Katie Couric: Is Objectivity Dead?

Yeah. So in South Africa there's the South African Broadcasting Corporation, which is similar to the BBC, right? In that it's state funded. Modeled off to the B B C. Yeah, it's modeled off the BBC and then it's state funded. People pay a a fee, you know, for having a TV. It's like a nominal fee. And that basically goes to funding it um and and their reporting. Then we have a few independent stations as well, but none of them have a clear Ideological band.

No, no, no. That that would be I think most people agree that would be crazy. Like we wouldn't we wouldn't we just Like there's not the pro apartheid network Oh my goodness, Katie. Can you imagine the throw of hot tech network? Oh my goodness, what a great idea. The PAN. Hi, we're Yeah. Ha ha ha! You are my replacement. Oh well What a fantastic premise. This is What Now with Trevor Noah. På Cirque-Kay älskar vi att fira våra kunder. det perfekta settet. Nu lanseras Kia Eve. En kompakt elsuv med.

Kia EV2 är designad för en aktiv och urban livsstil och kommer med röststyrd AE-assistent och flexibla utrymmen. Välkommen till din Kia återförsäljare och upplev Kia Ewie 2. Gia. Movement that inspires. Yesterday we Thank you. Yeah. What a fashion disaster. What's that? Very mister Rogers. Yes, yes. Double Mr. Rogers. That's right. So today I had a backup plan. I was like, if he's wearing brown, I'm covered. Oh, you're gonna switch it out, okay. I really like that jacket.

You both do kind of have a similar thing going. He's trying to avoid me at I'm trying to do that. I'm trying to f fully, fully line up with him. I'm trying to make sure that our our friendship is fully aligned. That's what I'm looking for. I don't want him to be able to escape me. I want people to be like, Are you guys twins? That's how closely aligned I want our dress sense to be How often do you record your podcast? Uh whenever. Whenever.

Yeah. Whenever is whenever. So, you know, we'll fly in from South Africa and then we'll do a bunch of episodes and we'll come in or but then sometimes we're doing them, you know, like one Spaced out and then it's but it's whenever. You don't feel that you need to have a specific cadence for like tip when people expect necessarily. No. No. What's what's your cadence now in life? What do you think about it? a tranch of them, if you will. You know, we have definitely

you know, a s uh when does a season. But then we're not really doing seasons as much because I'm really responding mostly to news as it happens. So You know, it's funny, you guys,'cause I er every platform I do different stuff. Yeah. You know, you have to be kind of multi platform. So, like tomorrow I'm doing a Substack show. Um Wow. Yeah, uh which I do once a week. And then I do the podcast slash video cast and then You know, um

Yeah, I think that's primary. Then we have a newsletter and sometimes I do just kind of straight to camera reports on Instagram, you know, like I explain what the safe act really is. I think I saw one of those about I feel like it was about Iran or something. Yes, maybe. Maybe. And how they're trying to keep journalists out of the Pentagon.

There's so much misinformation. So I just I just try to kind of give the facts and like the timeline of what happened at the Pentagon and why they were kicking some outlets out and bringing other outlets in and um you know just I think there's so much information assaulting people every minute that sometimes I just try to say, Hey

This is what the Save Act does, or this is why they're looking at redistricting in Virginia. Yeah. Let me give you a little bit of the backstory so you understand. Because I think p it's it's really hard to process everything, don't you think?

There's too much of everything everywhere all the time. I I I always think to myself We think that we should judge people because they're uninformed and I think we should actually Process it a completely different way. I think people have too much information. I agree. And a lot of that you you you you just aren't able to pass the information. Is it good? Is it bad? Where does it come from? Where should it come from? Like back in the day, I mean you were you were

What? Because these things happen all the time, Katie. He'll say statements as if he was there during George Washington era. And he would say back in the day, so it's my job to save you from the How how long is back in the day? Give us a timeline. This is a Actually we we have one of the I am the f I am the physical manifestation of back and Yes, it is it is me, Eugene. That that will be my new Chiron, Katie Current. Back in the day. Because that's me.

No but you were you saw I I mean I would argue that you came from an like the like a golden age of news in the United States. When we think to a time of news, you are from that era. And then you rose to become one of the superstars of that era. And then I don't wanna sound too um, you know, pessimistic about it, but I almost feel like you you also seen it sort of come to an end in some ways. Oh yeah, definitely. I think well, you know, I guess I think most people

might look back on the era of Walter Cronkite. Yes. You know, back that long ago as the golden era of T V news. Of course it was an era era when you know, most of the newscasters and reporters were white men, right? And not diverse at all. But there were just a handful, a very small group of authoritative figures. Right. Who you went to and you believed. True. Trusted people. In inverted comedy.

And and it's interesting. I was thinking the other day about Walter Cronkite, uh, when he said talked about Vietnam, honestly, and talked about how it wasn't a winnable war or whatever he said specifically. And L B J said if we've lost Walter Cronkite, we've lost America. Wow. And, you know, I think that I was actually thinking about that because there was a modern day example which now I can't remember, but it just these people had such There was so much trust in these figures.

And similarly with a handful of newspapers with the Washington Post, which I read ev every morning growing up. Actually my dad read it and I watched him at the breakfast table. But you know That's how part of life was. It was it was believed and trusted. And then of course you had this evolution. You had twenty-four hour news networks, you had cable, you had then the bifurcation of liberal cable versus consumer. You had Fox News, Philip. Yeah. Yeah, we don't have that.

Yeah yeah we don't have it it's just news is just news you guys have these kind of people's news and these other people's news And how do you who is doing the news i in South Africa? So in South Africa there's the South African Broadcasting Corporation, which is similar to the BBC, right, in that it's state funded.

Yeah, it's modelled off the BBC and then it's state funded. People pay a a fee, you know, for having a T V. It's like a nominal fee. And that basically goes to funding it um and and their reporting. Then we have a few independent stations as well. But none of them have a clear Ideological band. No, no, no. Like we wouldn't we wouldn't We just like there's not the pro apartheid network. Oh my goodness, Katie. Can you imagine the throw up on that network? Oh my goodness, what a great idea.

The PAN. Ha ha. Hi, we're Yeah. Welcome to P A M. Ha ha ha. Ha ha. You are my replacement. What a fantastic premise. But I ha I do ha I do have a question. So is there criticism from the the population? Definitely. Mm- uh that feels or segment of the population that feels that the news as it's presented in South Africa is biased. Yeah, yeah. And and and and how big is the outcry and what is the response by the by the publications or the network?

What would you say? Or the network, I guess, singular. So in South Africa the debate will always be after democracy will always be would a white party rule in South Africa ever again? So there's a party called the Democratic Alliance, which is leadership is white.

But obviously they've always been opposing the ANC, which is majority black. So sometimes news readers and some other news channels would favor stories that the DA are doing. But just because they're in the news, they would look like they're being favored, right?

Does that make sense? Yeah. Then the people on Twitter obviously cause they follow the same politicians and they get to see what they're doing, when the news comes on once a day about that specific politician, it looks like it suits the agenda of the politician. Right. We were having this discussion the other day, we were saying

The newsmakers are now trying to make their own news. If something sells, they'll go with it. If people are talking about it, if they see it on social media, they'll obviously go for it. But if the other party is doing nothing on social media, there's nothing to talk about. Does it make sense?

So so are you saying that politicians are now bypassing the news altogether and just speaking directly? And co opting whatever message seems to be. Exactly. Um you know, trending, if you will, at any moment in time. So but is it how how divisive is it uh in terms of No, it's not like the US. No, no, no. It's nowhere close to the US. Why do you think that is? Again, I think it's just because

people have some form of criticism for the news. Right. So when I'm in England, people complain about the BBC. The BBC will even send out um regular sort And questionnaires to its to its audience. Do you feel like we're not covering this enough? Do you feel like we should be covering this more? Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

And people will complain about the BBC in everything. How did they handle the Epstein files and Prince Andrew and how did they handle Israel-Palestine and how have they handled people will complain about that. In most places I've been to, people complain about the news in some way, shape or form. Mm-hmm. In the US what's different is Your news pr presents different realities.

Right. That's something that I don't see in most places where it's like completely I've flipped between channels sometimes just Me too. I do that often. Wild how it's like either one one's news news station is covering it and the other one isn't completely. Or they are presenting completely different stories. About her same thing. Yeah.

Yeah, yeah. And not even perspectives. Perspectives would almost be like um the Artemis rocket has has taken off. It is flying around the earth. Why are we wasting money on this? This is the greatest thing for mankind. Those are perspectives. Right. The one in America is like it's like uh the rocket has taken off. There's no rocket. Yeah. Wait what? Or this didn't even happen. Yes. Right? This didn't happen. This is not true. Or as you said.

You know, Trevor, basically just ignoring it all together. Yeah. completely ignoring it. It's it's wild. I was thinking about the Walter Cronkite thing the other day because of Tucker Carlson and I was thinking, is Donald Trump saying to himself, if I've lost Tucker Carlson, I've lost America. But I think he's not because Tucker Carlson as powerful a voice uh that that he has, I think, you know, is just a tiny slice of MAGAWorld. You think he's a tiny slice of the biggest?

Well, I don't know. When I think about I have to look at his viewers. But I don't think he is I don't think I don't know. I I guess the the time will tell whether he and other defectors, right, like Megan Kelly and all these other people. I'm not sure if Donald Trump enthusiasts will follow their lead. I don't know. What do you guys think? So there's a strange phenomenon that I've noticed in and around Trump world and it's that

There's a there's sort of a separation between Trump and his actions. And I still don't fully understand how to process it. But I've noticed many people who are Trump supporters will criticize Trump's actions. But then somewhere in their sentences they'll say, but I like Trump. Yeah. But but in some way they'll they'll basically Personalize it. Yeah, and they'll be able to do that. Why they call it the cult of personality, right? They don't call it the cult of policy.

Yeah, but what what they'll do interestingly is they will they'll almost excuse him from his actions. And when he does something that they do not like. Okay, so let's use an example, a concrete example. When Donald Trump posted a picture of himself, like an AI generated image of him as Jesus healing the sick or healing people.

When his base was like really, really, really angry about that. Understandably, they were like, How what are you doing? This is blasphemous. The amount of people in the comments of his post saying Uh take this down. This is not you. Um I love everything you do. This is this is not something must have gone wrong here. Mr President, please someone has your phone. Yeah. They weren't defensive. Definitely. They were advising him.

And they were incredulous that he had done that and they were convinced that he had made a mistake. It wasn't intention. But they had separated his mistake from him, which I find very interesting. Same thing goes with Iran. People will go uh this president said he's not gonna go to war. Th I voted for him because he said he's not gonna be dropping bombs on other countries. I voted for him because he said the price of gas was gonna come down.

And then you're like, so what does that mean for you? And they go, Well, clearly he he he's being influenced by the wrong people and and you know, this is not what he wants. Or they'll say He got rid of a terrible regime and he was the only person who had the balls to do it. Oh yes. And we're not gonna be in a long protracted conflict.

and uh what he did I I I think there's this macho undercurrent too, you know, this this display of raw power strong man that that people are attracted to as well. And while they may have have doubts about the action and are not necessarily thinking about the geopolitical ramifications. Yeah. There's something about sort of the brute force, the Pete Hegseth, you know, the ethos of the military that

uh the US is once again proving who's in charge. Yeah. That is that is I think very sort of subconsciously or consciously appealing to some of these folks as well.

It it it's definitely that. And and on top of all of it I blame part of it on the sort of sportification of politics in America, in that In America, politics has become the way sports is, in that you have a team. You stick to that team forever. You and again, please correct me if I'm wrong here. But I I distinctly remember watching American television and watching American people regular people get interviewed about their lies, about everything.

I would commonly hear people say the phrase, you know, Well my mom was a Republican, my dad was a Democrat, oh my dad was a Democrat, my mom was a Republican, but they'd like say all the time. People would talk about how their families

And then they wouldn't even say was, they would say voted. Mhm. You know, they go like, My dad voted Republican in the last election and oh and people would say that on the news, I'd watch interviews, they'd be like, Well, I voted Democrat last time, but I'm not happy with things or so I'm I'm gonna vote Republican this time because I'm not pr But it it was an action as opposed to an identity. Yeah. Right. And I was gonna say I think that is so spot on that

It has become so tribal and you're we're talking about why people sort of stick with Trump no matter what. I think changing or pivoting or reconsidering is an assault to their whole identity. I think to all of us to be honest. I I think so too. I like I c I I'll say for myself, if there is something that I have tied my identity to, and that thing falls in some way, my first instinct is to defend it as opposed to now questioning my worldview and belief.

Oh totally. I think it's deeply psychological. I think it's primal. Yeah. And very visceral that I mean I find myself that way too because if, you know Although I try to check myself. You know, my feed is full of people who agree with me, basically. I try to look at other points of view as well, but My, you know, talk about confirmation bias. On the other hand, this isn't like Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. No. You know, it is it is not

it it is it is not normal. And so whenever I feel like, gosh, Am I rooting against Trump? Does that mean I'm rooting against America? And and I I question myself and I question my emotional response to some of the things that happened. Yeah. But I also think This person is dangerous, corrupt. And um, you know, it's very difficult for me. And then I'm like I need to note When he does something positive.

Right. Like even mentally. I need to be more receptive. Oh, this was a good thing. Right? Right. And I think it's hard for many of us who have been inundated with the bad things that he's been doing, the bad choices. The lack of um respect for the rule of law and the constitution, the the self enrichment of him and his family. I mean the list goes on and on. The cheering when Robert Mueller dies, you know, just the so many distasteful things.

that that that it's hard to kind of even have that little crack to say, oh, that was probably a good idea, a good policy. And maybe that's that's helpful. Whether it's like, you know, sorta in the first term, the criminal justice reform stuff even Yeah, right. You know, which arguably was a good thing. You know, getting rid of uh what minimum, maximum or whatever and and people who were being incarcerated. But and Kim Kardashian got involved and you know

You think, well, that's a positive thing. Yes. But the negative stuff, so it's like a tsunami of negative stuff. It's hard to kind of cut gr you know, come up and and and gasp for air and say, oh, that's good. And then you're like, Sucked under again. Right, right.

I I'm I'm surprised that you even experienced that'cause I I've always assumed incorrectly that journalists uh pull you know, their inspiration and ideas from a from a from a different spiritual realm. Does does that make sense? Like I always assume that w we the people who are reading the news

are just reading the news and then journalists are sort of on this ephemeral plane where news is is is merely like a d a different idea to you. But it but it it's interesting that you are in it. So I'd love to know how do you then Or do you even think of putting on different hats as like a a a a person, a citizen, and then a a a journalist. How do you is it even possible to do that? Or do you or do you consci or do you always have to th remind yourself that you have all hats on at the same time?

I mean I think that I have become a citizen journalist. Oh interesting. I'm a citizen first now and a journalist second because I feel like it is such a perilous time and such a dangerous time that I am paying attention in a different way. And I think You know, as I said, it's not just policy differences that we're evaluating here. It's not just saying, you know, uh if you feel morally repulsed by the way ICE was behaving in Minneapolis as a citizen That's the same.

deeply offended me. And I am not gonna boast sides like this is what they're doing. This is how the people of Minneapolis are reacting. Yeah. I mean, I think looking back on it, even ICE defenders would admit, I would hope, many, that It was out of control. Yeah. Things were completely out of control in Minneapolis earlier this year. And so I am also someone who I feel has earned the privilege uh at times

um experience experiencing moral outrage at what I'm seeing. And I I am not encumbered by, you know, qu a corporate overlord saying, you can't say that, you can't do that.

Was that was that common in your previous job? of what it's like. People often use, you know, phrases like the mainstream media and they don't want you to I w what is your honest assessment or even experience of working in an environment where you are under a corporation and they how much do they decide what you are or aren't gonna do? Like everything well First of all, I think there was a lot of separation between sort of the companies and the news divisions. You know, you saw

General Electric owned MBC GE when I was there. Yeah. And, you know, uh there were times where if there was a story about GE, we would either not report it or say it's the parent company of NBC. Okay. Um and but but for the most part these corporations kept out it there was very clear A very clear line between the corporation and the news division. And they didn't they didn't mix.

And now obviously there are quid pro quos happening in corporate media and news divisions. So it is a completely different ball of wax. You it's like apples and oranges. I can't say like this is how we did it back in the day because everything has changed. Trump is comp is basically controlling these uh huge multimillion dollar Consolidation, conglomerates, whatever you want to call it, mergers, and they can't merge without.

The FCC and his administration giving them approval. So they're basically bowing down and saying, We're gonna give you sixteen million dollars to because the Kamala Harris interview was Right in a way that you didn't like, which was complete unadulterated bullshit. That case had no merit.

But they gave him sixteen million dollars. Similarly, A B C with George Stephanopoulos, fifteen million dollars because he said uh sexual assault, I think, instead of or s I think he said rape instead of sexual assault or whatever. Right. And normally I think back in the day, Katie Kurick, back in the day, um, we we would probably issue an on air apology correction. Correction, yeah.

Um but I don't think Anytime I worked at a network, would they pay somebody because they were afraid of the ramifications if they didn't? You would feel like it would be like a badge of honor, in fact. You know, I Like A badge of honor to what? To be Um like sued by a person in the administration, in any any administration. journalists who came up against like the government, I always felt that that was a badge of honor. We saw it in South Africa. Mm-hmm.

The journalists who were arrested by the apartheid government, it was a badge of honor. You know, the journalists who were in war zones, who were arrested by, you know, rebel factions or the governments that people were trying to overthrow, it was a badge of honor. It always used to be this badge of honor where it's like oh we are now going to stand our ground and

Speaking truth to power. On the other hand, I think, you know, if journalists make mistakes, right? Oh, yeah, that's different. That's how the how the system works, right? And so I don't think you can say sort of carte blanche that or or generalize that it's a badge of honor all the time, but you know, it's totally different now the way they're using their power. to suppress

stories to change how s the framework of stories or, you know, how a story is positioned. I was talking to a friend the other day about when CBS News Did a sixteen second reader on January sixth, and they were basically saying Hakeem Jefferies said this, Donald Trump said that.

Yeah. Now if there's no universal understanding that January sixth was an insurrection, that people were killed, uh police officers and yes, one protester, but that it was An attempt to overturn an election and and disrupt the peaceful transfer of power. And hang Mike Pence too. Hang my pants. They had a sign. They were like, we're coming to hang Mike. And throw the election in Donald Trump's favor, then they're just they're not being truthful. Yeah. Продолжение следует...

Is factually incorrect. I think the conflict for anyone doesn't live in America is America has always gone into other countries to try and defend their democracies. And if people voted for this dispensation, aren't there mechanisms in the same constitution to coil anything that they don't like from the same dispensation? What I kind of understood that question.

So if it's a democratic state that is voted in by its citizens, surely there must be a mechanism within the constitution of the same state that can stop things that the people who voted don't like. Do you get what I mean? It's but it's a it's a yes and no. That's the weird thing, right? Yeah, I mean. The first thing about elections So I think you're right, there are steps.

that will ensure, right, a free and fair election. The question is, if those steps aren't followed by the friggin' president of the United States, where does that leave you? But it's also weird, y you know, to your question is like one of the strange things about democracy is that You are buying something you do not yet have and you've never tested and you've never really owned. Yeah.

And you're you're paying for it up front. So in many ways I think like voting is similar to buying a house. You walk in, they show you around, and then you're like, All right, I'll take it for the next however many years of my life, this is for me. And then only when you sleep in it for a week do you go, I think the shit is haunted.

Yeah, you're like what what just happened here? But I think that happens in democracy. We we take that for granted as a system. It's it's it's maybe the best one we know right now. But I do think it's a little bit strange that we go Okay, Eugene, tell me your pitch. Uh Trevor, I promise you pizza every Friday. All right, I'll vote for this guy. Yeah. And then Eugene comes in and then he's like, I don't like pizza.

It's weird because I voted for you based on like I I do think it is strange that there is no mechanism No, but that's... No, no, no. Yeah, Wait. It's too late. Okay, now let's let's use this analogy somewhere else. Imagine if you went to a car dealership. And you said I wanna buy this SUV for my family. They go, Yeah, great. You go, you sign it, you take it, you drive out of the lot. When you get home, there's

Two seats. And you were like, what what what just happened? And then you phone the dealership and you're like, what you said seven seats? And they're like, yeah, we just realized seven seats wasn't gonna work, so we switched it to a two-seater, and um, you can switch it out in your your next lead. Yeah. I slipped. You're saying there should be a better business bureau for the government. I I think it should be a better replacement for democracy. I think they could be.

No. Well, For the way we run it. Okay, what? Well, I'll speak for my country. People assume, first of all, in our country people had to explain to people, which they didn't know in this age of information, that we actually don't vote for the president. We vote for a party. And the party elects people, puts them in parliament. Parliamentarians in their different parties elect a president. Yeah. So we don't choose who the president is. So that's the first part.

But what we've done is, I think if democracy was real, we would have to be able to choose in real time all the time. You can't choose once. You can't choose one service. Oh, yes. Guys. So you what you so uh every day a d uh an election? This is why we dress the same. Polymarketed! So here's the thing. If you vote for a president, you vote for a party, the party elects a representative, the representative

themselves in parliament elect a president. That person who's the president now elects people that he likes and trusts. Yeah. And then they go on to elect people that they like and trust. Right. In different cabinet positions, in different ministries. So basically what you've done is you've empowered an institution

to create its own sub institutions. Yes. And everyone puts people that they trust over and over and over. Local municipality suffers because people are always looking at the bigger picture, which is the president of the country. And no matter how many times when people are dissatisfied with service delivery when the president says, but I don't control anything and municipal level. Yeah. No one will believe them because people assume because you are on the ballot paper, we voted for you.

Right? Yeah. And also these mechanisms of little local elections and municipal elections and by elections, they're never as advertised as the big Super Bowl of elections. No they're not. I mean even here people don't vote on at uh on that level in the same way. I I think people should be able to select the president. Not from just the party, just select the individual and then also have a say in the individuals that that individual selects. So I okay, can I can I pitch you my idea on this? Yeah.

I actually think the biggest issue with politics is individuals. Yeah. Let me try and explain this. When somebody goes up and starts a campaign, we know nothing about them. We do not know their ability or inability to do things for the most part. Worse, we don't know their friends. Yeah. like that. Yeah. Or where they're getting their money to run the game. Back in the day.

So so I think I think Sometimes w when I'm trying to solve a problem, I try and go back to the original idea of what we were trying to solve, right? Why do we have representatives? Mm-hmm. I would argue the reason we have representatives in every system is because it was not feasible for all of us to be contributing or or discussing how to do a thing. So we said, Hey, we we live at this table. We are the table people.

Uh everyone at other tables also has decisions to make. So why don't we send someone from this table? So Katie, you go represent us please at the national table convention. And tell us what other people from tables are thinking, but let them know that we like certain kinds of tables, please. That made sense. It made sense at a time when there was no internet. It made sense at a time when information couldn't just travel instantly. I think it makes a lot of sense. Yeah.

When means of productions were controlled by a limited few. Completely. Completely. We now live in a world where I think we use all this great technology for, in my opinion, like trashy things. Like online betting. Yeah, we have online we have like online sports betting. Yeah. Instant like decisions and you can to do what? To to bet on a game and then go broke and then, you know, your family's destitute and young men are like homeless and what we have it for what?

Voting on like a singing competition. Send us your votes now. That's instant. We've got amazing technology, but we use it for like the most gimmicky thing. Oh, put your opinion online. Imagine if I know this sounds crazy, but imagine if People could a la carte vote digitally about things that a country's doing instead of having it be one day to pick one person who's gonna make all the decisions. Oh yes. But having said that, you know, to really explore and analyze an issue takes tons of time.

The American people and I don't know what this situation is in South Africa, it it takes a lot of time and energy and focus to really understand deeply. All these issues. Ostensibly, these people are there to really learn, evaluate, have staff people look. What we hope. Now yeah, uh ideally, right?

The average American doesn't who's trying to earn a living, you know, be productive in the world, take care of his or her family isn't necessarily going to have the expertise in a certain area, I think. to I mean, I think they can get involved, they can call their member of Congress, et cetera. But do you believe that that would really work? That every you know, if let's say there's an issue of are you saying, for example, like funding DHS?

that we should have a national vote like American Idol and people should say how they feel.

So so so I I love that you that you brought that up because I think it it it captures two elements of politics that I think have broken down. One is the etymology of politics itself, right? From the Greek poly for the people. Politik. It's like it is literally the thing for the people of the people. If we the people cannot understand the thing, it is wrong, is m is my opinion.

Why have you made it so convoluted? Yeah. It is easier to understand than you make it. And I think politicians have created a world where they've made it like uh look, you you guys cannot understand this by the A Let us do it for you. It's so complicated. Your tiny little brain cannot understand this. Just give us your tax and then we will do it for you. We'll take care of each other. Yeah. No, no, no, this is uh just a a Lord, a lord of something.

But this should this should be part of what every politician runs on and every citizen should insist on. Administrators should never be touched. So if you think of in South Africa for example, the Ministry of Home Affairs, yes. Yes, you see, I'm loving this. You see, I'm loving this. General manager, you must look at the de the departmental heads, because these appointments that are because of friendships are the ones that destroy the institution. Exactly.

This guy Now you're a political figure, appoint political appointee. destroying what the administrator has done for years and years and years and things have been working. And then we let that happen because we assume that they know what they're doing. But this person, just six months ago, was in a political party rally. Yes. And now he walks into home affairs.

And Department of Immigration and Department of Finance and Department of Health, and he lets people that he thinks know what he's gonna be doing. And political deployments have never worked. So this is so this is what I this is what I mean by it. I agree with you that most of us do not understand the intricacies of of the things going on in a bill or the issues of etc. Most of us. But I would I would argue that most of us also include many of these politicians. Yeah. The reason I say this.

Because if you talk to as you have senators, congresspeople, et cetera, first of all, they have a whole barrage of staff who processes it for them and then gives them footnotes. And those people, if they're influenced by the right person, choose which footnotes to give or not give.

And you've seen it in these hearings sometimes is where like someone will ask a senator themselves, they'll be like, Do you know what's in the bill? And then the Senate'll be like, Well, I mean I I know what the bill uh and ta then they're like, Do you know what's in the bill? Yes.

And then it's like, well, I look, I don't know every single thing. Did you know that in your bill about bridges, there's also a thing here about schools and then like how pigs should be shipped? What? Pigs. Yeah, yeah. There's a thing about pigs. It's a bridge. Yeah, yeah, yeah. This is infrastructure, but there's a thing about pigs. You know what it is? We assume that everyone who dispenses medicine is a pharmacist. So when we elect officials, we assume that they know what they're doing.

Yes, that's what I mean. We a s we want them to dispense democracy on our behalf. You guys are too young to know what this thing is, eh? Let me drive it for you and I'll let you know when you're Okay, sorry. Okay, so guys, what are you proposing here? We thought you'd never ask. No, you know what's funny? This is how I'll even sh I'll s I'll say it. Yeah. Look at what you're doing in your life now.

If if I had come to you three decades ago and said, Katie Curric I think you can run your own media organization that chooses its own story from the comfort of your own homes Yeah, and and just and not even have a time that you actually put something out. Right. There will be no fixed time slots, there will be no time length, there will be no overload. Do you think you would have looked at me and been like y yeah, this sounds feasible? No. I would have said you're nuts.

Thank you. That's that's what I mean. So and when I look at what you've done today, it's exactly that. It's it's citizen you know, citizen journalism where you you've taken s taken all your expertise, all your experience, all your Everything that you've gained over your life Your respect, your everything. Your knowledge.

And you've created something that is very necessary. And we're seeing many organizations that are doing this. You know, like one of my favorites, uh like on YouTube is like a more perfect union. Oh, yeah. Yes. Mm-hmm. Some of the journalism they're doing is like you're like, wow, why isn't this just

Why is this everywhere? Yes. Or Midas Touch uh, you know, is doing some great work and courier news uh as well. It's funny because my friend's daughter is is like the head of all digital content for more a more perfect game. Oh okay. Well yeah, kudos to them. And so it's it's really interesting.

But that idea seemed crazy. The idea that a a person could make an album in their bedroom and then send it out to the entire world and then the world could choose how to listen to it seemed like a crazy concept. You know? And then look at someone like Billie Eiley. For voting we could do it. And I think we have all the tools now. All right. Well let's talk about that. I mean I'm just gonna challenge both of you. So how would that work? कर दो कर दो कर दो Uh huh. No, it was you.

See you with the grip the big So so I I I would love to hear more specifically how this would work pragmatically. Okay, here's how I pitch it right now. Okay. This is this is still in beta, so this would be the idea. But there's a few things we have to address. So number one is

There's a deluge of information, right? And there's a breakdown in how people understand that information. I do think AI has given us a tool that we've never had before, in that AI can tell you exactly how it can translate it for you for you. Regardless of your aptitude, regardless of your proficiency in a language, regard AI can help you understand.

The way you need to understand it. All right. So that's the first thing I think is we've now got a tool that can take large amounts of information, synthesize them for you. So that's that's the first part. The second one is we already possess digital technology that requires verification and authentication.

So people are trading like Bitcoin and all these things. You gotta have your ID in there, you've gotta have facial recognition on banking apps, two step very so that there's a a measure of security. Biometrics. That is often more intense than voting security right now. So it's like okay, so there's a way to verify that this is Katie Couric who's making this decision. So that's, I would argue, handled already and and can keep getting stronger.

And then the last one is the instant nature of it. Instead of having bills that are built on other bills, that are built on other bills that are built that in my opinion mean lots of things don't go anywhere. You could just have an a la carte system where people in their cities, in their states, et cetera

of voting on bite sized ideas, which is how we already consume information. Mm-hmm. Then you just go, Hey, would you like more or less funding for the parks and this? H here's how we're breaking the spending. Here's how we're doing this. Here's I do think there's a way we could Simplify the information without d diminishing any of its fidelity. Yeah. And get people to make decisions As opposed to saying you can make no decision. You can just pick a person and then that's it.

But there's a lot of uh things that go into running a country, right? Yes. So are you suggesting that every issue, every decision, every spending cut or increase is voted on by the c citizenry? No, but I do think there's a large part of it. I think we right now we're at like zero is what I argue. Right. Maybe not zero to be fair,'cause I guess people vote on what do you what do you call those in America the Uh. Yeah, w and also there's the other ones where people go um

Yes, thank you. Ballot initiatives. Right. So it's not zero to be fair, but it's it's very few. I'm not saying it could it would be a hundred,'cause I love bureaucrats. I'm gonna go on record to say as like Eugene said, my friend over here. You know why? Because bureaucrats are not Make the world move.

and we've been conditioned to to like hate bureaucracy and hate No, they're the people who make sure that the bridges are gonna work and make sure that the engineers' numbers match up and they and they make sure that the roads are built and they make sure that the that the drug companies are actually testing and they're looking at the studies and the I think some bureaucrats, I mean, I think bureaucracy has gotten a a a bad name and I think there are public servants who

do exactly that serve the public. But there's also bureaucracy connotes a certain kind of Clothes. Bloat. Right. And and I think Democrats and Republicans agree that the government had gotten too big and could have been more efficient. That's not and and and of course Elon Musk took a literal chainsaw to it where it needed, you know, an X Acto knife, right? And so I think that uh I agree with you. And I think-

I think but but you know, I think we're in this binary world. You can't say bureaucracy is good, bureaucracy is bad. That's why I'm agreeing with you. That's why I'm agreeing. I'm just, you know what's funny about the Elon Musk thing? He took a chainsaw to it. I've never seen somebody take a chainsaw. And then somehow cut everything down but also miss all the trees. Cause he didn't save anything.

He saved like no money, but everything was destroyed at the same time. You're like, What were you doing with this chainsaw, Elon Musk? Like no no but to your point, I that's what I'm agreeing with. I'm saying I think there can be a balance. He missed everything. He didn't miss everything. I think there can be a balance where we just find a world where we are a little more involved.

And politicians are held a little bit more accountable along the way. As opposed to making it like oh I'll guess I'll wait four years to you know?

I think that people I think that election day should be a national holiday. याम लाम This is Katie. Let's go. I think people should be fined if they don't vote. Well, Let me think on the second one first. National holidays. I'm in. I'm in. I'm in, Katie. Wait, now I would I wish I knew at the to uh at the top of my head, does Australia f some country somebody finds It's mandatory, right? What happens if you don't?

I do think there's you get penalized in some way. That's why people vote for like Darth Vader and stuff there. You get penalised, I think you get fined. Penalized comes from the word penalty. Yes. So you get Okay. Yes. That's exactly what I think. But don't you think I just feel like you say penalize Because you could have said penalized. Uh, because I think it's penal. I don't even think it comes from penalty. I think it might come from penal something else.

Yeah, but penal colonies were penalty colonies. Penitentiary colonies. We're gonna continue this conversation. Right after this short break. Jenny, vi är här idag för att prata om din relation. Berätta, hur har ni det? Och GB-glass och jag har aldrig haft det bättre. Jag hade en liten svakka med GB samföretag. Men vi har hittat tillbaka till vardag. Och sen så har jag specialsytten här. Vad är det? Det är en fysanväska för mina Pegelin. Sen ja, just det, tip topp. Den blir ju bara goda röden.

Men Jenny, nu pratar vi om dig och Henrik. Ja, där är det ju katastrof. Men skit i det nu. Har du sett att man också kan samla poäng och få riktigt nice merch på gbshop.se. Galen är GB Glass. På Cirkelke älskar vi att fira våra kunder. Teksting av Nicolai Winther Nu lanseras Kia EV2. En kompakt elsuff med reckvid på 453 km. Kia EV2 är designad för en aktiv och urban livsstil och kommer med röststyrd AE-assistent och flexibla utrymmen. Välkommen till din Kia återförsäljare! och upplev Kia Eve 2.

Kia. Movement that inspires. So here's my thing about voting. First of all, I think It's politicians that We agree we're in. Yeah. Yes. Completely in the Penalty Well, I'm in on this feud. Because you don't politicize your democratic responsibility, not right. 'Cause I think at some point it becomes a responsibility instead of a right. Okay. So here's my thing. I think politicians are the reasons why or are the reason why normal citizens hate bureaucrats because they've used words like red tape.

And bloated. Um they've they've used those words to excuse them not being efficient. So they've said, I would love to do this, but yeah, there's so much red tape. But if I put someone that I know who can cut through the red tape,

Then for four years someone is putting someone that cuts through the red tape and as soon as they get there, they don't cut through the red tape because maybe there's no red tape. That's how things work. If you've ordered a thousand buses from Malaysia, it takes one year. To make the buses, ship them over here for six months. I mean Trump came in saying that gonna drain the swamp. Who doesn't want the passes to come?

Drain it. And then you go there and you're like, What what did you drain? I I mean Turns out it's not a swamp, it's a bathtub. You can't train the bathtub because we got a bath. We got a bath. That's what it is. You know what? You need to be penalized. For doing that X and so well. So the second part is I think there should be categories of who can vote and how many times can they vote. Whoa. So I'll give you I'll give an example. I'll give an example.

Because here here's my thing. There's banks who who have more security than governments when it comes to voting. Okay. And there's also buildings that are run more efficiently than governments. Okay. So we can combine those two. We go people in some buildings who have kids. can vote if the place needs to be kid friendly or not. But if you don't have kids or you don't have a dog, I mean sit this one out. So this is an interesting idea. We must go. You're going like granular with the vote.

If we go, Katie, how many kids do you have? And you go, I've got three kids, they go to school here, here's their age, and then we go, Okay, in the voting ballot paper, you get more of a say because you are creating a future for your kids. This is an interesting idea. What do you think about that, Katie? I don't think that's a good idea. Why not? I mean, you're saying that people with kids should have more than one vote. The same way people kids get to board the plane first.

Yes. So, no, I'd like to know your thoughts on the way around it. I'm not I don't own a dog, but when I see a dog lover rolling with their dog in a dog park, I'm like, I understand you wanted this to happen and this is benefiting you. But I, if I was left to vote For your comfort and your dog's comfort. I can tell you now, you and your dog wouldn't be here. But no, this is an interesting what do you what do you think of that?

I don't think I don't know. It i I've never really thought about it and I just don't think it's Practical. You tell me how. All right, so what do you do a census and are you you're saying that people When you're registering to vote, obviously the government already knows from the birth certificates of your children how many children you have.

I can I tell you something? It sounds like a crazy idea. When you said it, I thought it's crazy. When you explain it, there's a b there's a little bit of sense to it in that like It also feeds into Project Twenty Twenty Five where they want more people to have more kids. That that they feel like that people should be procreating at a much faster rate.

Can I tell you can we just pause it? Can we take a tangent on the So what if people say, Okay, I'm gonna have more kids because I wanna have more votes? Is that a good reason to have children? No. But your body's not going to cooperate. Like good luck good luck just making Like the weird thing about the human body is everyone can say, like, I'm gonna have more kids, but your body might be like no you're not. You know it's it's just a weird

I think it's a r it's not a good idea. Okay. And I can't really really get into all the reasons why because I have to really think There we go, Katie. But do you would you live in an apartment building that's not kid friendly when you have kids? This this building says we don't wanna hear children playing, we don't wanna hear them laughing, we don't wanna hear any No, I wouldn't. You wouldn't live there, right? But why do we do that with a country? Why do you do that with a state?

That doesn't allow us to express ourselves and our needs and the things that we care about on a granular level, but on a gigantic scale. Well, I think you do by voting for people who you think have policies that are gonna be better for your children. But we've discovered that they don't even know how the Department of Health works. They've told us. The book. Okay, how about this? I'll pitch this to you before we get to our crazy ideas. Can I pitch something to you?

No no no because we are no I'm saying before. Okay. Okay, okay, yeah. And also Katie's coffee has run out. That's why I think That's okay. I'm good. Let's let's let's okay. How about how about this? Yeah. Could I pitch to you how would you feel if I said Nobody should be allowed to run a an area of the government that they don't possess an expertise in. How do you feel about that?

Good. Okay. Okay. So you would agree like'cause I I think it's strange that somebody who has no experience in the field of medicine or science can go and run the fields of medicine and science. Yeah. Okay, okay, okay. No, so you're with you then. And then here's another one. What's that have to do with being able to vote more because we're not going to be able to No no no I'm just trying to say We're at we're giving it away. Of course I you know I you know I think.

I'm I'm trying to like I'm trying to see how. Building your argument. Okay. Not even no no no I'm just trying to see where where we get Here's my other one. Here's my other one to add because now we're going we're not going extreme actually, we're going Продолжение следует... A vota of one. Ever every politician that runs to run a certain department must run it, their campaign together with an elected bureaucrat from that department. Αμνομένετες.

So they might like they're like Department of Health, yes, and then there's Steve, who's been at the Department of Health for a long time. He endorses me because Steve thinks should I come in here, there's things that I could do at Capital City that he can do. But there's things that he can do inside there that I can do. So his running mate is a bureaucrat. So everybody.

What if the what if the the person who's coming in to power has has meaningful and important reforms to institute? You get the bureaucrat Who is basically adhering to the status quo and saying this is the way we've always done it? When the person coming in might say, We need to change this. This needs to be done differently. How do you respond, Eugene?

I don't know. I'm feeling it's getting gummed up now. Where? Because now they have to convince a bureaucrat. Now I'm a little bit with Katie on this one. Okay. If I've been there for 20 years, and I'm telling you that's how we do a podcast. This is how it's been done. The podcast has been going out. Yeah. In fact, the fact that you exist as a politician to want to try and run this department. Yes. And then you come and you go, No, my constituency says

It could be better here than here. You see how we're getting to my voters again, but we're not gonna go there. Then the person says, okay, I think if you change this studio and if you change this location, and we change this microphone, then the person who's a bureaucrat that goes, no. If you change that. This is what would happen. If you don't change this, this is what would happen. You're saying give them equal authority. Yes, because they are running together. No, I'm with Kate. I'm sorry.

Sorry. You want the politician to be... No, I mean is it you're you're saying that the politician has to have expertise. So in other words and stuff like that. The person who's running the C D C has to have expertise in health, public health public health and Yes, you should at least have some sort of thing.

So i if that's the case, that person to me should have the authority to and and hopefully you have decent people who are intelligent and knowledgeable and take information from the people who are already there. But that person has to be in charge because I'm just a fr yeah, I just don't like your plan. I'm sorry, Eugene.

Sorry, G you failed. Can I ask you can I ask you a question? W when you um Yeah, we knew. I'm assuming over the years you've developed countless sources and and you know, people who are insiders and just people who've like told you things about so this is could be an incorrect assumption, but I I'm assuming this because of your time in journalism.

Have you heard from people inside what we call the administration And and have any of them signaled to you that like they're sort of not sure or they y you know, or how do they even manage that incongruency between what they think should be and what is?

I haven't heard that many people who are currently inside the administration because I think, first of all, they are uber paranoid about leaks there. Oh. And you know, whether you're working at the Pentagon or wherever, uh, I think that and and also I think if you're covering something, you have to be at the Pentagon to really have

these inside sources. Right. Right. Um, that's why reporters have different beats, right? So they develop sources and have an expertise in that area. Wait, so but I do know a lot of people who have left the administration who have been fired from the administration.

who then are speaking out. For example, I interviewed an a senior level FBI agent who talked about kind of what she had seen happening in the FBI, the sort of the wholesale firing of people with expertise, for example, in the Iranian terror threat. Right, Cash Patal just gets rid of this whole unit. Or because some of these agents were investigating some of the perpetrators of January sixth, they got fired. So people like that are much more open to obviously talking

about what's happening w in inside the administration. Um I I think most people who are unhappy have left or um, are are too afraid to talk about why they're unhappy. You know, Liz Oyer was fired as the chief pardon uh attorney at DOJ. Now she has this very, very vibrant social media. presence and she's talking about what's going on in the DOJ. I'm sure she has sources.

the some people left who she worked with. Yeah. But I think it's very difficult, at least for me and maybe White House correspondents who are actually on site and can develop these sources. But I think most of the people in in the administration anyway. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Not necessarily in the federal government. I'm sure there are a lot of people, but they're terrified too. You know, you speak out and you get

Shit can't. Right. Right. Right. So I I don't really have a lot of people inside this administration who would be able to talk on the record about or, you know, even off the record about their displeasure. of how things are being done. I've always been fascinated about how the beats work. So if somebody is when they say someone is W what does that exactly mean?'Cause I I don't assume as a journalist you get to like walk around the White House freely and investigate things.

Well you used to be able to well, I'll talk tal talk about the Pentagon for a second because I was the deputy Pentagon correspondent at MBC, only for a year before I uh became uh national correspondent on the Today Show and then co anchor of the Today Show. But Basically, when you're a deputy or any Pentagon correspondent, whether it's for the Atlantic or the Washington Post or MBC News, you develop sources, you walk around the E ring, which is the big

Wait, slow down, slow down, sorry, sorry, slow slow down.'Cause you're saying it and I I don't understand any of it. What does developed sources mean? Well, you talk to people, you know, you introduce yourself to people, you talk to people uh from different uh, you know, arms of the you know, from the Navy, Air Force, Marines. So you just go around and you're like, Hi, I'm Katie Curric, I'm a reporter and nice to know you.

Well yeah, or I remember getting a tip from somebody, you know, my first week at the Pentagon. No way. Uh and said, Hey, this is happening. Are you interested? What was the story? Remember? Yeah, it was about a guy who had And it ended up Yeah, yeah. Anyway, he's being accused of being a spy. Oh. Wow.

And that person tipped you. Mm-hmm. So help me understand this. Why do they do that as opposed to you would assume if you work at the Pentagon and you know that somebody's a spy, you would just go to your Uh like your superiors and be like, Hey, this person's a spy. Yeah. Why would they come to you? And I think they thought it was a good story that it was worth being in the public domain and that it was worth reporting on. I mean, I think people have various motivations, right? Yeah, yeah.

Yeah. For telling a reporter something. It could be for their own self aggrandizement, it could be making them feel powerful, could be because they truly believe. the is the public in the public's right to know. Yeah. Um, but anyway, so you would walk around, you would talk to people, you would meet people, you would meet them, you know, getting an egg sandwich in the morning. I mean, all kinds of ways, right? That's fascinating. And um

And you would walk around. I would just walk around that Pentagon, like do circles around what they called the E ring. Talk to people and um introduce myself and And now they have limited your ability to walk around the Pentagon without an escort. There's certain parts of the Pentagon you can't walk around. They you you know all the different restrictions they've tried to place on reporters at the Pentagon. They first of all kicked out uh you know, they got rid of people's

workspace. They made the New York Times and I think NBC News and another publication leave. Uh'cause we used to have desks and offices. So you'd report from the Pentagon. Like we had a soundproof booth and they'd come to us. Um, and so they kicked some of them out. They did more administration friendly news organizations, invited them in.

Then they said you had to sign an agreement saying before you reported on a story, even if it wasn't classified information, you had to clear it with the Pentagon. Oh wow. With the with the Pentagon people. And that feels a bit dictating. And then and then a judge said, You can't do any of this and now they're still trying to put the Pentagon reporters outside the Pentagon proper. They're trying to annex the reporters.

and keep them out of the building. I mean, they're just trying to make it very, very difficult. Now, reporters to their credit from the New York Times and all the legitimate news organizations haven't let it stop them. But one Pentagon correspondent told me One of her sources of is afraid to meet her. at a restaurant, right? Or is afraid to be seen talking to her at all. Which isn't surprising. But

It's just very it's much more difficult and it has a chilling effect on what people are are gonna feel comfortable talking to reporters about, right? Right. They're gonna be so Scared. And I think that uh Pete Hexath has really made it clear that he will not tolerate any leaking. And but that's when you get information about things that are going on that perhaps shouldn't be going on that warrant the public's attention. So they're doing um it it's really upsetting. They're really trying to

to muzzle reporters and t tie their hands behind their backs and make their jobs very difficult. And it's just not right.

I sometimes like how you explain now makes sense of what I always think. I sometimes feel sorry for hardcore journalists who are invested in telling people the news because of how much information just gets lost in between. Right. So if you think about in South Africa right now, what they're trying to do is they're trying to pass a law that incentivizes a whistleblower.

So if a whistleblower comes out in a department and says sixteen billion rand was stolen, they when the c when the person gets convicted, the person gets a share of the money recovered. Whoa. What? Yes. Yes, so they first get protection while the case is being investigated. And then afterwards they get a cut, a percentage of what was recovered. So I think of of the news and I think of the era of maybe like CNN during Desert Storm and you'd find these journalists in there.

telling the news, they were the source of the news. Right. They were reporting live from there. So I can imagine someone who has a a source who works at the Pentagon, whoever gets this information. gets the story out, but they go on social media and there's so much disinformation about the same subject that they fought so hard for.

Yeah. Yeah. All the meetings they had, the life their livelihood that they're risking sometimes as a journalist to print a story that is true and that's potential ramifications for a lot of people. Well I still s I mean there is still incredible journalism happening. You know, I think about Pro Publica, you know, a non profit news organization and They were the ones who figured out how many of the people who were being arrested and detained by ICE. We're not

guilty of committing serious crimes. Oh yes. And it was something like eighty five percent. Right. Right? And others and and so and then you have like the New York Times or the Atlantic or I uh or the New Yorker it was. The New Yorker and the New York Times keeping track of how the Trump Family has enriched themselves to the tune of over four billion dollars. And county, this was a few months ago, so I'm sure it's much higher. Um, so

You know, I think that you're right. Everything becomes diluted in this media landscape where everyone has a voice and an opinion and pretends to be a journalist. But I still believe that For Well informed people. And I think media literacy is more important than ever. I think that we have to have people who understand how to. how to consume information and to judge information and the accuracy. But um I think that that those stories do break through.

And then what happens is, you know, for all the belly aching about mainstream media, whatever that is now, you know, it's these big organizations, news organizations, some of them, who are ha are are invested in news gathering, they're reporting on stories and then those stories are then

uh ingested by other people and explained to their social media followers. Um you know, so a lot of these single sort of social media opinion givers and reporters Are taking The reporting, the core of the reporting done by these news organizations and basically I don't want to say plagiarizing, but they're basically reporting what these other people Report. So in a way, it has a ripple effect.

And so these news organizations are doing a great service and even amplifying it, even if they're putting it in their own words, is a positive thing because it is the result. of oftentimes weeks, if not months, of reporting, if that makes sense. Yeah. Yeah.

I wondered like how you grapple with as a as a journalist. When to put Um free speech or or the freedom of the pressure. Above or below what you may perceive as the interests of the country. Because I this has always fascinated me.

You know, America will be conducting a military exercise or something. And then I'll see in the newspaper they'll go, Well, the military plans to da da da and they plan to blah blah blah Then I'm like, Do other countries not read newspapers? Because it seems weird that you can You can say, you can report. Yeah. Yeah, like like I'll read in the newspaper that they've just discovered that the military is planning to do X, Y, Z.

What happened in South Africa? There was a military operation, joint military operation that was ran with the US Army and the South African army, and the president didn't know about it. And then someone reports it came up. It was reported in the news. Yes. Then he had to call the general in for an inquiry. Imagine how weird that was. But this is what I mean. This is what I'm saying. Found out in real time with the rest of us. Yes. But what I'm saying is as a journalist

I think there are national security considerations that I think you pay attention to. Um if there if if Uh I'm I'm trying to think if there was an example like that when I was at the Pentagon. You know, Panama, for example. Um I think I do think that you do weigh sort of national security considerations with the public's right to know. Uhhuh.

You know, and I think it's a case by case situation. So I think that a lot of I don't know, now in the current landscape, who knows, right? But I think most legitimate journalists in a certain situation wouldn't necessarily preempt a military action. I'm trying to think of examples and and report on them prior to them taking place. But they might. I have to I have to really think about that and look back on different cases.

It's such a strange one because I I don't know if people so okay, like an example, let's use a hypothetical. Nicolas Maduro the US military going in and getting him and then bringing him to the US. What do you what do you want to call it? They they got him. It wasn't in a sleepover. It was not like y'all go build a friend, you would mum with Yeah, no, that would be picked him off.

Got him means like got him. Do you get what I'm saying? That's why you say got him versus picked him. If I said like, hey, what happened to my friend Eugene the other day? I'll be like, oh yeah, I picked him up. I'll never be like, I got him. Oh but you could also say, I'm going to get Eugene later so I can't meet you at three. I'm going to get Eugene Yeah, yeah, this is true. I guess it depends on like the inflection. Sous-titrage ST' 501 Snatch. do you?

Okay when you snatched then. They went and snatched him. They went and snatched him. Th that type of story, or even let's say, Iran. When you look at how the public and obviously it's not all of the public, but when you look at how like the American people

have responded post some of these things. Maybe Venezuela people weren't as attached, so they're like, we don't understand what's happening. We don't understand why we're doing this. But then like with Iran, the American public seems to be against this on math. Most of the people in America are going, We don't want this and we did not want this I wonder if a journalist is not Especially if it's a billion dollars a day, right?

Is that what it is now? A billion dollars a day. Oh man. That's a lot of Ozempic people could be buying. People are like there's no money for healthcare, but there's money, man. If someone could have reported that'cause th somebody knew something ahead of time, I wonder if that type of reporting which seems to go against the sort of interests of the administration.

Go in the interests of the country because if if if the country knew beforehand and then the country goes, We heard this is gonna happen, we don't like it, there's a good chance it wouldn't happen. Well, I think it was pretty clear that something was going to happen in Iran, you know, with all the ships that had been deployed and all that. Right. And y you think about the lead up to the war in Iraq, right? The whole argument that

the Bush administration was making about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that turned out to be wrong. And I think the reporting on that was pretty strong, right? But it was strange because that was sort of post nine eleven. And there was a tendency с certainly. for Afghanistan, but later for Iraq.

to not question sort of the administration as vociferously as they should have been in the run up to the war in Iraq. And uh the White House correspondence and a lot of journalists were roundly criticized for not questioning what was happening more. Um but they were definitely reporting on it and I think Yeah, I I I I'm gonna go back and look at sort of how military operations, if anyone scooped a military operation, if it had a neck uh Would be fascinating too. Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, I can't think of any. We'll be right back after the short Jenny, vi är här idag för att prata om din relation. Berätta, hur har ni det? Så GB-glass och jag har aldrig haft det bättre. Jag hade en liten svakka med GB-sämföretag. Men vi har hittat tillbaka till varandra. Och sen så har jag specialsytten här. Det är en fysan väska för mina Pegelin. Sen ja, just, tiptopp. Den blir ju bara goda och görna bli. Men Jenny, nu pratar vi om dig och Henrik.

Ja, där är det ju katastrof. Men skit i det nu har du sett att man också kan samla poäng och få riktigt nice merch på gebop.se. Galen är givetglas. På Cirkelke älskar vi att fira våra kunder. Nu lanseras Kia Eve 2. En kompakt elsuff med. 453 km. Kia Ew2 är designad för en aktiv och urban livsstil och kommer med röststyrd AE-assistent och flexibla utrymmen. Välkommen till din Kia återförsäljare och upplev Kia Ew2. Here, movement that inspires. How do you

Um, or how have you, I should say, because I think you've done a really good job of it. How have you managed? To be Katie Curric the person and Katie Curric the journalist for as long as you have and sort of maintained Especially on the journalistic side the the like the the prestige of that role.

And not lost it because people like know who you are. You know, you you've spoken about your family, you've spoken about loss, you've spoken about death in your life, you've you you've shared so many things as a human being. And yet at the same time, I I don't know how to explain it. It's almost like it hasn't celebrity fied your your journalism, if that makes sense. People still Tainted it. Yeah, yeah.'Cause you know sometimes sometimes sometimes some news

uh people or some journalists start to like become the stories in in some ways. Yeah. I wonder how you've how you've how you've Have you purposefully looked to strike that balance a and how have you done that? Not really. I mean, um I sort of don't feel like I am two different people. Uh and and at times I think I have become the story, right?

In a way I use my husband's death to become a cancer advocate, right? And so that is when my personal plight and my journalism have intersected. Right. Right. Um, in terms of trying to inform the public about colon cancer and colon cancer screenings. Uh I mean they they still call that the Curic effect. Well, the the fact that yeah, colon cancer screenings increased twenty percent after I did a colonoscopy on the Today show. I know. It was crazy.

Thank you. I appreciate that. Um, but I don't know, that's kind of I d I don't even know how to answer that question. Uh I am a person and I'm a journalist and listen, I try to do the best I can in both roles, right? Um Yeah, I don't really see a delineation between yeah, of course I have my personal life that I don't necessarily share with everyone. Um, and then I have my my professional

desire to keep people informed. But I don't know. That's a I've never been asked that question. I don't really know how to answer it.

How do you take a break from being informed? You know. Selfishly. It's really hard because The the volume and velocity of stuff coming to you, if you kind of check out for a day You missed it. I feel like oh my god. Give me some... I feel like I don't know what's going on. You lose a billion dollars a day. And and you're like, Oh my God, wait, what? And there's so much to keep up with and

You know, and I was just rereading a couple of stories, you know, preparing for our conversation. I was like, I have to really understand why the C D C kept this report about the COVID vaccine from being made public. I know they did it. I saw the headline, but I don't know enough about why they did it. What did they say? I also read that but all I thought was that they were just like we don't think that this is valid or They they question the methodology.

Which was, you know, the this morbidity mortality weekly report, which must be really a fun read. that is published by the C D C and has never changed how they go about analyzing information. Um, they they because Well, they kept it they blocked it because it didn't f fit with their narrative because it showed the COVID vaccine decreased emergency room visits by fifty five percent and hospitalizations by fifty percent.

And this is a C D C and uh, you know uh department of um you know uh RFK juniors uh d What is his it's um what is RFK in charge of you guys? Yeah. Thank you, Mm. Services H Horry Health and Human Services. Department of I'm getting my acronym. Health and human services, yeah, you know, they are clearly anti vaccine. Right. Anti COVID vaccines. So they are suppressing a report that showed the positive impact of the COVID vaccine.

First vaccine may I add, I don't know why my man gets no credit for that vaccine. He put Operation Warp Speed into effect. You remember this? Yes, and in fact somebody was talking the other day on the other. And he was pushing it hard. It's a good thing. That was one of his proudest. And he should be proud of it. And and now, you know, obviously it doesn't fit the narrative. So Nice stepping back from the responsibility of it.

No, not even. It's like what happened was weird. Trump was responsible for like he was at the the head of spearheading this COVID nineteen vaccine in record time. Not just the rollout. Acceptance of it. uh getting the entire scientific community to research a thing, to put into place a system that normally would take up to a decade or something. Yeah. And saying how do we run certain processes concurrently?

To make sure that we can get this out as quickly as possible so the world can come back to It was a fantastic. I'm proud of him. And of course, MRNA uh vaccines and this whole approach. is actually responsible for this new immunotherapy that they think has a lot of promise for pancreatic cancer. So not only was the COVAD covet vaccine a positive,

it also led to a lot of other vaccines for other serious illnesses and a new kind of um, you know, therap therapeutic approach. So But in this world where black is white and white is black and up is down and down is up. It didn't fit with it didn't fit with what the base and the narrative were going with. Mm. And so what was strange was

Trump said it at one of his rallies I remember. He said he's like the COVID vaccine it was my vaccine. I did it, I did and then the crowd's like Boo. He's like a lot of people but they don't like that. They don't like it. So I don't talk about I don't talk about but he was like, Yo, I did that thing. It's not Biden's vaccine, it's my vaccine. But because the peop his people didn't like it. Mm-hmm. He was like, all right, fine. But it is mine, but uh fine, nobody wants to talk about it.

I'm not gonna talk about it anymore. This assault on science is so infuriating, especially someone like me who's done s tried to devote so much time to cancer research, to raising money to support science. And this this idea that That You know, people don't believe the scientific community and the way that Anthony Fauci has been demonized is just in my view a disgrace. Yeah, I think I think it's a

You know, it's one of those things where hindsight is twenty twenty. So I remember when we had Dr. Fauci on the show and I asked him this question or a version of it. It was just like Mm.

Do you feel responsibility to inform people of what's happening? Because at the time, the thing I said as well about like the CDC and all of it was they were giving mixed messages. You know, so first they told us, don't wear masks. Please do not wear masks. Masks are not for you. Don't wear the mask, don't wear the mask.

And then all of a sudden they were like, Everyone get a mask and we're like, What the hell just happened here? And it was like, uh this many feet away from other people, uh no no feet the dude indoor, no out. And then when you realize they were trying to like manage people, I was that was like the only criticism I had was I went

Regardless of your intentions, and I think parents see this a lot, sometimes you think you're gonna lie to your kid for a good reason, right? And your kid will appreciate I think they should have been more transparent that this is a new virus. We are learning about it every day. We're learning about transmission. We're learning about how deadly it is. We are learning and we are really doing this as we go. Sweden did that. Yeah. And I think that that would have perhaps made people less

critical of kind of oh wait, now this, now that. Actually on the other hand, well we've re-evaluated this. And I think that science, you know, there's an art to science too. cumulative and you y you don't necessarily have all the answers immediately. And I think the scientific and medical community did an incredible job of Taking this pandemic and trying to understand it, but I think there was something lost in communicating what they were learning to the general public.

Yeah. But I don't think it warrants the kind of um Oh no, like the world ending demon it's like it's it's extreme. It's ex but it's also again, it goes back to the sports of it all. Right.

Uh if you ask sports fans what should happen to somebody who's made a bad tackle. Depends on the team. Someone would be like, Ah, come on, we uh that happens. Get uh walk it off. The other time's like no, kick him out of the game. Eject that person and ban them even. That was the the most flagrant so I think The tribalism. Yeah, that that has marred how Americans in particular, I find, discuss any issue.

Even even this is something I've always wondered, even in journalism. When did that thing uh not that you immediately know, but why do they put Republican or Democrat before somebody's name in an article. Like why why d why does American News report things like that? Or they'll even say a win for Democrats as Um childcare law passes what then I'm like, but why don't they just say childcare law has passed? Win for the people. Yeah, I I've always wondered that. In my opinion.

I guess in a two party system you have to you I I guess maybe it's a way of of figuring out people's priorities and getting back to elections, you know, what they care about and what they choose to focus on and move the needle on. Right. What promise seems delivered and by who? Yeah, but but what I mean okay, so it would be different if it if the headline said Democrats promised childcare law. It has now been passed. I know this is not a sexy headline, right? But that is what happened.

But if they go in a win for Democrats, childcare law passed, to me, it makes it seem like the Republicans have lost. And the Democrats have won. And the childcare law doesn't have anything to do with the children in the law. It just has to do with who passed it. I mean I don't know where you saw that headline.

There's a headline and paraphrase but I could pull them. There there's always like in a win for inner you know, and then and then the other one is just when people speak, so they'll go, um, Republican Katie Courick passes law on or says that we need to have fewer this. And sometimes I think if you could remove that R or D before the issue, I think people would approach it with a more neutral and honest opinion.

Perhaps. You know? Did you ever see that that quiz that the New York Times did you you you didn't see this? But you you'd love this though. You'd love this. How do you know I didn't see the quiz? Brian, you don't read. I know this. So No, so it wasn't it was here in the New York Times. Um they put out a quiz. It was around like when Hillary, Bernie, everyone was running, so I think like 2016 somewhere there. And the quiz was you just choose your issues. We'll tell you who you should vote for.

Oh wow. And I remember in the building we did this in in the office and everyone r ran this quiz, right? And I was working at the Daily Show at the time, and so you know. Some people liberal, some people conservative, some but d everyone but everyone had their idea. They were so confident. They're like, Oh, I I know I'm gonna get Hillary. I know this for sure. Oh, I'm definitely gonna get this. Lime tasting of Issue 1.

Was literally that. You just do you think America spends A too much money on the military? B not enough money. C just the right amount. D well you know what I mean? They did that for every issue. And at the end they would go, This is the candidate who aligns with you.

The amount of panic and angst in the building when people got their results. And it it even went viral at the time. But I remember people going, This can't be right. I'm not a Bernie voter. And you're like, No, no, no. But everything you want Yeah. And that's when I realized half of the time We are not looking at the issue. We are looking at the person we associate the issue with, and then we are making the decision based on that.

But circle back to my earlier proposition of how elections should be running. This is not election time. You're voting on the issue no no no i agree with but what i'm saying is do you get what i mean Well uh KD, please, you are journalists, you know this tactic. Ha ha. He's printing a retraction. No, no, no, I said I agree with I said I agree. based. No, I I had already agreed with it. Okay, shaft. The thing I didn't agree with you on was the bureaucrat buddy coming to elections.

और बुर्कार बुर्कार बुर्कार बुर्कार बुर्कार बुर्कार Maybe responsibility is the wrong word. There's one part of journalism that is finding out the facts and the information and what is going on. And verifying them. There's another part that is framing. How is it put in? Yes. And I I that's the thing I sometimes I just find myself wondering'cause I didn't grow up like that. is like w why is it necessary to have that person's political affiliation when they were just saying or doing something?

Because then I think it it limits a person's ability to just go I like or don't like Or just say a Republican can actually have a good policy. Yeah. Democrat can actually that's a good idea. Yeah. Well hopefully these things are bipartisan. I mean, I'm I'd like to go back and see the headlines that you have in mind. I mean, I think that People just I don't know, you know, it's just very, very traditional and very um I think has the way it's been done with Republicans and Democrats and

I I don't know. I I don't I don't see a problem with that. You don't. Mm-hmm. Huh. You know when I when I realized how powerful it can be was when um we did a piece on how Th there was a there was a town I I forget where this was, but basically someone was running for mayor in a city

And in this city, and I think there's a few places like this, you're not allowed to say whether you're Republican or Democrat when you're running for mayor. You just run. Really? Yeah, yeah, yeah. And this place has like one of the highest rates of people voting across party lines because they don't know which party the person's from. So they just go, Who's running? Eugene. Eugene wants clean water. Eugene thinks there should be more cows. There should be fewer windmills. Parents

Exactly. And then they go like, Okay, we've also got Katie Couric. K Katie wants more journalism, more desks at the Pentagon, more egg sandwiches and And she wants more um colonoscopies and this is her platform that she's running on. The people won. The people vote? Trevor Wands? Good times. The obsession with two parties is polarizing. I'm saying. I'm saying

The identity of it first, I believe, limits people's ability. If I met you and the first thing you said to me was, Hi, Republican Katie Couric. No matter what, my brain has now put you in a certain space. Even if you said, hi, Democrat Katie Kirk, I'll be like, Okay, my brain has put you in a space. Hello, Liverpool supporter, Trevor Noah. Your brain already goes. If you're a Manchester United supporter, you're like, I don't know about this guy.

Hm. For me, the joy is you meet people, you talk, you discuss things, you experience life, and then at some point somebody goes. You're an Eagles fan? Oh man, I'm a cheese fan. I didn't know you're an Eagles fan the whole time. Okay, okay. That's that's what I think it robs people of, honestly in my opinion. No. I understand what you're saying. There was a Heineken commercial a few years ago about people putting together a bar. Did you ever see this? Building things together.

And nobody knew anything about anyone's background. And there was trans person there. Yes. There were uh just kind of a whole kind of Yeah. Yeah. And it basically I think this is sort of the point you're making to ha to kind of get rid of your pre preconceived notions and to be more open minded for different perspectives. By the time they finish doing the bar.

they all kind of had done something together, they had talked to each other, they'd gotten to know each other and it removed all these kind of, you know uh very specific um, you know, preconceptions. Yeah. About each other. So I think i if that's what you're saying, I understand. I mean, I don't know about removing the D and the R if that's gonna be the solution.

Solution. I just like a like a it's like I'm pitching an amendment is where I go.'Cause to'cause to your point, what you know what I loved about that commercial in particular? was they brought people in. They knew they had very extreme views about certain issues. Right. They made them work on something together. They would work and they would struggle and they built something together.

And then afterwards they'd get them to say n why the other person was so good and why they worked well together. And they'd be like, Oh man, you know, Eugene really builds well and Katie is such a f wonderful teammate and they had all these effusive things. And then they said, All right, now we want to show you a video. And they gave you like a video. A and the person dis uh described who they were. Yes. And then it was like, Hello Eugene, here's a video and it was case correct. It's a

It's amazing. It's amazing. And then you get the video and it's like, I'm Katie Couric. Man, if there's one thing I hate, it's South Africans. Short South Africans who are comedians with glasses. I hate them with all My heart. Like I am a woman, I believe in a woman's right to choose Yes, I believe. So all of this is discovered after rights. I believe in this. Um and it ju it just it just kind of um All these differences evaporated and it was it was very interesting.

People saw each other as humans, not as uh There you go. Ideologue.

I sometimes w do you think that that's also part of the role of journalism is to make everyone in a society see the other people in that society. Yeah, but I think it's really hard now because I think when you're There's so much fragmentation and you want to get an audience. There's a a real um there's an advantage to appealing to people who feel strongly one way or another. And it's it's less of talk about the nuances of this story. It's more

As my friend Kara Swisher says, like engagement through enragement. How do you get people especially social media and these platforms obviously are all ab it's all about the attention economy, how long you're gonna stay on the platform, how much you're gonna engage on the platform. And so I think that there's not there's not an emphasis on

kind of a conversation where two people could show a different point of view. Yeah. I mean, I guess Abby Phillip does that in some ways on her CNN show. Um, but it's it's That show frustrates me too sometimes because well, like last night

Or I saw a clip or maybe it was last night that they were talking about all the very incendiary things that President Trump has said. Yeah. And this one Republican kept insisting that he was really changing the dialogue, but he would not or changing kind of the temperature or lowering the temperature of of debate or whatever he was saying. And yet he would not concede that some of the things that Trump has said are wrong. Wrong. You know, you know, you don't cheer when Robert Mueller dies.

Right. Yeah. You know, a true patriot, you know, and so many things. I mean, we could release chapter and verse all the things, the incendiary and just honestly. you know, uh disgusting things that that Trump has said and done. And he would not he would not just say, you know what? That was wrong. He shouldn't do that. It's sort of like He didn't want to give an inch. No. But there's no reward in that I find it. Well that's what I'm saying. and society out. It's fine.

Yeah, there's no... He is on a team to get back to your sort of team point and he does not want to do anything that will make people doubt his loyalty to that. I would even argue. So ther the environment just isn't receptive to kind of this give and take, it's everyone is sort of has picked their side. Yeah, but I but I would even argue in that instance, I would I would levy some of the blame on the producers of the show because I would go

you know full well that you're not bringing somebody here to have a meaningful discussion. You're bringing somebody to play a part. Yeah. Against somebody who's playing a part. Yeah. Because when I watch those shows Yeah. The people are very much you can say whatever and then be like, oh, uh Donald Trump choked a puppy. Well, let me, I mean, who likes puppies? Come on, let's talk. And you're like, well, you don't think that.

But because your job here is to be the pro Trump or Republican person and your job is to be the pro Democrat, pro I almost go like I'm like, oh, we haven't we actually haven't created a show about discourse and dialogue. We've created the theater of it. Yeah. That makes both sides feel seen and it feels like a a way to like try and grab both sides. But it doesn't feel like a meaningful way to actually have a discussion.

Yeah, I agree. And I guess the question is, again, I I think just because I've covered so many administrations. Do we normalize? some of the things the Trump administration is doing by giving it weight in an argument, right? And are these policy differences or is it something more dangerous? Right. And and the question is, do you legitimize that? by having that conversation. I don't know. Not fly.

the normal way of doing things to an abnormal thing, are you now making the abnormal normal? Very normal. Yeah. Essentially is what you're saying. So when when w I mean we we we've we find you at a point in your journey. You know, it feels like one of your many evolutions. W what is your what is your dream? What is your like if you if you look at what you're doing now in life, where you're trying to go with it, w what do you hope it becomes and what do you hope it fills in society?

I mean, I don't hope it becomes anything. I hope that I can continue to give voice to people who have the wisdom and the experience and the understanding and the knowledge to share what we're all witnessing together and to give it a perspective that I think is right. Um, you know I ask the questions. I don't always have the answers. But if I want to talk to somebody who I think does, who can give an honest appraisal of what's going on and uh Uh that's what I wanna help.

share with the world. If that's helpful to people, if that if if if they're the way they see the world. I mean, obviously I'm giving them a platform, so there has to be some kind of uh level of me.

kind of feeling like their views are worth exposing and airing and and putting out there for the public. Um but but that's what I hope to continue to do. I think You know, I gave a speech last night I got an award and I was talking about how science science is refuted, how um you know, the constitution is being ignored, how expertise is being derided. So all those things I want to give voice to and that's that's all

I want to be of service to democracy in any way I can. Yeah. Um, and to the values that I hold dear, you know, scientific discovery and advancement. uh the rule of law, you know? Um Uh expertise. You know, I was reviewing uh this book by Tom Nichols. I think it was written in 2017. It was called The Death of Expertise. And why people don't trust people who have a deep well of in of knowledge in a certain area.

Because everyone is an expert now. Everyone has an opinion. And then I think the democratization of media means that Everyone thinks everyone's opinion holds the same weight. Yeah. But it doesn't. There's so many opinions without portfolio out there. I want to talk to the about the COVID vaccine with a scientist who has studied it.

You know, and who who will really truly understand the impact of it. Not somebody who's trying to kind of uh perpetrate a narrative about the you know, the vaccines are unsafe.

You know, nothing is a hundred percent safe by the way. And I think that that needs to be transparent too, to the American public. But um, you know, so so trying to use my ability to elicit questions and to ask questions that I think most people have and to be able to turn to somebody who really understands an issue, who understands like

the role of NATO in the twentieth century and, you know, post World War Two and what it has done and what is it it has met, while acknowledging that perhaps some countries haven't paid enough, right? Right. In TATO. Uh but but kind of understanding the framework, I wanna talk to a historian who can talk about that. Right. Um, not somebody who just says NATO sucks and they're not paying their fair share. Right?

It's the nuance and the complication. And I think yeah, your your your um your endeavor is valid because I think it does something y uh one of the first things you said in in explaining this is you said I paraphrase you, but basically you said something to the effect of I want to report on the world and the realities that we are all experiencing. I think that is one of the most important things we take for granted is

just giving people a view of a reality that we do share. I always say, let's argue about reality, but let's not dispute it. We can argue all we want. Yeah. Yeah, but let's not dispute reality itself.

And it also, you know, it's it's messy. Yeah. There's no clear cut answer on some of these things. You know, my daughter often talks about the ability to think dialectically. Yes, and and I think we've lost our ability to do that. Yes. Two things may be true at the same time. You know, uh the the regime in Iran was terrible and um, you know, was able to survive for too long. A brutal

theocracy, right? That was doing all kinds of terrible things to its people and to the region and potentially to the world, right? You can say that. Mm-hmm. was it right to do this now and what were what was the rationale? Yeah. Right. So I think that also And the way it's been done. And I think this tribalism has made people really wary of dealing in the gray areas and in the complexities of situations. Yeah, scared to be wrong and s yeah, I think you're right.

Yes, gets me wrong and Messi, I think. Mes Messi's the big one. Yeah, because I I think being scared to be wrong foils debate. From the onset. If you if you run the risk of being wrong, you will never allow your opinion to be challenged, number one. But I think what this conversation has helped me realize is the importance of journalists. Because I think a lot of people who consume short bites of media on social media.

Do not understand that their favorite influencer that tells them the news got that news from a journalist who verified the sources. who wrote the story, who broadcast the story and someone takes it and runs with it. So we still need and we should have a deep appreciation for hardworking journalists like such as yourself and other people.

Well that's definitely I'm so glad you said that because I'm I'm working on uh a documentary or trying to develop a documentary about the evolution of the news business because You know, I got into this business in nineteen seventy nine. Back in the day. And at the yeah, and we should call it back in the day. And and and sort of what it means and and And and how important it is to have a common understanding of truth in a democracy.

Right. And we have lost that. You know, people call it truth decay. Yeah. And, you know, what that means in terms of Keeping a democracy. Strong. Yeah. It's it's one of the it's part of an immune system is the way I think of it. Right? Yeah. A body is a messy thing. Its systems are strangely messy, but they all work in in a direction. So like

Sometimes you feel bad, like you feel sick because your body is fighting to make you unsick, but you feel bad because of your own body. Does that make sense? Yes. Your immune system. But it's weird. Oh wait, wait, no, a virus gets in there. Yeah, but the immune system is the thing that we're experiencing actually. Is like your body is making you feel better. Yes, the reaction. We're experiencing the reaction.

That's what I mean. And that's what I mean by the messiness of it all is like sometimes I think we take for granted that the correct way or the the best way we've figured out for things to work is the messy way. Is like the journalism will reveal messy truths about your country and your people and outsiders and insiders. And if you if it's good journalism It will force you to grapple with those two. You know like you're saying.

And I think I think I unfortunately I think all of us have gotten intellectually lazy where we Um I love that intellectually lazy. To uh you know, our side of the argument. Yeah. Yeah. And it's not like, well, wait. what, you know, maybe this should have happened differently. Or maybe that person has a point. You don't have to agree with them on everything. But our ability to kind of

look at something critically and dialectically, I think has been lost in this very binary black and white in you know, world we live in. Uh good, bad. Mm-hmm. I mean, again, I find it gets complicated. when you're talking about

a president who does the things this president does. Yeah. You know? Yeah. Because I do think, you know, it's it's been said it's not left right, it's right wrong, right? And It is very difficult to kind of do those um, you know, moral equivalencies when you feel like one side of the ledger is really wrong, if that makes sense. Yeah. So that to me is the the real the real challenge, you know. It's it's not two different

perspectives on policy, like how do you solve the homeless problem? Right? It is a way of doing business Feels wrong and unjust. Yeah. You know, building Of what four hundred million dollar ballroom that is going to eclipse the White House without going through the proper um you know, process of getting permission and or loading the people Law for everyone except me. Right. Right. And so I think that's That's where it's it's become really difficult and challenging, I think, for a journalist.

Well thankfully. difficult and challenging is sort of what you've specialized in. I think it's what many to what Eugene's saying great journalists have specialized in. Difficult and challenging was, you know, covering a Gulf War. Difficult and challenging was, you know, f tracking a drug smuggling ring difficult and challenging is

finding a source, informing people, trying to make it palatable or even um digestible for a public. Um genuinely all I can say is I think myself and many other people, we're grateful to people like you because we don't realize How much is it? of our knowledge is based on, as Eugene said, the work of other people. And then what we do is we turn around and we go, I don't I don't need that. I don't I don't need the news and I don't read the news because

You know, I actually heard this thing the other day about how and I'm like, Yeah, where do you where do you think you heard it from? Where do you think that person heard it from? Yeah. W people just make it like it comes out of thin air. I actually saw a thing that said uh it's like yeah, the same journalist. That you will vilify.

Are the ones who put out the news about how something that was reported a while ago has now changed? It's the same place. Like I've always found it funny that people will go, The New York Times said this. Uh, the New York Times put out a story now saying that something they reported on 10, 15 years ago was like wrong. Not a correction, but they're saying, like, hey, actually we've just discovered this. And then people will go.

You see the New York Times put out this thing where they they uh uh they found out that uh this many years ago they they were wrong. I'm like, Yeah, but where did you hear this? From the New York Times. So you should be grateful that the thing exists. Still exists. In its imperfect state because it is still providing A service.

Yeah. But I also think people have to take the responsibility of being informed seriously. Yeah. We wanna be lazy, Katie. Why are you doing this to us? If they just want to you know, like someone we were I was talking to some people in Virginia about the redistricting vote. And Uh, one of the people were saying somebody I was talking to said, you know, people felt like it was morally wrong. Gerrymandering is wrong. But I said, did they understand that this started in Texas?

by uh, you know, a mid mid census year request by the President of the United States to redistrict in Texas so there would be more Republican seats, do they understand that was the genesis? of all this. And then it happened in California and then North Carolina and then Missouri and now Virginia. And if people don't pay attention and don't understand, they it's they have to be informed. And They needed to understand, well, Virginia is doing this because it started in Texas.

And if the Democrats hadn't responded in California and Virginia, then the chances then it would be very lopsided for the midterm. But but it's sort of like and did you know that in twenty eighteen the Democrats proposed legislation, I think it was twenty eighteen, to end gerrymandering, period. Yeah. Full stop. And no Republicans voted for it. So I just I think people just need to to have the background and educate themselves before they have an opinion.

On journalism is probably more on the journalism profession itself, because it's not made as sexy and as essential. Well that's'cause everyone thinks they are one. Yes, exactly. So I think maybe the battlefield where else we would see a journalist reporting in the battlefield, I think the new battlefield is exactly where the plagiarism is happening and the misinformation is happening on social media.

I think now the journalist needs to hold that phone in front of their face as they held a microphone during the Gulf War. And say in this battlefield, this is the truth and this is not the truth. Because right now I think we've just left it all up to people who have nice phones and nice lighting and too much time on their hands to tell the stories. I think that journalists need to go So that's why I'm happy when I see big publications of social media accounts.

Is there a reason that you decided to go because you you have gone to exactly to what Eugene said, you've done that. You've gone to where the people are. Well that's I mean it was pretty obvious it didn't take a brain surgeon to see where the Excuse me, Katie. No, not you. It didn't take a brain surgeon though, uh it people in my profession to see that. That linear television news was declining. Right. That people were getting increasingly getting their news and information online.

you had to then and and people I think in legacy media organizations were kinda caught flat footed. Yeah because they had uh a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. You know, they talk about analog dollars and digital pennies. And you know, this is where they were making the money. They didn't want to cannibalize their product but as, you know, their their viewers got older and older and everyone

uh else was was looking at their phones for information. Now they're finally catching up and you're seeing you know, network and uh local even reporters, even though so many local newspapers, like twenty five hundred do twenty five hundred have closed since I think two thousand four. But you're seeing them adapt to these new platforms where people are getting their information.

And by the way, I listen on Instagram to somebody from the New York Times, even if it's uh it's a reporter, an opinion person, I listen to somebody from ABC News.

online. I I still pay attention and consider the source of the information. And that's what I mean about media literacy. You know, people need to understand there are certain standards from s dir different news Outlets and organizations that are adhered to, you know, where information is vetted and sourced and edited and, you know, verified. There's accountability.

Yeah. And I think that it's been very hard with this flood of people just kind of giving information, influencers. It's like, I'm sorry, where did you get that information? Why are you saying this? Where did this come from? Yeah. But people can't it's hard to discern who is legitimate and who's not when there's this sea of people all kind of talking to you on your phone. Yeah.

No. Well I mean, like I say, it's it's one it's literally it's one step at a time, it's one challenge at a time. I love how much vigor you have for it by the way.'Cause like a lot of people would be like, I've done my time, I'm done, but you still have like the I love it. I mean, yeah.

Why it's selfish? Because I love learning about the world. I love understanding. So when I'm talking to somebody about a subject, if I'm talking to a former military person about the challenges of the war in Iran and drone war warfare and what's changed, like I wanna I wanna learn that. You know, so I feel like selfishly I'm learning something every day. And if I then can help by my ignorance or my desire to to become more knowledgeable, can then help

someone else be like, oh wow, I didn't know that. That's interesting. Or whatever. I feel like I'm I I'm serving myself and hopefully other people at the same time, if that makes sense. Complete sense. You know you've you've reached your your ultimate purpose when it serves you first. Don't you I I uh in the same speech last night I said I became a journalist because I love to write and I'm very nosy.

And I am sort of insatiably curious and I I it's hard because I feel frustrated. I think about God, all this stuff I don't know and understand. But if I can carve out l a little bit every day. and learn something new or understand something more deeply, That's so great. Greatest gift. And I think people people need to to be open to new information and knowledge and

It's just uh a and then when you have an a uh an opinion about something, you know, and I like some of the stuff that we've talked about, I don't know, right? And I and I have to go and study something before I have an opinion. Yeah. And talk to legitimate Experts in the And really learn about something. Mm. You can't we can't go study the things. We just need opinions now, Katie. Do you know what I mean? No research required, Katie.

costing Katie, someone asks you a question, you go, this is the answer. This is... This podcasting Katie trying to be informed here. What are you trying to do? Take your jeans job? But right? I mean, I don't want to give an opinion like when when you were asking me about national security versus the public right. I would like to go back and really identify incidents where that happened or didn't happen. so I could talk more intelligently about it.

And I tell you, that is probably one of the greatest learnings we've had on this show over time. is that the people who oftentimes have the most expertise and the people who are oftentimes the most well versed in any particular discipline also operate with higher levels of doubt than everyone else. It's it's a it's a it's a powerful and beautiful humility to see. doctors, scientists, journalists, but I mean at the top of their game, going

I don't know. I need to Yeah, I'm not sure about that. Let me I actually don't know on and you you go like wow oh this this is in a strange way it's like going an expert is somebody who knows so much that they know how little they know. Yeah. You know what I mean? They they truly like they go

Yeah, I I don't and then the rest of us are genuinely like, ah, I'm an expert in this. It's like w what do you what do you know? Uh I mean I've watched a few videos, I've seen a few things, I know. But that that thing there is a gift that I hope you don't ever take for granted. Yeah. That doubt.

'Cause in your position, I'm not gonna lie. If I'm in your position, I would be like, yo, let me I'd tell you everything about the news. I know everything about everything, you can't tell me nothing. But for Katie Curry to go, I don't know. Let me go and read up on this. Let me go and Even for me, just in that moment, it inspired me to be like, Oh yeah, don't forget that you can always go back and r read, you can always go back and learn and you can always admit that you just don't know.

I mean, I think that I've been doing this long enough and I'm old enough to have the confidence. You know, I'm sure there was a time where I would have just like been blah blah blah, you know. Um and even now I think, oh gosh, am I gonna sound dumb? Or uninformed or uneducted uneducated about a certain thing. Like what would David Sanger, the national security correspondent for the New York Times, say about this? What examples would he give?

But I'd rather admit that I don't know than to say something That's wrong. All great debates are filled by the risk of being wrong. That's what I think. You're a real one. Improved it, Katie. I don't know. No, you have. You're a real one. Thank you for joining us. No, this was really fun. So nice to meet you. Really enjoyed talking to you in your new turquoise zero jacket. Um and this was very interesting, you know. Um you guys raised a lot of issues, asked a lot of questions.

Uh proposed a lot of the other. Uh challenge The status quo and the way things are done and made me think a lot. So thank you. Katie Kirk. Thank you so much. Thank you. What Now with Trevenoa is produced by Day Zero Productions in partnership with Sirius XM. The show is executive produced by Trevanoa, Sanaz Yamin. Rebecca Chain is our producer, our development researcher is Robyu. Hannes Brown. Thank you. På Circle Key älskar vi att fira våra kunder.

Men sök extra för du välja en ny belöning efter vad fem. Nu lenseras Kia Evit. En kompakt elsum. 5453 km. Kia EV2 är designad för en aktiv och urban livsstil och kommer med röststyrd AE-assistent och flexibla utrymmen. Vin Kia återförsäljare och upplev Kia Eve 2. Kia movement that inspires.