policies the candidates planned to pursue in office. And so even if it isn't the sexiest coverage, I'd argue for you know, really rigorous analysis of of what the candidates are actually proposing. What do their plans say't what was Richard Nixon? And and that's the difficulty. No one believes because when people get in office, they're going to do what they want

or what necessity dictates. And there's a downside to that, but there's also an upside. Can I ask one question of you guys before we let you go? Uh? I've always wanted to ask this, actually of both of you, as two of the journalists I admire most. Bob, you've written these best sellers about Richard Nixon, and you know him better than just about anybody. Um And Tina, you wrote this best seller of another person who was sort of at the center of the media mails from Princess Diana.

Do you see any of those two iconic characters in either of the candidates uh that we're all covering this year, or at least in the media environment that we're covering. Well, Diana was the first internet ah death, if you like. I mean when she died, it was the first time that um, a celebrity death had been covered on every medium, all the time, everywhere. It would began the mass carpet

bombing media era that we have entered into. So in that sense, I guess she is more of a in the Trump genealogy than she is the Hillary genealogy, because you know, she started for this huge celebrity that then just magnified and magnified and magnified, so that everything she did became a fulfilling, self fulfilling prophecy in a way, And her relationship with the media was as combative and as uh sort of you know, co opting at the

same time. So there's there are there are some aspects there, I guess but sunny, you know, her humanitarian side was way more in line with Hillary. It's unfair to compare any candidate to Nixon, quite frankly, and uh, people have ascribed Nixonian tendencies to both Trump and Hillary. I think that's I think that's unfair. Nixon was unique. He was a criminal president who violated the law, who resigned when he realized that the entire Republican Party and Republican establishment

had turned against him. His very Goldwater said, uh, Goldwater, being the conscience of the Republican Party. Uh, for many many years said too many lies, too many crimes. And we've had lots of untruths from both candidates. No one has established a rhyme from either of them. I think the I think it's probably gonna turn out okay, because voters are very smart. I was off giving a speech some weeks ago down south, and some man stood up and said, I'm confused. I don't know what to do.

Help me, And I said, uh, you know, look, you get to decide, you get to decide where you're going to get your information. It's personal. And then he wanted help. And I think we need to give him more help in our business more information, even if people don't look at it or listen or read. UH. At least the data is there. And UH, in the end, majority of people are going to be able to say I'm going to do this, and that's who's going to be the next president. When you look to the future, are you

optimistic or pessimistic about the state of journalism? I'm sorry, you know, like you, people have to get up in the morning and work at it. And the thought I have, because I think I can say this literally when I get up in the morning, my thought is what are the bastards hiding whoever they are, because they are out there and you know, with political good maybe good intent trying to protect something, or maybe with less good intent,

but but people are hiding things. Remember Al Gore once said when I asked, what percentage of what goes on in government that's of consequence do we know? And he said one percent. And that's, of course Gore being exaggerating. We know a lot more than one percent. Maybe it's fifty, maybe it's six. But there's a lot we don't know and about what goes on in government, and there's a lot we don't know about who these people really are. I'm very glad that Bob is they're digging away shoveling

with his pick. Well, I could talk to you both, Brian and I know agrees for hours. I didn't even get a chance to talk to you about the role Facebook is playing in news distribution. So maybe we can do part two of this podcast following the election. Bob and Tina, thank you both so much for your time. It was great great to talk to you. Thank you, Katie, Thank you. So we want to thank Bob Woodward and

Tina Brown for participating in the show today. We also want to thank Gretta Cone, the Reverend John Delore, and Zack Dinerstein for producing this show. Also a special shout out to Mark Phillips for our terrific theme music, and thank you for listening. If you want to leave us a message, please do so at nine to four four six three seven. As always, I will be standing by the phone. Also, please subscribe, rate and review the show. It helps other listeners to find it. Thanks for listening.

We'll see you next time. Hey folks, it's me Mark Marin and if you love podcasts, you don't want to miss now here. This a really big podcasting festival. Coming in October to the Los Angeles area. Come see me and lots of shows you love. More than thirty great podcasts live on six stages. It'll be a weekend full

of laughs, storytelling, and your favorite hosts up close. You've got your wild favorites by Comedy Bang Bang and with special guest Lauren lap Kiss, plus more great shows like Brilliant Idiots, Criminal and The Moth, and I'm doing a special WTF as well. Do a v I P pass for meet and greets with your favorite hosts. Sit up close and reserve seating, hang out in the VIP lounge and get more special perks as well. It all happens that now Here this October through thirty in Anaheim, California,

right near Los Angeles. Don't miss it. Go to now Here This best dot com to buy your tickets. Okay, good, Great,