April 26, 2024 • 43 mins
Our first Counter Points Fridays premieres NOW with former CNN anchor Don Lemon. Emily and Ryan ask him about his reporting at CNN, Bernie, Social Media censorship and more!
To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/
Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
the studio ad staff give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3 (00:15):
Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
If you like what we're all about, it just means
the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
But enough with that, let's get to the show.
Speaker 4 (00:22):
The Russia coverage was not great.
Speaker 5 (00:24):
Sure, the Russia coverage was not great from who or man.
Speaker 4 (00:28):
From corporate media. Yeah, I mean just the question about
fat Donald Trump didn't have facts on his side.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
I think that the Russia coverage on CNN was good.
Speaker 5 (00:36):
I think that Bernie Sanders that that wing of the
Democratic Party actually did it as much, if not more
damage to Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump.
Speaker 4 (00:43):
The Nikki Haley comment was that an excuse to purge you.
Speaker 3 (00:50):
Welcome to Counterpoints.
Speaker 4 (00:51):
I'm Ryan Grim, I'm Emily Dashinsky. We know that you
are used to seeing us every Wednesday.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
But it's Friday. Here we are.
Speaker 4 (01:00):
We're excited to premiere the Friday edition of Counterpoints, where
we'll do long form interviews. We'll do debates with some
big names, so make sure to subscribe over at Breakingpoints
dot com for early access to every episode.
Speaker 6 (01:11):
All right, and for today's show, we're joined by a
familiar face, former CNN anchor Don Lemon, who's now the
host of The Don Lemon Show.
Speaker 3 (01:20):
Don Lemon, Welcome to Counterpoints.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
Thank you. I thought you guys said you had big
names on this program.
Speaker 3 (01:24):
Now in the future we'll have big names.
Speaker 5 (01:27):
After me, your next big name. Thank you guys for
having me on.
Speaker 4 (01:32):
I appreciate it, of course, No, thank you for being here.
You're too humble done. But we want to ask you.
Your show is streaming everywhere. Our first question for you is, basically,
you spent a long time in what a lot of
people would describe as the corporate media, what we would
often describe as the corporate media, and now you're doing
an independent show. So if you could tell us a
little bit about what the difference is, you know, between
doing the news at this big corporate behemoth and doing
(01:55):
the news as an independent anchor where you really get
to I'm sure you had a lot of creative corol
and freedom at CNN, but now you really have no restrictions.
Nobody telling you anything. It's all you.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
Well, it's two things I think that are most important.
One you said freedom. There's freedom, editorial freedom.
Speaker 5 (02:12):
I probably had the most editorial freedom on my own
network than anyone because at the time of I was
ob this is the last show on the air, right
and it was at night, so I had a lot
of editorial freedom, and maybe the bosses weren't even watching
at that time, so you know, but I have even
more freedom here to say and do whatever I want.
Speaker 1 (02:26):
And it's mine. I get to do. I get to
cover whatever I want.
Speaker 5 (02:30):
There was a time that I'd have to ask and
get permission from everyone just to be on your show,
and they would, you know, it would go through the
SMP and they'd say this is not worthy, this is worthy.
I get to decide what's worthy. I get to decide
where I go, so I am my own person. But
the most important thing I think is that this is
a community and independent media. You build a community. It's
(02:50):
from the it's grassroots.
Speaker 1 (02:52):
From the ground up.
Speaker 5 (02:53):
People are actually engaged with you. They feel that you
are a part of their family so to speak. I mean,
people do say I feel like you're a part of
my family because I go to sleep with you every night,
you know, and so on and so forth. But also
it's not just me sitting on an anchor desk, you know, pontificating.
It's me talking to the viewers, trying to figure out
(03:15):
what is interesting, what they want. And also I have
the complete freedom just to be honest with them and
they appreciate that, and just to be myself.
Speaker 1 (03:23):
I do a show.
Speaker 5 (03:24):
I do this show which is in my studio now,
and you know, it's a nice, beautiful studio in Manhattan
on Park Avenue.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
It's great.
Speaker 5 (03:31):
But the show that gets the most engagement is a
show that I do for my living room. I do
a live show at five o'clock every day, Lemon Live
in my living room every day, where I talk about
what's happening in the news, and I take questions and
comments from the viewers live from the comment section. And
people are so engaged they call themselves a lemonheads or.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
Lemon nation, and that's what I.
Speaker 5 (03:53):
Really love about it. So that's the most important thing.
I get to build a community. It's not just a
one way conversation. And also I have complete toial freedom.
Speaker 6 (04:01):
When you talk to anchors at CNN or MSNBC. So
I write for the Intercept when I'm not doing this program,
and all of me talking to them about stories that
we've done. Often here, God, we could never put that
on air. We just couldn't do that. And I'm curious
how often you kind of ran up against those constraints
as an anchor, and whether it was about ratings or
(04:23):
whether there were other kind of political or commercial interests
that would would require you just kind of internally or
within your staff to say, yeah, we just can't touch that.
Speaker 5 (04:35):
Well, you know, I don't know if I ever had
that problem, and I don't want to. I'm not going
to disparage my own network because I loved working at CNN.
I love the folks there. They're the best journalists in
the world, I believe. But as I said, I had
more editorial freedom than I think anyone on the network,
And if I wanted something covered, then I could cover it.
Speaker 1 (04:52):
If even if I couldn't.
Speaker 5 (04:53):
Devote an entire program to it, I could devote a
segment to it, or just you know, I could just
come on the and say this is important to me,
and you know, and I would just say it in
a monologue and then be done.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
With it.
Speaker 5 (05:06):
But when you work for company A, you do things
the way Company A does it. If you work for
company B, you do things away company B does it.
And I think that we develop regardless of what network
we're in. We develop sort of, you know, we have
this myopic lens, we have blinders that we do things
the way that it is done. And I find that
since I've left that my media appetite has no media
(05:28):
diet has you know, changed, And so I feel like
I feel like I'm much more aware of what's going
on in the world because I'm not just focusing on
what are the big things in the news that are
going to make air on this particular network. And so
there were things, Yes, there were things that I would
like to cover, but they just didn't bubble up high
(05:49):
enough right into the things that we were discussing on
the network. And I'm not sure that's necessarily bad. That's
just the way that it was done. If you look
at Fox Box Has, you know, they have a different
editorial plan or edic, then CNN, CNN has a different
one than MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
For the most part, they're the same.
Speaker 5 (06:13):
When you come out there covering the same stories, but
they somehow do it differently because they do it the
way that their company does it. So it wasn't really
a problem for me. But I understand your question. There
are certain things that just probably didn't bubble up.
Speaker 4 (06:25):
And when we were thinking about this interview, Ryan had
an idea to play this clip of Nom Chomsky that
is really popular on the left. But this is kind
of a perfect segue into it because he talks about
the Chomsky theory. You know, whether or not you agree
with it. Don It's interesting is that basically a lot
of the different cable networks speak in one voice ultimately,
(06:47):
because there's almost a class bubble that a lot of journalists,
especially at the cable networks, find themselves in. So let's
just roll this one minute of Nome Chromsky and then
we'll get your reaction done.
Speaker 1 (06:59):
I'll have to I think I know some of them.
Speaker 7 (07:01):
Well, I know some of the best and best known
investigative reporters in the United States. I won't mention names,
but whose attitude or the media is much more cynical
than mine. In fact, they regard the media as a sham,
and they know and they consciously.
Speaker 3 (07:17):
Talk about how they try to.
Speaker 7 (07:20):
Play it like a violin. If they see a little opening,
they'll try to squeeze something in that ordinarily wouldn't make
it through. And it's perfectly true that the I'm sure
you're speaking for the majority of journalists who are trained,
have it driven into their heads that this is a
crusading profession, adversarial we stand up against power, a very
(07:40):
self serving view. On the other hand, in my opinion,
I hate to make a value judgment, but the better journalists,
and in fact the ones who are often regarded as
the best journalists, have quite a different picture, and I
think a very realistic one.
Speaker 1 (07:54):
How can you How can you know that I'm self censory?
Speaker 7 (07:56):
How can you have self censory? I'm sure you believe
everything you're saying, But what I'm saying is you could
believe something different.
Speaker 1 (08:02):
You wouldn't be sitting where you're sitting.
Speaker 3 (08:04):
I had just seen that clip before. What'd you think
I had?
Speaker 1 (08:07):
I hadn't seen that clip before. Well, listen to me, No,
johsk would not want to go up against the right.
I think he just basically sort of said what I
said in different words.
Speaker 5 (08:18):
If you see something or you believe something that you know,
you find an opening you sort of squeeze it in,
which is basically what I was saying, and my previous
answer to you that there was something I found.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
Important, I would find a way to get it in.
Speaker 5 (08:28):
And obviously, look, I'm no longer, you know, in traditional
legacy media. So he says, if you believe something, if
you believe differently, you wouldn't be sitting where you're sitting now.
So I'm not sitting where I was sitting before. So
obviously there was something that I else said I believe.
Speaker 4 (08:45):
And you know, I have a question on that, actually,
because I don't think either of us is interested in
getting into any drama with your old network. But I
do think the Nikki Haley comment what I found it
hilarious frankly, but we don't have to get into it.
All I want to say is is that an excuse
to purge you? Do you feel like that was Do
you think that your former colleagues cared deeply about Nicki
(09:06):
Haley's feelings or do you think that was sort of
a fig leaf to start purging maybe allies of Jeff Zucker.
What's your read on that whole situation, because you, I
mean you did I think apologized for it, and everything
sort of spiraled from there. It seemed like from the outside.
Speaker 1 (09:20):
At least, look at my faith.
Speaker 4 (09:25):
In your crime.
Speaker 5 (09:26):
I will let your comments stand if you think, I think.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
That you are a very smart woman, and I will
just let it stand.
Speaker 3 (09:37):
Enterprime, no doubt, right of course.
Speaker 6 (09:39):
So one of the criticisms I had of CNN over
over the years is around its coverage of the of
the kind of left wing of the Democratic Party, and
in particular missing the kind of twenty six the energy
behind the twenty sixteen Bernie Sanders campaign, and then missing
miss again the second time around. Like you know, twenty twenty,
(10:03):
Bernie Centers almost seized the nomination and it seemed to
catch the media flat foot at both times. I'm curious
what your editorial meetings were like throughout twenty sixteen and
twenty twenty or was there just so much Trump that
there just wasn't kind of the oxygen for the Democratic primaries.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
Well, I want to make sure I understand what you're saying, Brian.
Speaker 5 (10:24):
What are you asking me that that you think that
Bernie Sanders wasn't given his do in in traditional media?
Speaker 1 (10:30):
Is that what you're saying is.
Speaker 6 (10:32):
Yeah, yeah, and let me yeah, and let me and
let me tell you a little story about that real
quick like. So in February of twenty twenty, you remember
Rebecca Cutler, the old head of CNN talent, She reached
out to or somehow we got connected when I'm back
still at the Intercept, I was the Intercept at the time,
and she said, look, we have really missed the boat
(10:54):
on covering the left wing of the Democratic Party, like
we need people who have covered that before and who
understand this rising progressive energy. And so CNN brought me
in and said, look, we need to get you on
some of these programs because we need somebody, you know,
who can speak to this obviously now rising energy within
(11:15):
the Democratic Party. And then that that happened a couple times,
and then Bernie lost the South Carolina primary and got
wiped out on Super Tuesday, and they said, actually, nevermind,
We're good. We don't need to worry about this kind
of progressive wing. Maybe maybe in four years if it
if it bubbles back up. But there was a there
(11:36):
was a fear inside CNN reflected through Rebecca's outreach that
they had missed something fundamental about the country that was
represented by the rise of Bernie Sanders.
Speaker 5 (11:47):
I don't know what conversation you had with Rebecca, who
I know, and so I won't get into that, but
I think if there was any outreach for you to
cover something that was happening in the news of the
zeitgeist politically, I think that Rebecca should be commended for
recognizing that. The second part is that I've never heard anyone,
(12:09):
anybody say that CNN should be more left, So you know, hey,
there's a first time for everything. I didn't necessarily think
CNN was left. I thought that CNN was about facts.
I think CNN is the best journalist in the world.
But I also think you asked me what my editorial
meetings were like. I mean, no one was trying to
push Bernie Sanders, and at least in my editorial meetings,
(12:29):
and I would venture to speak for the network. Now, well,
I'll speak for myself. I don't think that anyone was
trying to push Bernie Sanders out. I think that Bernie
Sanders may have had this sort of outsized influence with
a certain segment of the Democratic Party. But all polls
in twenty sixteen pointed to Hillary Clinton. All polls in
(12:49):
twenty twenty, and public sentiment pointed to Joe Biden. And
so what was shocking, I think to myself, was the
the reaction from Democrats to the nomination of Hillary Clinton
instead of Bernie Sanders in sixteen, especially in twenty twenty.
(13:10):
You know, I couldn't get to gauge it because I
didn't get to go to the conventions. I think that
was around, you know, because of COVID. But here's a
shocking thing. We so networks have editorial calls or meetings
with campaigns right to figure out how you're going to
cover the campaigns. When I in my experience meeting having
those editorial calls and meetings with the Trump folks, they
(13:33):
knew every single thing that was happening in the meeting,
every single thing that Don Lemon had ever said about
Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (13:40):
His folks knew about it.
Speaker 5 (13:41):
They knew where to place him, they knew who they
wanted him to talk to, They knew who they want
him to call into or do in person interviews. By contrast,
the Clinton campaign was so above it that you know, hey,
you know, they had no idea what I was saying
about Hillary Clinton or whatever they were. You know, she
didn't not have as much media outreach. She got to
(14:02):
pick and choose where she went and rather than just
doing what Donald Trump did. So listen, I think that
the Hillary but yet and still the public wanted Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 1 (14:12):
They didn't want Bernie Sanders.
Speaker 5 (14:14):
So I say that to say, when after all of
you know, Republicans did not love Donald Trump, they held
their nose and they voted for him. All of the
never Trumper was all of the people, you know, from
Ted Cruz on down. When he became the nominee, everyone
got behind him.
Speaker 1 (14:30):
When we were at the convention, it was Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump.
It wasn't jeb it wasn't you know, Cruise, it wasn't Ruby,
it wasn't any of those people. By the time we
got to the Democratic Convention and Hillary.
Speaker 5 (14:43):
Clinton was a nominee, people were yelling Bernie, Bernie, and
we were like, what the hell is going on? So
I think that Bernie Sanders, that that wing of the
Democratic Party actually did it as much, if not more
damage to Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump.
Speaker 6 (15:00):
So look, but I think that's I think that's an
interesting I think any question to be asking is to
say what.
Speaker 1 (15:07):
I think Bernie is a fantastic politician.
Speaker 5 (15:10):
But I do think that there is a lesson in
it for Democrats that you have to get behind the
person who is the actual nominee and you cannot have
sour grapes of the person who did not become the nominee.
Speaker 1 (15:20):
That's how the process worked.
Speaker 5 (15:21):
So I know that people are upset and they're upset
about the progressive wing and they don't think it gets
covered enough. But this is where we are. The nominee
of the person is Joe Biden. The nominee of the
person then was Hillary Clinton. I think the Bernie Sanders
progressive wing of the party should have gotten behind should
have gotten behind them, And that's the reason, one of
the reasons, the main reasons that we're in the predicament
(15:42):
that we are now and that.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
We had a Trump presidency.
Speaker 6 (15:45):
But I guess the point would be if CNN anchors
are at the twenty sixteen convention saying, what the hell
is going on? That's kind of reflective of the time
that I was making that you guys should have seen
this coming and should have own what was going on,
where this we knew it was, where this anger coming from.
Speaker 5 (16:04):
Just because we're realistic about who the nominee is doesn't
mean that we didn't see that, didn't see it coming.
Bernie Sanders was not going to win. Bernie Sanders was
not going to be the nominee. So I turned to
my producer and said that I'm not saying this on
the air, but I was.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
Maybe I did say it on the air.
Speaker 5 (16:22):
I was surprised because Republicans fall in line. Democrats fight
each other, Democrats usually wet the bed. I'm sorry for
Bernie Sanders was not the nominee, nor was he ever
going to become the nominee. And I know that people
are upset by it, but that's the truth. It's the
same thing for Republicans. Nikki Haley is not the nominee.
She's not going to become the nominee. Donald Trump is
a nominee, regardless if you like it or not. The
(16:43):
guys in court and guess what, Republicans are going to
fall in line, and if Donald becomes the president again,
it'll be because Republicans fell in line.
Speaker 4 (16:52):
One of the things I think I was just one
of the things I think it's cool about. Like Ryan
and I have both been critical of you. You've probably
been critical of independent media. This is the first time
we've ever talked in the past. But one thing that
I considered a low point, honestly in media coverage of
Donald Trump was the segment with you and Rick Wilson
talking about credulist Boomer Rubes. And I wonder, honestly if
(17:14):
there's an argument that sort of seeing other Americans through
that lens, and maybe now in independent media it's easier
not to but seeing other people through that lens of
you know, credulous Boomer Rubes laughing.
Speaker 5 (17:30):
At Rick Wilson about that wasn't my That was not
my assessment of that. I was laughing at the Ukraine
on a map thing.
Speaker 1 (17:35):
That was my point.
Speaker 5 (17:36):
I did not make any comments about Americans. So you'll
have to talk to Rick Wilson about that.
Speaker 6 (17:42):
And I get but I guess there's an interesting mirror
going on where, you know, the Trump the Trump supporters
see that clip and they felsted in that, yeah, and
they feel.
Speaker 3 (17:53):
Like they're not being represented. Bernie.
Speaker 6 (17:55):
People feel like, you know, they're not being represented on CNN.
And and to the point about the polling that you mentioned,
just one point on Joe Biden's pulling. Joe Biden was
not polling ahead. You had said that Joe Biden was
pulling ahead. Joe Biden was in the toilet the entire time.
He finished fourth in Iowa, fifth in New Hampshire, got
annihilated in the data.
Speaker 1 (18:16):
He got to the convention.
Speaker 6 (18:18):
Yeah, and then he won after one hundred and seventy
five million dollars in free media between Nevada and South Carolina.
And then he wins Super twos and he won the nomination,
no doubt about it. But he wasn't pulling ahead before.
Speaker 4 (18:31):
That is the sort of establishment media doing a good
enough job of connecting with the country in the way
that after twenty sixteen, newsrooms reckoned both with the sort
of Bernie Sanders phenomenon he won my homestate of Wisconsin,
for example, and the Trump phenomenon, and they said, for example,
Dean Baquet at the New York Times said, we don't
get religion. Has that gotten any better? Has it gotten worse?
(18:53):
Is the media in a sort of insulated You said,
your studios on Park Avenue the sort of a good
symbol right there, Like do people in the media know
people love people respect people.
Speaker 5 (19:04):
Students on Park Avenue doesn't have to do with anything
I mean your studios in Washington, d C. Park Avenue
is part of America.
Speaker 4 (19:09):
Well, no, I mean I don't disagree with that. Stephanie
Rule said the same thing, actually, but I am asking
you basically, we make an effort to talk to people
in different parts of the country. That's why I'm asking
does the media do a good, good enough job on
a class basis, not even a I think it.
Speaker 5 (19:24):
Does a great job of talking to people from you know,
from all parts of the country. I mean when I
turn on Look, I'm not in legacy media anymore. When
I turn on legacy media, I see the left wing
of the Democratic Party overrepresented. I see the right wing
of the Republican Party overrepresented. There's always there's always panels
about what do maga people think nobody understands those people
(19:45):
and that they're overrepresented in media. The same thing happened
with the Bernie Sanders thing. The Sanders the left wing
of the party, it's overrepresented. Bernie Sanders getting is not
getting a fair shake. I think that it's over representation.
I just think, like listen, time to move on. Bernie
Sanders was not the nominee in twenty sixteen. We can
go back and litigate it. Now we've got a lot
(20:06):
of you know, unearned media or earned media.
Speaker 1 (20:08):
In twenty sixteen, it's over. We can't go back and
litigate that. The same thing with twenty twenty. That's over.
Speaker 5 (20:13):
We can't go back and litigated. What we can do
is try to be better moving forward. So I do feel, honestly,
now that I'm in independent media, I do think that
the fringes of the parties, both parties are over represented
in the coverage in independent media and in legacy media
as well.
Speaker 6 (20:31):
Why do you think legacy media is fading and independent
media is rising your what's your theory of that case?
Speaker 1 (20:37):
Well, I don't think it's because they're so terrible the
way that they are covering the news.
Speaker 5 (20:41):
I think they do a really good job of covering
the news because they have.
Speaker 1 (20:43):
A ton of resources. I just think it is the way.
Speaker 5 (20:47):
I think it's the advertising around it, because media is
so fractured now there are other places for advertisers to
put their money and so and there are just other
it's just other forms of media. Now you have way
more channels. He used to just be like, you know,
you had three ABC, CBS and NBC and then cable
came along, and then all of a sudden, the Internet
(21:07):
came along, and then social media came along.
Speaker 1 (21:09):
I just think it's fractured.
Speaker 5 (21:11):
So I'm not saying I don't believe that it's some
indication that traditional media is bad and therefore people aren't
tuning in. I just think there are more places to
tune in now and so the audience is shrinking.
Speaker 4 (21:22):
Also curious if you've talked to Elon Musk since he
canceled the partnership, have you heard anything from him at all?
Speaker 1 (21:29):
You know, I have a text message from him right now. No.
Speaker 4 (21:34):
Well, on that note, actually, Elon Ryan has sent some
reporting on this Elon's censorship in different parts of the
world with X What do you think is the right
balance when it comes to content moderations obviously one of
the biggest challenges facing lawmakers, facing businesses, executives in Silicon Valley.
You now have a show that is on some of
these streaming platforms. How do you think about, you know,
(21:57):
what that sort of balance between and just allowing people
to speak and get everything out there. Elon's doing that
sort of in the States now, not necessarily in other
parts of the world. But what do you make of
that done.
Speaker 1 (22:11):
I'm not sure what your question is. If you can
just tell me what I guess.
Speaker 6 (22:15):
Put it this way, like one of the disputes that
you had with Musk was the definition of censorship versus moderation.
You would say there ought to be there ought to
be moderation. He was saying anything beyond taking down, you know,
illegal posts is censorship.
Speaker 3 (22:32):
So where where would you draw the line.
Speaker 6 (22:34):
Let's say all of a sudden, Saudi Arabia comes to
you and says, here's forty five billion dollars, we actually
want you to own Twitter rather than elon Musk. How
would you go about I think platforms figuring out the difference.
Speaker 5 (22:49):
I think platforms that have moderation obviously do better than
platforms that don't. If you look at what's happening with
Twitter now, then you one would understand that if you
look at a platforms that moderate, even the independent media
who's on YouTube has moderation, right, even TikTok that I
know people are upset because it's China, China owns it,
but there's moderation there. There's moderation on Facebook, there's moderation
(23:11):
on Instagram. And I think that I would draw the
line at hate speech. I would draw the line at
anything that is that puts people in danger.
Speaker 1 (23:21):
And I would draw the line at where.
Speaker 5 (23:24):
When people who go into synagogues or churches or supermarkets
say that they admittedly became radicalized in part because of
social media. I think you need to look at that
and you need to take it seriously. So I would
draw the line at that. And if you're going to
if you want to say it's okay, look at this
(23:46):
is it's Elon Musk's that part.
Speaker 1 (23:49):
This is bat and ball. He can do it whatever
he wants to do with it.
Speaker 5 (23:53):
But I do think that there you have some degree
of responsibility to keep people safe, and you have it
should be responsible enough that you listen to those who
disagree with you, and that you have different voices on
your platform. Every organization has rules that must be followed,
(24:15):
and if you're going to be on that platform, then
you need to follow the rules.
Speaker 1 (24:19):
He even has content rules on his.
Speaker 5 (24:22):
Platform, and the content rules on his platform should be followed.
Speaker 1 (24:27):
And if they're not, then why are they there?
Speaker 5 (24:30):
So I think you would draw the line really at
hate speech, in anything that puts people people's lives in danger.
Speaker 1 (24:35):
And a lot of what's on social media.
Speaker 4 (24:37):
Does that the constitution protects a decent amount of hate speech,
if not most hate speech. So is it Do you
think it's for a business reason, because I actually think
that's an interesting argument that for a business reason these
platforms should be engaged in content moderation because their consumers
feel unsafe, feel miserable when they're on these platforms that
(24:59):
are with hate speech. Or is it just sort of ideologically,
maybe it's a combination. We should keep people from hate speech,
people should be protected from hate speech.
Speaker 1 (25:10):
Whether I think that.
Speaker 5 (25:12):
I don't think content should be you know, pushed to
young girls that make them feel less than I don't
think that content should be pushed to young men that
makes them feel that they, you know, can go and
shoot up supermarkets and kill people, kill Jews, kill blacks,
kill gay people. So I think for human reasons that
there needs to be moderation. I think for common sense
(25:34):
there needs to be moderation. That whole idea that you know,
free speeches is a you know, wild wild west.
Speaker 1 (25:41):
I think that's BS.
Speaker 5 (25:42):
I don't think that's what the our founders meant when
they said freedom of speech. You're free You're free to
say whatever you want, but you must suffer the consequences.
Speaker 4 (25:49):
We had Stemm Rehersch on this show last year talking
about his reporting that implicated the CIA and blowing up
nord Stream pipeline. Is that is that beyond the bounds
of disinformation from your perspective, because there are some people
that would say this is, you know, Russian propaganda, this
is disinformation? Is that something? How do you sort of
beyond how?
Speaker 5 (26:08):
I think it has to be true if it's going
to be on your platform, And again, if you people
can create the rules of whatever they want to on
their platform, your organization, whatever organization you.
Speaker 1 (26:16):
Belong to, you have rules. I have my own rules.
Speaker 5 (26:18):
CNN has rules, MSNBC has rules, Fox has rules.
Speaker 1 (26:22):
X Corporation has rules.
Speaker 5 (26:23):
Everyone has rules that their employees are people who are
going to take part in whatever platform that they have
or if you're going to work there, they have rules,
and I think you need to follow those rules. And
I think that that company gets to set what those
rules are. But I think at the very least, especially
when it comes to journalism and it comes to the
freedom of the press.
Speaker 1 (26:42):
That before you put it out there, you need to figure.
Speaker 5 (26:44):
Out whether it's true or not. You just can't throw
it out there and expect it to be okay. I
don't believe that, and I think most sane people would
agree with that.
Speaker 6 (26:56):
Let me ask you a totally unrelated question. You know,
just my strength lies in kind of writing and reporting,
kind of behind a desk, typing away the instant wretch.
The whole TV presenting thing is not like, it's not
the thing I'm really good at. You're quite good at
the whole TV thing. Like even people who would disagree
(27:18):
with whatever you're saying, like as a presenter, you're quite
skilled at it. So what what tips do you have
for people like me and Emily who this isn't really
our thing, but we find ourselves in front of this
camera anyway.
Speaker 5 (27:33):
Look, my tip is that you should just be yourself,
and you know, if I can just be honest. You
guys are saying, you know, where's the teleprompter before? Like
I would say, challenge yourself. You don't need a teleprompter.
I just think that you should be Ryan and Emily and.
Speaker 3 (27:48):
I also we did we did skip the teleprompter.
Speaker 4 (27:50):
Actually we did it live.
Speaker 1 (27:53):
Ryan and Emily.
Speaker 5 (27:54):
But I also think listen I'm just going to tell
you there were there were many things, and there are
many things in the media that I disagree with, But
I'm also tethered to reality, and so i may want
the outcome to be something different.
Speaker 1 (28:05):
I e.
Speaker 5 (28:06):
Bernie Sanders, but it is. As my mom says to
me all the time, it is what it is. And
so when it is what it is, you know, you
make your case, you argue it or whatever.
Speaker 1 (28:14):
And then you move on.
Speaker 5 (28:15):
And so I think that many times, especially in independent media,
I find people getting stuck in arguments and old arguments
and things that are no longer in the zeitgeist and
are no longer important anymore, and I think it's important
for so my advice to you would be to.
Speaker 1 (28:32):
Get with the program. To go out and talk.
Speaker 5 (28:35):
To those people who are on college campuses, to see
what you know, why they're on, you know, either for
or against protests, no matter how you feel about it.
Speaker 1 (28:43):
To talk to the politicians.
Speaker 5 (28:44):
I would encourage you to talk to more people who
are in traditional media, and if you can change their
minds about certain things, I would say do it.
Speaker 1 (28:50):
I would say go on those shows.
Speaker 5 (28:52):
But I would say the most important thing is to
have an open mind about everything about guests who come
on your program, about what you're talking about, what you're
trying to convey to the audience. It's just to have
an open mind and to be curious, be less judgmental
and more curious.
Speaker 3 (29:12):
I think that's well.
Speaker 6 (29:13):
I was hoping for tips more about how to deal
with all these cameras in the studio setting. And you
should see the time transitions, you know, of this stuff.
Speaker 5 (29:24):
I tell you this, Okay, Ryan, I'm wearing a light
blue shirt. Right, Dark shirts don't really work that well.
Speaker 3 (29:30):
That's the kind of stuff I need.
Speaker 5 (29:32):
You need a nice white crisp shirt always looks good
with a with a you know, with a nice tie.
Speaker 1 (29:40):
Right.
Speaker 5 (29:42):
Blue suits black suits on television are a little drab
and stay a little now we're talking, so you need,
like do a blue suit, or like me, you know,
do something that's on the blue or that gives a
little pop of color.
Speaker 1 (29:56):
Don't be afraid. Don't think it's good. People think that
you're you know, you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 5 (30:02):
Wear something that's a little bit out that maybe your
manhood is being questioned because you.
Speaker 3 (30:06):
Wear something uncomfortable with the man.
Speaker 5 (30:08):
So I'll go with that and also a nice haircut.
Haircuts everything in your guy, make sure you keep it
neat and clean.
Speaker 4 (30:14):
He gets accused of having it is real.
Speaker 5 (30:19):
And I am never going to criticize what a woman
wears because you guys get enough of that. So I
like to I like to do that to the guys
because they don't know how you ladies live.
Speaker 1 (30:29):
You got to go to hair and make up. You can't.
Speaker 5 (30:31):
We could wear I could wear Ryan, you can wear
that suit every.
Speaker 1 (30:34):
Day and no one would ever question.
Speaker 5 (30:36):
In fact, every day she would get shipped from everybody
wearing she doesn't dress up, She doesn't what's going what
is she doing with her hair?
Speaker 1 (30:45):
Guys don't get that.
Speaker 3 (30:46):
You can just be you know, well, I'm the exception.
Speaker 4 (30:48):
But yeah, you're totally right. I know we're running to
the end here, But don I have one question about something?
Actually does Tucker Carlson said recently that I don't know
if you guys overlapped at CNN, but he said recently
that social media really changed the way people on cable
news had conversations. That before social media, you sort of
(31:11):
were able to speak more freely because you weren't constantly
thinking about how things were going to get clipped on
Twitter now X or at the time, Facebook, and it
just kind of I mean, I know that you're putting
your show actually on x on all of the streaming
platforms now, So I think people have journalists have adapted.
But I'm curious what you think of that. Do you
(31:31):
feel like there was an era in media where people
actually could have more open conversations without the fear of
sort of getting written up, whether it's you know, conservative media,
liberal media, the blogs, and it was just more it
was easier to talk to people.
Speaker 1 (31:46):
I don't think it's just media. I think it's everywhere.
Speaker 5 (31:49):
I think, you know, even you know, in Washington. I
think our leaders are afraid of being criticized.
Speaker 1 (31:53):
It used to be.
Speaker 5 (31:54):
Now people don't care anymore because it doesn't have the
outsized influence that it once had. With Twitter, people would
concerned about, oh my gosh, people on Twitter are gonna
kill me. I'm gonna be trending or whatever people used
to worry about. I don't think they worry about that anymore.
But I think that happens everywhere. I think that happens
in Hollywood. I think that happens on television for sitcoms,
I think that happens for comedians, you know.
Speaker 1 (32:14):
If you if you want proof of that, I think,
you know.
Speaker 5 (32:18):
Go back and look at the episode of SNL with
Chevy Chase and Richard Pryor talking about me in word
right where they actually use the word.
Speaker 1 (32:26):
You can't do that on television anymore. I wasn't.
Speaker 5 (32:30):
But I do think people were, you know, journalists are
afraid of you know, being you know, getting criticized on Twitter.
I think maybe they are probably executives who were afraid
of criticism on social media because they're afraid of advertisers.
Speaker 1 (32:45):
I think that does happen. So yeah, I think it.
Speaker 5 (32:46):
Happens across all media and through throughout all industries that
people are concerned about, you know, their presence on social media.
I don't think that that's any secret, nor is it,
you know, I don't think it's any big revelation.
Speaker 6 (32:58):
Yeah, I'm curious when when you're out in the world
and engaging with the public, what are the kinds of
questions that you often get, Like when people recognize you,
they come to you, they must say something selfish?
Speaker 1 (33:11):
Can I get a selfie? You see?
Speaker 5 (33:13):
Look, let me tell you I was in cable news
so guess what people say to me when they first
see me.
Speaker 3 (33:18):
I see you in the airport all the time.
Speaker 1 (33:20):
Oh no, not at all. My mom loves you, loves you.
Can I get a picture and send it to.
Speaker 5 (33:27):
You, So that you got the idea of the age
range of the people who are watching. Now that I'm
in independent media, people say, you know, people talk to
me about what I'm doing now because young people are
actually tuned into social media, They're tuned into YouTube there,
some of them are on X now, not as many
as before, but I think that people actually get recognized
(33:50):
more now recently, in recent years than when I was
on CNN before, you know, after the pandemic, after Donald Trump,
after George Floyd. There was a time when I could
not walk down the street without people, and then that
sort of faded because you.
Speaker 1 (34:07):
Know, that just sort of goes away.
Speaker 5 (34:09):
You're not in people's living when people were at home
during the pandemic, so that all they were doing was
watching CNN and I was on all the time. And
so now just getting back to normal times, I think
people recognize me now more from social and social media
and digital streaming media than they do from when I
was in traditional and cable.
Speaker 4 (34:29):
Yeah, that's super interesting, especially the younger audience part of that.
Speaker 5 (34:33):
And actually one question I had for you was about that,
about they just I don't know, they just asked me,
what are you doing now?
Speaker 1 (34:39):
I miss you and see it? Where can I see you? Yeah?
Speaker 6 (34:42):
You lived through a really seismic change when it comes
to not just CNN but kind of the media in general.
And it was fascinating watching it from my perspective because
I was always part of this kind of left wing
of observers who was saying mainstream media needs to drop
this like fake objectivity, this this view from nowhere, this
view from God, and I acknowledge that they have biases
(35:05):
and speak from that perspective and earn trust that way.
That was a very commonly held view, you know, for
many years on the left, and then CNN and ms
put aside, MSNBC. CNN really did that during the Trump administration,
and I remember agreeing with a lot of what CNN
was saying, disagreeing with the decent amount of it, particularly
(35:27):
all the endless focus on Russia. But I also remember thinking, WHOA,
that's a little bit much. You guys are starting to
sound like kind of a democratic mouthpiece, and I also
recognize like they're doing kind of what I asked them
to do for years, but now that they're doing it,
not so sure I like it. And I'm curious what
it was like for you to be involved in that,
(35:48):
Ryan Well, I am. I am.
Speaker 1 (35:50):
Oh yeah, Listen, I don't like that. I don't believe
in that whole.
Speaker 5 (35:55):
I don't believe in the premise of Listen, I'm not
trying to be confrontational. I don't agree with the premise
of what you're saying when people put it in that context,
because listen.
Speaker 1 (36:03):
We all we all, we all view life.
Speaker 5 (36:06):
Through a certain lens, whether we're a journalists or not,
whether you're a woman, a man, black, white, Jewish, Palacini, whatever,
we all viewed the world through our own lenses.
Speaker 1 (36:17):
And it is okay to.
Speaker 5 (36:19):
Come to be a journalist and to have a point
of view.
Speaker 1 (36:21):
That's okay. It is actually okay to be a journalist
and have an opinion. There's opinion journalism.
Speaker 5 (36:25):
So I don't believe in that that bs about. You know,
journalists just have to sit there and go what do
you think?
Speaker 1 (36:30):
What do you think?
Speaker 5 (36:31):
Okay, Fine, that's not how that's not how it works.
I think that, you know, I said you were engaged.
I think that when that was the zenith I believe
of CNN when during that time, and it may have looked,
I think that that we had moved to the left
or that you know, we were somehow becoming an arm
(36:52):
of the Democratic Party. That was only because of the
Republican side and mostly Donald Trump and the MAGA wing
of the Republican Party.
Speaker 1 (37:00):
The facts were not on their side.
Speaker 5 (37:02):
So by the simple fact of pointing out that someone
is lying, that you're getting misinformation, it may think it
may make people think that, oh my god, you must
be on the Democrat side.
Speaker 1 (37:15):
No, you're on the side of truth.
Speaker 4 (37:17):
No, we have to wrap. But that the Russia coverage
was not great.
Speaker 5 (37:22):
The Russia coverage was not great from who, from anyone?
Speaker 1 (37:25):
The Russia coverage wasn't great from anybody.
Speaker 4 (37:28):
A man from corporate media. Yeah, I mean just the
question about fact Donald Trump didn't have facts on his side.
Speaker 1 (37:32):
I think that the Russia coverage on CNN was good.
I think the Russia coverage in the media was good.
Speaker 5 (37:38):
I don't think that it was bad. You may disagree
with it, that's you're a bias. But I actually think
the coverage was good, and I think that people are
smart enough to discern what's true and what's not, what's
real and what's not, and so I don't think that
the coverage was that bad. I don't fall into that category.
And I think people were Look, I think people sort
of romanticize the time that we were in, like people romanticize,
(37:59):
you know, COVID and the protocols that were in place,
and this was.
Speaker 1 (38:02):
Bad and that was bad.
Speaker 5 (38:04):
They don't remember the time that we're in that we
were in, and so, you know, I think that the
media did the best job that they could at the time.
Speaker 1 (38:11):
I don't think that it was terrible.
Speaker 5 (38:12):
We can always look back, you know, from being an
armchair quarterback Monday morning quarterback and saying, oh, you should
have done this.
Speaker 1 (38:18):
Should it would have? Could have? We didn't.
Speaker 5 (38:20):
And again my advice, accept things the way that they are,
learn your lesson and move on.
Speaker 4 (38:26):
Yeah. I was part I was personally wrong on like
some of my early Russia coverage.
Speaker 1 (38:29):
Was personally wrong on that. That's okay, you said it
was wrong.
Speaker 5 (38:32):
That's what happens, and people will say I was wrong.
I think you know where I was. If we made
a mistake and we got something wrong, we would say it.
That's the whole point about having an independent media.
Speaker 1 (38:41):
But you also have.
Speaker 5 (38:42):
To have to have a media that has rules and
that's accountable. That doesn't happen on social media. There's no accountability.
And I think that, but you know, maga.
Speaker 1 (38:51):
Folks realize that, and so they put out disinformation.
Speaker 6 (38:54):
But has has CNN ever said that there actually was
not never proven collude usion between as Trump campaign and
the I don't think that they ever had it.
Speaker 4 (39:04):
Washington posted a whole series rebutting its own coverage.
Speaker 5 (39:08):
Interestingly enough, beyond CNN, I think that there there are
accounts of collusion, but you have to ask c in it.
Speaker 4 (39:17):
Well, Don, you said a couple of minutes ago that
you don't want to be confrontational, but big confrontational is fun.
And we really appreciate, we really appreciate your willingness.
Speaker 3 (39:24):
Actually answer the test question.
Speaker 4 (39:26):
Yeah, thank you for your tips. We appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (39:29):
Thank you very much. It was great talking to you.
Speaker 4 (39:32):
Yeah, we appreciate it so much. Don is the host
of the Don Lemon Show. It's streaming everywhere now. Thank
you so much, Don for joining us.
Speaker 1 (39:39):
Thank you, Ryan.
Speaker 4 (39:40):
We could have kept doing that for three hours. At
some point, it's like I cannot relitigate the extent of
CNN's Russia collusion coverage, which I could argue for hours
was terrible, Like we just are not on the same
page on that, But I thought it was good to
get some contrast.
Speaker 6 (39:55):
Yeah, and my view on that one has always been that,
you know, Putin was clear that you know, he hated
Hillary Clinton. But what CNN and others were saying is
that there was active collusion between the Trump campaign and
Putin and there was just never any evidence to support that.
There was that one meeting in Trump Tower that got
(40:17):
played up a ton that sort of so.
Speaker 4 (40:20):
CNN botched one of those stories.
Speaker 6 (40:22):
Actually I think they did the Alpha Bank anyway. All
that aside, Back when I was at the Hovington Post,
we had MSNBC, CNN, and Fox on all the time.
And I left there in twenty seventeen, and so after
ten years of cable getting blasted at me all day long,
(40:44):
every day, I basically have not watched cable since then
other than what clips get put up on Instagram or
Twitter or whatever else.
Speaker 3 (40:54):
And I think my.
Speaker 6 (40:56):
Mental health in my life is much better for It's
it's interesting to talk to Don knowing that he's like
a big cable guy, but also not having he's not
actually wasn't actually part of my media diet unless he
got clipped onto Twitter saying something crazy.
Speaker 4 (41:10):
And I really meant what I said when I mentioned
that Rick Wilson clip, which we had it pulled up,
but our conversation was going so didn't roll it.
Speaker 3 (41:18):
But we can put it in post that Lemon.
Speaker 4 (41:20):
Is laughing hysterically alongside Rick Wilson and Waliid, just laughing
uproariously at this very classiest impression of a Trump voter.
And that's why I actually just want to say I
genuinely appreciate that Lemon came on the show. I don't
think he knows who the hell we are, but I
genuinely appreciate. I know he's promoting his show, but we're
(41:41):
not ever going to if people don't aren't willing to
do hard things to promote their shows. Frankly, we're never
going to have some of these hard conversations. So good
for him for coming on.
Speaker 6 (41:49):
Yeah, books and new shows are good things because it
forces people to get out and talk to people that
they would not the ones talk to one.
Speaker 4 (41:55):
Hundred percent, and that's why we can't tease exactly what
it is yet. But one of the hottest books of
the last year, last several years. Honestly, we're trying to
set up a debate about.
Speaker 3 (42:04):
That hot we're talking about White Royal Rage.
Speaker 4 (42:07):
It's oh my gosh. Every bookstore I walk past in
DC has like a stack of the It's been rebutted
in like all of these different publications. It's been promoted
in all these different publications. I'd say it's pretty hot.
Speaker 6 (42:18):
Yeah, it's it's a good one. We'll have a good
conversation about that, is it. We're still we're still working
on the scheduling.
Speaker 4 (42:23):
Ryan is white enraged, so he's ready to rumble with
that conversation. But I hope everyone enjoyed this first foray
into some long form. I mean we've done very long
interviews before. We did ted cruise for like a.
Speaker 3 (42:37):
Half an hour, but cruise back here.
Speaker 4 (42:40):
I bet it's come Fridays. That's what we'll be doing,
long form debate, having some of these conversations. Now we can't,
you can't get to everything in a discussion with Don Lemon.
We would It would take us, you know, six hours
probably to do that, but.
Speaker 3 (42:53):
I hope some of the world probably doesn't need that.
Speaker 4 (42:55):
Also getting Don Lemon to respond to the tchromsky climp
clip that he had never seen beautiful.
Speaker 3 (43:01):
I like that beautiful.
Speaker 4 (43:02):
And that's what you get here at counterpoints and breaking points.
So make sure to subscribe to get the version of
the show, the full version of the show early. Other
than that, we'll see you back next Wednesday and next Friday.
Speaker 3 (43:13):
There you go, see you then,
Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
the studio ad staff give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3 (00:15):
Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
If you like what we're all about, it just means
the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
But enough with that, let's get to the show.
Speaker 4 (00:22):
The Russia coverage was not great.
Speaker 5 (00:24):
Sure, the Russia coverage was not great from who or man.
Speaker 4 (00:28):
From corporate media. Yeah, I mean just the question about
fat Donald Trump didn't have facts on his side.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
I think that the Russia coverage on CNN was good.
Speaker 5 (00:36):
I think that Bernie Sanders that that wing of the
Democratic Party actually did it as much, if not more
damage to Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump.
Speaker 4 (00:43):
The Nikki Haley comment was that an excuse to purge you.
Speaker 3 (00:50):
Welcome to Counterpoints.
Speaker 4 (00:51):
I'm Ryan Grim, I'm Emily Dashinsky. We know that you
are used to seeing us every Wednesday.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
But it's Friday. Here we are.
Speaker 4 (01:00):
We're excited to premiere the Friday edition of Counterpoints, where
we'll do long form interviews. We'll do debates with some
big names, so make sure to subscribe over at Breakingpoints
dot com for early access to every episode.
Speaker 6 (01:11):
All right, and for today's show, we're joined by a
familiar face, former CNN anchor Don Lemon, who's now the
host of The Don Lemon Show.
Speaker 3 (01:20):
Don Lemon, Welcome to Counterpoints.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
Thank you. I thought you guys said you had big
names on this program.
Speaker 3 (01:24):
Now in the future we'll have big names.
Speaker 5 (01:27):
After me, your next big name. Thank you guys for
having me on.
Speaker 4 (01:32):
I appreciate it, of course, No, thank you for being here.
You're too humble done. But we want to ask you.
Your show is streaming everywhere. Our first question for you is, basically,
you spent a long time in what a lot of
people would describe as the corporate media, what we would
often describe as the corporate media, and now you're doing
an independent show. So if you could tell us a
little bit about what the difference is, you know, between
doing the news at this big corporate behemoth and doing
(01:55):
the news as an independent anchor where you really get
to I'm sure you had a lot of creative corol
and freedom at CNN, but now you really have no restrictions.
Nobody telling you anything. It's all you.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
Well, it's two things I think that are most important.
One you said freedom. There's freedom, editorial freedom.
Speaker 5 (02:12):
I probably had the most editorial freedom on my own
network than anyone because at the time of I was
ob this is the last show on the air, right
and it was at night, so I had a lot
of editorial freedom, and maybe the bosses weren't even watching
at that time, so you know, but I have even
more freedom here to say and do whatever I want.
Speaker 1 (02:26):
And it's mine. I get to do. I get to
cover whatever I want.
Speaker 5 (02:30):
There was a time that I'd have to ask and
get permission from everyone just to be on your show,
and they would, you know, it would go through the
SMP and they'd say this is not worthy, this is worthy.
I get to decide what's worthy. I get to decide
where I go, so I am my own person. But
the most important thing I think is that this is
a community and independent media. You build a community. It's
(02:50):
from the it's grassroots.
Speaker 1 (02:52):
From the ground up.
Speaker 5 (02:53):
People are actually engaged with you. They feel that you
are a part of their family so to speak. I mean,
people do say I feel like you're a part of
my family because I go to sleep with you every night,
you know, and so on and so forth. But also
it's not just me sitting on an anchor desk, you know, pontificating.
It's me talking to the viewers, trying to figure out
(03:15):
what is interesting, what they want. And also I have
the complete freedom just to be honest with them and
they appreciate that, and just to be myself.
Speaker 1 (03:23):
I do a show.
Speaker 5 (03:24):
I do this show which is in my studio now,
and you know, it's a nice, beautiful studio in Manhattan
on Park Avenue.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
It's great.
Speaker 5 (03:31):
But the show that gets the most engagement is a
show that I do for my living room. I do
a live show at five o'clock every day, Lemon Live
in my living room every day, where I talk about
what's happening in the news, and I take questions and
comments from the viewers live from the comment section. And
people are so engaged they call themselves a lemonheads or.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
Lemon nation, and that's what I.
Speaker 5 (03:53):
Really love about it. So that's the most important thing.
I get to build a community. It's not just a
one way conversation. And also I have complete toial freedom.
Speaker 6 (04:01):
When you talk to anchors at CNN or MSNBC. So
I write for the Intercept when I'm not doing this program,
and all of me talking to them about stories that
we've done. Often here, God, we could never put that
on air. We just couldn't do that. And I'm curious
how often you kind of ran up against those constraints
as an anchor, and whether it was about ratings or
(04:23):
whether there were other kind of political or commercial interests
that would would require you just kind of internally or
within your staff to say, yeah, we just can't touch that.
Speaker 5 (04:35):
Well, you know, I don't know if I ever had
that problem, and I don't want to. I'm not going
to disparage my own network because I loved working at CNN.
I love the folks there. They're the best journalists in
the world, I believe. But as I said, I had
more editorial freedom than I think anyone on the network,
And if I wanted something covered, then I could cover it.
Speaker 1 (04:52):
If even if I couldn't.
Speaker 5 (04:53):
Devote an entire program to it, I could devote a
segment to it, or just you know, I could just
come on the and say this is important to me,
and you know, and I would just say it in
a monologue and then be done.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
With it.
Speaker 5 (05:06):
But when you work for company A, you do things
the way Company A does it. If you work for
company B, you do things away company B does it.
And I think that we develop regardless of what network
we're in. We develop sort of, you know, we have
this myopic lens, we have blinders that we do things
the way that it is done. And I find that
since I've left that my media appetite has no media
(05:28):
diet has you know, changed, And so I feel like
I feel like I'm much more aware of what's going
on in the world because I'm not just focusing on
what are the big things in the news that are
going to make air on this particular network. And so
there were things, Yes, there were things that I would
like to cover, but they just didn't bubble up high
(05:49):
enough right into the things that we were discussing on
the network. And I'm not sure that's necessarily bad. That's
just the way that it was done. If you look
at Fox Box Has, you know, they have a different
editorial plan or edic, then CNN, CNN has a different
one than MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
For the most part, they're the same.
Speaker 5 (06:13):
When you come out there covering the same stories, but
they somehow do it differently because they do it the
way that their company does it. So it wasn't really
a problem for me. But I understand your question. There
are certain things that just probably didn't bubble up.
Speaker 4 (06:25):
And when we were thinking about this interview, Ryan had
an idea to play this clip of Nom Chomsky that
is really popular on the left. But this is kind
of a perfect segue into it because he talks about
the Chomsky theory. You know, whether or not you agree
with it. Don It's interesting is that basically a lot
of the different cable networks speak in one voice ultimately,
(06:47):
because there's almost a class bubble that a lot of journalists,
especially at the cable networks, find themselves in. So let's
just roll this one minute of Nome Chromsky and then
we'll get your reaction done.
Speaker 1 (06:59):
I'll have to I think I know some of them.
Speaker 7 (07:01):
Well, I know some of the best and best known
investigative reporters in the United States. I won't mention names,
but whose attitude or the media is much more cynical
than mine. In fact, they regard the media as a sham,
and they know and they consciously.
Speaker 3 (07:17):
Talk about how they try to.
Speaker 7 (07:20):
Play it like a violin. If they see a little opening,
they'll try to squeeze something in that ordinarily wouldn't make
it through. And it's perfectly true that the I'm sure
you're speaking for the majority of journalists who are trained,
have it driven into their heads that this is a
crusading profession, adversarial we stand up against power, a very
(07:40):
self serving view. On the other hand, in my opinion,
I hate to make a value judgment, but the better journalists,
and in fact the ones who are often regarded as
the best journalists, have quite a different picture, and I
think a very realistic one.
Speaker 1 (07:54):
How can you How can you know that I'm self censory?
Speaker 7 (07:56):
How can you have self censory? I'm sure you believe
everything you're saying, But what I'm saying is you could
believe something different.
Speaker 1 (08:02):
You wouldn't be sitting where you're sitting.
Speaker 3 (08:04):
I had just seen that clip before. What'd you think
I had?
Speaker 1 (08:07):
I hadn't seen that clip before. Well, listen to me, No,
johsk would not want to go up against the right.
I think he just basically sort of said what I
said in different words.
Speaker 5 (08:18):
If you see something or you believe something that you know,
you find an opening you sort of squeeze it in,
which is basically what I was saying, and my previous
answer to you that there was something I found.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
Important, I would find a way to get it in.
Speaker 5 (08:28):
And obviously, look, I'm no longer, you know, in traditional
legacy media. So he says, if you believe something, if
you believe differently, you wouldn't be sitting where you're sitting now.
So I'm not sitting where I was sitting before. So
obviously there was something that I else said I believe.
Speaker 4 (08:45):
And you know, I have a question on that, actually,
because I don't think either of us is interested in
getting into any drama with your old network. But I
do think the Nikki Haley comment what I found it
hilarious frankly, but we don't have to get into it.
All I want to say is is that an excuse
to purge you? Do you feel like that was Do
you think that your former colleagues cared deeply about Nicki
(09:06):
Haley's feelings or do you think that was sort of
a fig leaf to start purging maybe allies of Jeff Zucker.
What's your read on that whole situation, because you, I
mean you did I think apologized for it, and everything
sort of spiraled from there. It seemed like from the outside.
Speaker 1 (09:20):
At least, look at my faith.
Speaker 4 (09:25):
In your crime.
Speaker 5 (09:26):
I will let your comments stand if you think, I think.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
That you are a very smart woman, and I will
just let it stand.
Speaker 3 (09:37):
Enterprime, no doubt, right of course.
Speaker 6 (09:39):
So one of the criticisms I had of CNN over
over the years is around its coverage of the of
the kind of left wing of the Democratic Party, and
in particular missing the kind of twenty six the energy
behind the twenty sixteen Bernie Sanders campaign, and then missing
miss again the second time around. Like you know, twenty twenty,
(10:03):
Bernie Centers almost seized the nomination and it seemed to
catch the media flat foot at both times. I'm curious
what your editorial meetings were like throughout twenty sixteen and
twenty twenty or was there just so much Trump that
there just wasn't kind of the oxygen for the Democratic primaries.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
Well, I want to make sure I understand what you're saying, Brian.
Speaker 5 (10:24):
What are you asking me that that you think that
Bernie Sanders wasn't given his do in in traditional media?
Speaker 1 (10:30):
Is that what you're saying is.
Speaker 6 (10:32):
Yeah, yeah, and let me yeah, and let me and
let me tell you a little story about that real
quick like. So in February of twenty twenty, you remember
Rebecca Cutler, the old head of CNN talent, She reached
out to or somehow we got connected when I'm back
still at the Intercept, I was the Intercept at the time,
and she said, look, we have really missed the boat
(10:54):
on covering the left wing of the Democratic Party, like
we need people who have covered that before and who
understand this rising progressive energy. And so CNN brought me
in and said, look, we need to get you on
some of these programs because we need somebody, you know,
who can speak to this obviously now rising energy within
(11:15):
the Democratic Party. And then that that happened a couple times,
and then Bernie lost the South Carolina primary and got
wiped out on Super Tuesday, and they said, actually, nevermind,
We're good. We don't need to worry about this kind
of progressive wing. Maybe maybe in four years if it
if it bubbles back up. But there was a there
(11:36):
was a fear inside CNN reflected through Rebecca's outreach that
they had missed something fundamental about the country that was
represented by the rise of Bernie Sanders.
Speaker 5 (11:47):
I don't know what conversation you had with Rebecca, who
I know, and so I won't get into that, but
I think if there was any outreach for you to
cover something that was happening in the news of the
zeitgeist politically, I think that Rebecca should be commended for
recognizing that. The second part is that I've never heard anyone,
(12:09):
anybody say that CNN should be more left, So you know, hey,
there's a first time for everything. I didn't necessarily think
CNN was left. I thought that CNN was about facts.
I think CNN is the best journalist in the world.
But I also think you asked me what my editorial
meetings were like. I mean, no one was trying to
push Bernie Sanders, and at least in my editorial meetings,
(12:29):
and I would venture to speak for the network. Now, well,
I'll speak for myself. I don't think that anyone was
trying to push Bernie Sanders out. I think that Bernie
Sanders may have had this sort of outsized influence with
a certain segment of the Democratic Party. But all polls
in twenty sixteen pointed to Hillary Clinton. All polls in
(12:49):
twenty twenty, and public sentiment pointed to Joe Biden. And
so what was shocking, I think to myself, was the
the reaction from Democrats to the nomination of Hillary Clinton
instead of Bernie Sanders in sixteen, especially in twenty twenty.
(13:10):
You know, I couldn't get to gauge it because I
didn't get to go to the conventions. I think that
was around, you know, because of COVID. But here's a
shocking thing. We so networks have editorial calls or meetings
with campaigns right to figure out how you're going to
cover the campaigns. When I in my experience meeting having
those editorial calls and meetings with the Trump folks, they
(13:33):
knew every single thing that was happening in the meeting,
every single thing that Don Lemon had ever said about
Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (13:40):
His folks knew about it.
Speaker 5 (13:41):
They knew where to place him, they knew who they
wanted him to talk to, They knew who they want
him to call into or do in person interviews. By contrast,
the Clinton campaign was so above it that you know, hey,
you know, they had no idea what I was saying
about Hillary Clinton or whatever they were. You know, she
didn't not have as much media outreach. She got to
(14:02):
pick and choose where she went and rather than just
doing what Donald Trump did. So listen, I think that
the Hillary but yet and still the public wanted Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 1 (14:12):
They didn't want Bernie Sanders.
Speaker 5 (14:14):
So I say that to say, when after all of
you know, Republicans did not love Donald Trump, they held
their nose and they voted for him. All of the
never Trumper was all of the people, you know, from
Ted Cruz on down. When he became the nominee, everyone
got behind him.
Speaker 1 (14:30):
When we were at the convention, it was Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump.
It wasn't jeb it wasn't you know, Cruise, it wasn't Ruby,
it wasn't any of those people. By the time we
got to the Democratic Convention and Hillary.
Speaker 5 (14:43):
Clinton was a nominee, people were yelling Bernie, Bernie, and
we were like, what the hell is going on? So
I think that Bernie Sanders, that that wing of the
Democratic Party actually did it as much, if not more
damage to Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump.
Speaker 6 (15:00):
So look, but I think that's I think that's an
interesting I think any question to be asking is to
say what.
Speaker 1 (15:07):
I think Bernie is a fantastic politician.
Speaker 5 (15:10):
But I do think that there is a lesson in
it for Democrats that you have to get behind the
person who is the actual nominee and you cannot have
sour grapes of the person who did not become the nominee.
Speaker 1 (15:20):
That's how the process worked.
Speaker 5 (15:21):
So I know that people are upset and they're upset
about the progressive wing and they don't think it gets
covered enough. But this is where we are. The nominee
of the person is Joe Biden. The nominee of the
person then was Hillary Clinton. I think the Bernie Sanders
progressive wing of the party should have gotten behind should
have gotten behind them, And that's the reason, one of
the reasons, the main reasons that we're in the predicament
(15:42):
that we are now and that.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
We had a Trump presidency.
Speaker 6 (15:45):
But I guess the point would be if CNN anchors
are at the twenty sixteen convention saying, what the hell
is going on? That's kind of reflective of the time
that I was making that you guys should have seen
this coming and should have own what was going on,
where this we knew it was, where this anger coming from.
Speaker 5 (16:04):
Just because we're realistic about who the nominee is doesn't
mean that we didn't see that, didn't see it coming.
Bernie Sanders was not going to win. Bernie Sanders was
not going to be the nominee. So I turned to
my producer and said that I'm not saying this on
the air, but I was.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
Maybe I did say it on the air.
Speaker 5 (16:22):
I was surprised because Republicans fall in line. Democrats fight
each other, Democrats usually wet the bed. I'm sorry for
Bernie Sanders was not the nominee, nor was he ever
going to become the nominee. And I know that people
are upset by it, but that's the truth. It's the
same thing for Republicans. Nikki Haley is not the nominee.
She's not going to become the nominee. Donald Trump is
a nominee, regardless if you like it or not. The
(16:43):
guys in court and guess what, Republicans are going to
fall in line, and if Donald becomes the president again,
it'll be because Republicans fell in line.
Speaker 4 (16:52):
One of the things I think I was just one
of the things I think it's cool about. Like Ryan
and I have both been critical of you. You've probably
been critical of independent media. This is the first time
we've ever talked in the past. But one thing that
I considered a low point, honestly in media coverage of
Donald Trump was the segment with you and Rick Wilson
talking about credulist Boomer Rubes. And I wonder, honestly if
(17:14):
there's an argument that sort of seeing other Americans through
that lens, and maybe now in independent media it's easier
not to but seeing other people through that lens of
you know, credulous Boomer Rubes laughing.
Speaker 5 (17:30):
At Rick Wilson about that wasn't my That was not
my assessment of that. I was laughing at the Ukraine
on a map thing.
Speaker 1 (17:35):
That was my point.
Speaker 5 (17:36):
I did not make any comments about Americans. So you'll
have to talk to Rick Wilson about that.
Speaker 6 (17:42):
And I get but I guess there's an interesting mirror
going on where, you know, the Trump the Trump supporters
see that clip and they felsted in that, yeah, and
they feel.
Speaker 3 (17:53):
Like they're not being represented. Bernie.
Speaker 6 (17:55):
People feel like, you know, they're not being represented on CNN.
And and to the point about the polling that you mentioned,
just one point on Joe Biden's pulling. Joe Biden was
not polling ahead. You had said that Joe Biden was
pulling ahead. Joe Biden was in the toilet the entire time.
He finished fourth in Iowa, fifth in New Hampshire, got
annihilated in the data.
Speaker 1 (18:16):
He got to the convention.
Speaker 6 (18:18):
Yeah, and then he won after one hundred and seventy
five million dollars in free media between Nevada and South Carolina.
And then he wins Super twos and he won the nomination,
no doubt about it. But he wasn't pulling ahead before.
Speaker 4 (18:31):
That is the sort of establishment media doing a good
enough job of connecting with the country in the way
that after twenty sixteen, newsrooms reckoned both with the sort
of Bernie Sanders phenomenon he won my homestate of Wisconsin,
for example, and the Trump phenomenon, and they said, for example,
Dean Baquet at the New York Times said, we don't
get religion. Has that gotten any better? Has it gotten worse?
(18:53):
Is the media in a sort of insulated You said,
your studios on Park Avenue the sort of a good
symbol right there, Like do people in the media know
people love people respect people.
Speaker 5 (19:04):
Students on Park Avenue doesn't have to do with anything
I mean your studios in Washington, d C. Park Avenue
is part of America.
Speaker 4 (19:09):
Well, no, I mean I don't disagree with that. Stephanie
Rule said the same thing, actually, but I am asking
you basically, we make an effort to talk to people
in different parts of the country. That's why I'm asking
does the media do a good, good enough job on
a class basis, not even a I think it.
Speaker 5 (19:24):
Does a great job of talking to people from you know,
from all parts of the country. I mean when I
turn on Look, I'm not in legacy media anymore. When
I turn on legacy media, I see the left wing
of the Democratic Party overrepresented. I see the right wing
of the Republican Party overrepresented. There's always there's always panels
about what do maga people think nobody understands those people
(19:45):
and that they're overrepresented in media. The same thing happened
with the Bernie Sanders thing. The Sanders the left wing
of the party, it's overrepresented. Bernie Sanders getting is not
getting a fair shake. I think that it's over representation.
I just think, like listen, time to move on. Bernie
Sanders was not the nominee in twenty sixteen. We can
go back and litigate it. Now we've got a lot
(20:06):
of you know, unearned media or earned media.
Speaker 1 (20:08):
In twenty sixteen, it's over. We can't go back and
litigate that. The same thing with twenty twenty. That's over.
Speaker 5 (20:13):
We can't go back and litigated. What we can do
is try to be better moving forward. So I do feel, honestly,
now that I'm in independent media, I do think that
the fringes of the parties, both parties are over represented
in the coverage in independent media and in legacy media
as well.
Speaker 6 (20:31):
Why do you think legacy media is fading and independent
media is rising your what's your theory of that case?
Speaker 1 (20:37):
Well, I don't think it's because they're so terrible the
way that they are covering the news.
Speaker 5 (20:41):
I think they do a really good job of covering
the news because they have.
Speaker 1 (20:43):
A ton of resources. I just think it is the way.
Speaker 5 (20:47):
I think it's the advertising around it, because media is
so fractured now there are other places for advertisers to
put their money and so and there are just other
it's just other forms of media. Now you have way
more channels. He used to just be like, you know,
you had three ABC, CBS and NBC and then cable
came along, and then all of a sudden, the Internet
(21:07):
came along, and then social media came along.
Speaker 1 (21:09):
I just think it's fractured.
Speaker 5 (21:11):
So I'm not saying I don't believe that it's some
indication that traditional media is bad and therefore people aren't
tuning in. I just think there are more places to
tune in now and so the audience is shrinking.
Speaker 4 (21:22):
Also curious if you've talked to Elon Musk since he
canceled the partnership, have you heard anything from him at all?
Speaker 1 (21:29):
You know, I have a text message from him right now. No.
Speaker 4 (21:34):
Well, on that note, actually, Elon Ryan has sent some
reporting on this Elon's censorship in different parts of the
world with X What do you think is the right
balance when it comes to content moderations obviously one of
the biggest challenges facing lawmakers, facing businesses, executives in Silicon Valley.
You now have a show that is on some of
these streaming platforms. How do you think about, you know,
(21:57):
what that sort of balance between and just allowing people
to speak and get everything out there. Elon's doing that
sort of in the States now, not necessarily in other
parts of the world. But what do you make of
that done.
Speaker 1 (22:11):
I'm not sure what your question is. If you can
just tell me what I guess.
Speaker 6 (22:15):
Put it this way, like one of the disputes that
you had with Musk was the definition of censorship versus moderation.
You would say there ought to be there ought to
be moderation. He was saying anything beyond taking down, you know,
illegal posts is censorship.
Speaker 3 (22:32):
So where where would you draw the line.
Speaker 6 (22:34):
Let's say all of a sudden, Saudi Arabia comes to
you and says, here's forty five billion dollars, we actually
want you to own Twitter rather than elon Musk. How
would you go about I think platforms figuring out the difference.
Speaker 5 (22:49):
I think platforms that have moderation obviously do better than
platforms that don't. If you look at what's happening with
Twitter now, then you one would understand that if you
look at a platforms that moderate, even the independent media
who's on YouTube has moderation, right, even TikTok that I
know people are upset because it's China, China owns it,
but there's moderation there. There's moderation on Facebook, there's moderation
(23:11):
on Instagram. And I think that I would draw the
line at hate speech. I would draw the line at
anything that is that puts people in danger.
Speaker 1 (23:21):
And I would draw the line at where.
Speaker 5 (23:24):
When people who go into synagogues or churches or supermarkets
say that they admittedly became radicalized in part because of
social media. I think you need to look at that
and you need to take it seriously. So I would
draw the line at that. And if you're going to
if you want to say it's okay, look at this
(23:46):
is it's Elon Musk's that part.
Speaker 1 (23:49):
This is bat and ball. He can do it whatever
he wants to do with it.
Speaker 5 (23:53):
But I do think that there you have some degree
of responsibility to keep people safe, and you have it
should be responsible enough that you listen to those who
disagree with you, and that you have different voices on
your platform. Every organization has rules that must be followed,
(24:15):
and if you're going to be on that platform, then
you need to follow the rules.
Speaker 1 (24:19):
He even has content rules on his.
Speaker 5 (24:22):
Platform, and the content rules on his platform should be followed.
Speaker 1 (24:27):
And if they're not, then why are they there?
Speaker 5 (24:30):
So I think you would draw the line really at
hate speech, in anything that puts people people's lives in danger.
Speaker 1 (24:35):
And a lot of what's on social media.
Speaker 4 (24:37):
Does that the constitution protects a decent amount of hate speech,
if not most hate speech. So is it Do you
think it's for a business reason, because I actually think
that's an interesting argument that for a business reason these
platforms should be engaged in content moderation because their consumers
feel unsafe, feel miserable when they're on these platforms that
(24:59):
are with hate speech. Or is it just sort of ideologically,
maybe it's a combination. We should keep people from hate speech,
people should be protected from hate speech.
Speaker 1 (25:10):
Whether I think that.
Speaker 5 (25:12):
I don't think content should be you know, pushed to
young girls that make them feel less than I don't
think that content should be pushed to young men that
makes them feel that they, you know, can go and
shoot up supermarkets and kill people, kill Jews, kill blacks,
kill gay people. So I think for human reasons that
there needs to be moderation. I think for common sense
(25:34):
there needs to be moderation. That whole idea that you know,
free speeches is a you know, wild wild west.
Speaker 1 (25:41):
I think that's BS.
Speaker 5 (25:42):
I don't think that's what the our founders meant when
they said freedom of speech. You're free You're free to
say whatever you want, but you must suffer the consequences.
Speaker 4 (25:49):
We had Stemm Rehersch on this show last year talking
about his reporting that implicated the CIA and blowing up
nord Stream pipeline. Is that is that beyond the bounds
of disinformation from your perspective, because there are some people
that would say this is, you know, Russian propaganda, this
is disinformation? Is that something? How do you sort of
beyond how?
Speaker 5 (26:08):
I think it has to be true if it's going
to be on your platform, And again, if you people
can create the rules of whatever they want to on
their platform, your organization, whatever organization you.
Speaker 1 (26:16):
Belong to, you have rules. I have my own rules.
Speaker 5 (26:18):
CNN has rules, MSNBC has rules, Fox has rules.
Speaker 1 (26:22):
X Corporation has rules.
Speaker 5 (26:23):
Everyone has rules that their employees are people who are
going to take part in whatever platform that they have
or if you're going to work there, they have rules,
and I think you need to follow those rules. And
I think that that company gets to set what those
rules are. But I think at the very least, especially
when it comes to journalism and it comes to the
freedom of the press.
Speaker 1 (26:42):
That before you put it out there, you need to figure.
Speaker 5 (26:44):
Out whether it's true or not. You just can't throw
it out there and expect it to be okay. I
don't believe that, and I think most sane people would
agree with that.
Speaker 6 (26:56):
Let me ask you a totally unrelated question. You know,
just my strength lies in kind of writing and reporting,
kind of behind a desk, typing away the instant wretch.
The whole TV presenting thing is not like, it's not
the thing I'm really good at. You're quite good at
the whole TV thing. Like even people who would disagree
(27:18):
with whatever you're saying, like as a presenter, you're quite
skilled at it. So what what tips do you have
for people like me and Emily who this isn't really
our thing, but we find ourselves in front of this
camera anyway.
Speaker 5 (27:33):
Look, my tip is that you should just be yourself,
and you know, if I can just be honest. You
guys are saying, you know, where's the teleprompter before? Like
I would say, challenge yourself. You don't need a teleprompter.
I just think that you should be Ryan and Emily and.
Speaker 3 (27:48):
I also we did we did skip the teleprompter.
Speaker 4 (27:50):
Actually we did it live.
Speaker 1 (27:53):
Ryan and Emily.
Speaker 5 (27:54):
But I also think listen I'm just going to tell
you there were there were many things, and there are
many things in the media that I disagree with, But
I'm also tethered to reality, and so i may want
the outcome to be something different.
Speaker 1 (28:05):
I e.
Speaker 5 (28:06):
Bernie Sanders, but it is. As my mom says to
me all the time, it is what it is. And
so when it is what it is, you know, you
make your case, you argue it or whatever.
Speaker 1 (28:14):
And then you move on.
Speaker 5 (28:15):
And so I think that many times, especially in independent media,
I find people getting stuck in arguments and old arguments
and things that are no longer in the zeitgeist and
are no longer important anymore, and I think it's important
for so my advice to you would be to.
Speaker 1 (28:32):
Get with the program. To go out and talk.
Speaker 5 (28:35):
To those people who are on college campuses, to see
what you know, why they're on, you know, either for
or against protests, no matter how you feel about it.
Speaker 1 (28:43):
To talk to the politicians.
Speaker 5 (28:44):
I would encourage you to talk to more people who
are in traditional media, and if you can change their
minds about certain things, I would say do it.
Speaker 1 (28:50):
I would say go on those shows.
Speaker 5 (28:52):
But I would say the most important thing is to
have an open mind about everything about guests who come
on your program, about what you're talking about, what you're
trying to convey to the audience. It's just to have
an open mind and to be curious, be less judgmental
and more curious.
Speaker 3 (29:12):
I think that's well.
Speaker 6 (29:13):
I was hoping for tips more about how to deal
with all these cameras in the studio setting. And you
should see the time transitions, you know, of this stuff.
Speaker 5 (29:24):
I tell you this, Okay, Ryan, I'm wearing a light
blue shirt. Right, Dark shirts don't really work that well.
Speaker 3 (29:30):
That's the kind of stuff I need.
Speaker 5 (29:32):
You need a nice white crisp shirt always looks good
with a with a you know, with a nice tie.
Speaker 1 (29:40):
Right.
Speaker 5 (29:42):
Blue suits black suits on television are a little drab
and stay a little now we're talking, so you need,
like do a blue suit, or like me, you know,
do something that's on the blue or that gives a
little pop of color.
Speaker 1 (29:56):
Don't be afraid. Don't think it's good. People think that
you're you know, you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 5 (30:02):
Wear something that's a little bit out that maybe your
manhood is being questioned because you.
Speaker 3 (30:06):
Wear something uncomfortable with the man.
Speaker 5 (30:08):
So I'll go with that and also a nice haircut.
Haircuts everything in your guy, make sure you keep it
neat and clean.
Speaker 4 (30:14):
He gets accused of having it is real.
Speaker 5 (30:19):
And I am never going to criticize what a woman
wears because you guys get enough of that. So I
like to I like to do that to the guys
because they don't know how you ladies live.
Speaker 1 (30:29):
You got to go to hair and make up. You can't.
Speaker 5 (30:31):
We could wear I could wear Ryan, you can wear
that suit every.
Speaker 1 (30:34):
Day and no one would ever question.
Speaker 5 (30:36):
In fact, every day she would get shipped from everybody
wearing she doesn't dress up, She doesn't what's going what
is she doing with her hair?
Speaker 1 (30:45):
Guys don't get that.
Speaker 3 (30:46):
You can just be you know, well, I'm the exception.
Speaker 4 (30:48):
But yeah, you're totally right. I know we're running to
the end here, But don I have one question about something?
Actually does Tucker Carlson said recently that I don't know
if you guys overlapped at CNN, but he said recently
that social media really changed the way people on cable
news had conversations. That before social media, you sort of
(31:11):
were able to speak more freely because you weren't constantly
thinking about how things were going to get clipped on
Twitter now X or at the time, Facebook, and it
just kind of I mean, I know that you're putting
your show actually on x on all of the streaming
platforms now, So I think people have journalists have adapted.
But I'm curious what you think of that. Do you
(31:31):
feel like there was an era in media where people
actually could have more open conversations without the fear of
sort of getting written up, whether it's you know, conservative media,
liberal media, the blogs, and it was just more it
was easier to talk to people.
Speaker 1 (31:46):
I don't think it's just media. I think it's everywhere.
Speaker 5 (31:49):
I think, you know, even you know, in Washington. I
think our leaders are afraid of being criticized.
Speaker 1 (31:53):
It used to be.
Speaker 5 (31:54):
Now people don't care anymore because it doesn't have the
outsized influence that it once had. With Twitter, people would
concerned about, oh my gosh, people on Twitter are gonna
kill me. I'm gonna be trending or whatever people used
to worry about. I don't think they worry about that anymore.
But I think that happens everywhere. I think that happens
in Hollywood. I think that happens on television for sitcoms,
I think that happens for comedians, you know.
Speaker 1 (32:14):
If you if you want proof of that, I think,
you know.
Speaker 5 (32:18):
Go back and look at the episode of SNL with
Chevy Chase and Richard Pryor talking about me in word
right where they actually use the word.
Speaker 1 (32:26):
You can't do that on television anymore. I wasn't.
Speaker 5 (32:30):
But I do think people were, you know, journalists are
afraid of you know, being you know, getting criticized on Twitter.
I think maybe they are probably executives who were afraid
of criticism on social media because they're afraid of advertisers.
Speaker 1 (32:45):
I think that does happen. So yeah, I think it.
Speaker 5 (32:46):
Happens across all media and through throughout all industries that
people are concerned about, you know, their presence on social media.
I don't think that that's any secret, nor is it,
you know, I don't think it's any big revelation.
Speaker 6 (32:58):
Yeah, I'm curious when when you're out in the world
and engaging with the public, what are the kinds of
questions that you often get, Like when people recognize you,
they come to you, they must say something selfish?
Speaker 1 (33:11):
Can I get a selfie? You see?
Speaker 5 (33:13):
Look, let me tell you I was in cable news
so guess what people say to me when they first
see me.
Speaker 3 (33:18):
I see you in the airport all the time.
Speaker 1 (33:20):
Oh no, not at all. My mom loves you, loves you.
Can I get a picture and send it to.
Speaker 5 (33:27):
You, So that you got the idea of the age
range of the people who are watching. Now that I'm
in independent media, people say, you know, people talk to
me about what I'm doing now because young people are
actually tuned into social media, They're tuned into YouTube there,
some of them are on X now, not as many
as before, but I think that people actually get recognized
(33:50):
more now recently, in recent years than when I was
on CNN before, you know, after the pandemic, after Donald Trump,
after George Floyd. There was a time when I could
not walk down the street without people, and then that
sort of faded because you.
Speaker 1 (34:07):
Know, that just sort of goes away.
Speaker 5 (34:09):
You're not in people's living when people were at home
during the pandemic, so that all they were doing was
watching CNN and I was on all the time. And
so now just getting back to normal times, I think
people recognize me now more from social and social media
and digital streaming media than they do from when I
was in traditional and cable.
Speaker 4 (34:29):
Yeah, that's super interesting, especially the younger audience part of that.
Speaker 5 (34:33):
And actually one question I had for you was about that,
about they just I don't know, they just asked me,
what are you doing now?
Speaker 1 (34:39):
I miss you and see it? Where can I see you? Yeah?
Speaker 6 (34:42):
You lived through a really seismic change when it comes
to not just CNN but kind of the media in general.
And it was fascinating watching it from my perspective because
I was always part of this kind of left wing
of observers who was saying mainstream media needs to drop
this like fake objectivity, this this view from nowhere, this
view from God, and I acknowledge that they have biases
(35:05):
and speak from that perspective and earn trust that way.
That was a very commonly held view, you know, for
many years on the left, and then CNN and ms
put aside, MSNBC. CNN really did that during the Trump administration,
and I remember agreeing with a lot of what CNN
was saying, disagreeing with the decent amount of it, particularly
(35:27):
all the endless focus on Russia. But I also remember thinking, WHOA,
that's a little bit much. You guys are starting to
sound like kind of a democratic mouthpiece, and I also
recognize like they're doing kind of what I asked them
to do for years, but now that they're doing it,
not so sure I like it. And I'm curious what
it was like for you to be involved in that,
(35:48):
Ryan Well, I am. I am.
Speaker 1 (35:50):
Oh yeah, Listen, I don't like that. I don't believe
in that whole.
Speaker 5 (35:55):
I don't believe in the premise of Listen, I'm not
trying to be confrontational. I don't agree with the premise
of what you're saying when people put it in that context,
because listen.
Speaker 1 (36:03):
We all we all, we all view life.
Speaker 5 (36:06):
Through a certain lens, whether we're a journalists or not,
whether you're a woman, a man, black, white, Jewish, Palacini, whatever,
we all viewed the world through our own lenses.
Speaker 1 (36:17):
And it is okay to.
Speaker 5 (36:19):
Come to be a journalist and to have a point
of view.
Speaker 1 (36:21):
That's okay. It is actually okay to be a journalist
and have an opinion. There's opinion journalism.
Speaker 5 (36:25):
So I don't believe in that that bs about. You know,
journalists just have to sit there and go what do
you think?
Speaker 1 (36:30):
What do you think?
Speaker 5 (36:31):
Okay, Fine, that's not how that's not how it works.
I think that, you know, I said you were engaged.
I think that when that was the zenith I believe
of CNN when during that time, and it may have looked,
I think that that we had moved to the left
or that you know, we were somehow becoming an arm
(36:52):
of the Democratic Party. That was only because of the
Republican side and mostly Donald Trump and the MAGA wing
of the Republican Party.
Speaker 1 (37:00):
The facts were not on their side.
Speaker 5 (37:02):
So by the simple fact of pointing out that someone
is lying, that you're getting misinformation, it may think it
may make people think that, oh my god, you must
be on the Democrat side.
Speaker 1 (37:15):
No, you're on the side of truth.
Speaker 4 (37:17):
No, we have to wrap. But that the Russia coverage
was not great.
Speaker 5 (37:22):
The Russia coverage was not great from who, from anyone?
Speaker 1 (37:25):
The Russia coverage wasn't great from anybody.
Speaker 4 (37:28):
A man from corporate media. Yeah, I mean just the
question about fact Donald Trump didn't have facts on his side.
Speaker 1 (37:32):
I think that the Russia coverage on CNN was good.
I think the Russia coverage in the media was good.
Speaker 5 (37:38):
I don't think that it was bad. You may disagree
with it, that's you're a bias. But I actually think
the coverage was good, and I think that people are
smart enough to discern what's true and what's not, what's
real and what's not, and so I don't think that
the coverage was that bad. I don't fall into that category.
And I think people were Look, I think people sort
of romanticize the time that we were in, like people romanticize,
(37:59):
you know, COVID and the protocols that were in place,
and this was.
Speaker 1 (38:02):
Bad and that was bad.
Speaker 5 (38:04):
They don't remember the time that we're in that we
were in, and so, you know, I think that the
media did the best job that they could at the time.
Speaker 1 (38:11):
I don't think that it was terrible.
Speaker 5 (38:12):
We can always look back, you know, from being an
armchair quarterback Monday morning quarterback and saying, oh, you should
have done this.
Speaker 1 (38:18):
Should it would have? Could have? We didn't.
Speaker 5 (38:20):
And again my advice, accept things the way that they are,
learn your lesson and move on.
Speaker 4 (38:26):
Yeah. I was part I was personally wrong on like
some of my early Russia coverage.
Speaker 1 (38:29):
Was personally wrong on that. That's okay, you said it
was wrong.
Speaker 5 (38:32):
That's what happens, and people will say I was wrong.
I think you know where I was. If we made
a mistake and we got something wrong, we would say it.
That's the whole point about having an independent media.
Speaker 1 (38:41):
But you also have.
Speaker 5 (38:42):
To have to have a media that has rules and
that's accountable. That doesn't happen on social media. There's no accountability.
And I think that, but you know, maga.
Speaker 1 (38:51):
Folks realize that, and so they put out disinformation.
Speaker 6 (38:54):
But has has CNN ever said that there actually was
not never proven collude usion between as Trump campaign and
the I don't think that they ever had it.
Speaker 4 (39:04):
Washington posted a whole series rebutting its own coverage.
Speaker 5 (39:08):
Interestingly enough, beyond CNN, I think that there there are
accounts of collusion, but you have to ask c in it.
Speaker 4 (39:17):
Well, Don, you said a couple of minutes ago that
you don't want to be confrontational, but big confrontational is fun.
And we really appreciate, we really appreciate your willingness.
Speaker 3 (39:24):
Actually answer the test question.
Speaker 4 (39:26):
Yeah, thank you for your tips. We appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (39:29):
Thank you very much. It was great talking to you.
Speaker 4 (39:32):
Yeah, we appreciate it so much. Don is the host
of the Don Lemon Show. It's streaming everywhere now. Thank
you so much, Don for joining us.
Speaker 1 (39:39):
Thank you, Ryan.
Speaker 4 (39:40):
We could have kept doing that for three hours. At
some point, it's like I cannot relitigate the extent of
CNN's Russia collusion coverage, which I could argue for hours
was terrible, Like we just are not on the same
page on that, But I thought it was good to
get some contrast.
Speaker 6 (39:55):
Yeah, and my view on that one has always been that,
you know, Putin was clear that you know, he hated
Hillary Clinton. But what CNN and others were saying is
that there was active collusion between the Trump campaign and
Putin and there was just never any evidence to support that.
There was that one meeting in Trump Tower that got
(40:17):
played up a ton that sort of so.
Speaker 4 (40:20):
CNN botched one of those stories.
Speaker 6 (40:22):
Actually I think they did the Alpha Bank anyway. All
that aside, Back when I was at the Hovington Post,
we had MSNBC, CNN, and Fox on all the time.
And I left there in twenty seventeen, and so after
ten years of cable getting blasted at me all day long,
(40:44):
every day, I basically have not watched cable since then
other than what clips get put up on Instagram or
Twitter or whatever else.
Speaker 3 (40:54):
And I think my.
Speaker 6 (40:56):
Mental health in my life is much better for It's
it's interesting to talk to Don knowing that he's like
a big cable guy, but also not having he's not
actually wasn't actually part of my media diet unless he
got clipped onto Twitter saying something crazy.
Speaker 4 (41:10):
And I really meant what I said when I mentioned
that Rick Wilson clip, which we had it pulled up,
but our conversation was going so didn't roll it.
Speaker 3 (41:18):
But we can put it in post that Lemon.
Speaker 4 (41:20):
Is laughing hysterically alongside Rick Wilson and Waliid, just laughing
uproariously at this very classiest impression of a Trump voter.
And that's why I actually just want to say I
genuinely appreciate that Lemon came on the show. I don't
think he knows who the hell we are, but I
genuinely appreciate. I know he's promoting his show, but we're
(41:41):
not ever going to if people don't aren't willing to
do hard things to promote their shows. Frankly, we're never
going to have some of these hard conversations. So good
for him for coming on.
Speaker 6 (41:49):
Yeah, books and new shows are good things because it
forces people to get out and talk to people that
they would not the ones talk to one.
Speaker 4 (41:55):
Hundred percent, and that's why we can't tease exactly what
it is yet. But one of the hottest books of
the last year, last several years. Honestly, we're trying to
set up a debate about.
Speaker 3 (42:04):
That hot we're talking about White Royal Rage.
Speaker 4 (42:07):
It's oh my gosh. Every bookstore I walk past in
DC has like a stack of the It's been rebutted
in like all of these different publications. It's been promoted
in all these different publications. I'd say it's pretty hot.
Speaker 6 (42:18):
Yeah, it's it's a good one. We'll have a good
conversation about that, is it. We're still we're still working
on the scheduling.
Speaker 4 (42:23):
Ryan is white enraged, so he's ready to rumble with
that conversation. But I hope everyone enjoyed this first foray
into some long form. I mean we've done very long
interviews before. We did ted cruise for like a.
Speaker 3 (42:37):
Half an hour, but cruise back here.
Speaker 4 (42:40):
I bet it's come Fridays. That's what we'll be doing,
long form debate, having some of these conversations. Now we can't,
you can't get to everything in a discussion with Don Lemon.
We would It would take us, you know, six hours
probably to do that, but.
Speaker 3 (42:53):
I hope some of the world probably doesn't need that.
Speaker 4 (42:55):
Also getting Don Lemon to respond to the tchromsky climp
clip that he had never seen beautiful.
Speaker 3 (43:01):
I like that beautiful.
Speaker 4 (43:02):
And that's what you get here at counterpoints and breaking points.
So make sure to subscribe to get the version of
the show, the full version of the show early. Other
than that, we'll see you back next Wednesday and next Friday.
Speaker 3 (43:13):
There you go, see you then,
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
The Nikki Glaser Podcast
Every week comedian and infamous roaster Nikki Glaser provides a fun, fast-paced, and brutally honest look into current pop-culture and her own personal life.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.