June 17, 2025 • 19 mins
Former ABC news correspondent Terry Moran insists his after midnight tweet highly critical of the Trump administration and the President was deliberate, truthful and he has no regrets. Amy and T.J. discuss their former colleague’s motives and the impact it may have on an already strained relationship between the press and the public.
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 (00:01):
Hey, there, folks, Robes and I must admit we were
wrong about Terry Moran. Turns out he meant that shit.
And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ,
a bonus episode. We didn't plan on doing this, but Rose,
I am stunned now at this ABC Now former ABC
(00:22):
News correspondent lost his job over a tweety sent about
the Trump administration. Now he's coming out saying I meant
everything I said.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Yeah, it wasn't a mistake.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
And he very clearly states I wasn't drunk because he
knew a lot of folks, including us, thought that was
a possibility presented.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
And we know the guy, Yes, we know him.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
But yes, after midnight on a Saturday night, you fire
off a tweet that is highly critical and very personal
against not only President Trump but his deputy chief of staff.
And it seemed to have come out of nowhere.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
And so there are no.
Speaker 1 (00:58):
Good tweets after midnight on the weekend.
Speaker 2 (01:01):
Nothing good happens after midnight.
Speaker 3 (01:02):
Your mother told you that growing up, and it certainly
holds true with social media.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
I think what was the line?
Speaker 1 (01:07):
It was the one that nothing is opened after two
am except legs and Walmart there you go. That was
the line that they used to say in this out.
I'm not kidding, I hear, I believe. I'm just saying
you shouldn't be tweeting after midnight.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
It doesn't make sense.
Speaker 3 (01:21):
But he not only said that he meant to do
it and that he wasn't drunk while he did it,
he says he has no regrets even after all the fallout,
the fact that he lost his job. He says he
spoke the truth and you should never regret being honest.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
Okay, And that is where we kind of scratched our
heads this morning. Obviously, we know and respect Terry Moran.
We worked with him for several years and he has
a long and even storied career in this business. Has
covered the Supreme Court, has covered the Capitol, covered the.
Speaker 3 (01:54):
White House, covered foreign news. He was positioned in London
for quite some time.
Speaker 1 (01:58):
And he knows better than an anybody that this is
not something in business that is done in journalism that
you can go out and openly not just criticize, but
give a personal, biting attack against someone. This wasn't a
policy issue, Robes. The issue here is he called people haters.
How do you judge that that's your opinion about somebody,
(02:20):
and that's fine, you can have it, but that's no repercussions.
Speaker 3 (02:23):
Not as a journalist, and not as a journalist for
a mainstream network. And the interesting thing is he I
have to admit I expected him to apologize. I expected
him to say I shouldn't have put that tweet out.
I want to make clear that I was angry, upset
about X, Y and Z, and that I took my
journalism cap off in that moment and I became private
(02:46):
citizen Terry Moran in that moment and emotionally said how
I was feeling. But he didn't do any of the above.
Not only didn't he apologize, He said, and this is
what actually really interesting to me, because you were alluding
to this, and we talked about it after we were
done with Morning Run today. You can be critical of
(03:08):
an administration's policies as a journalist by supporting that with facts.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
This was not that, this was.
Speaker 3 (03:16):
An emotional personal assessment that I'm sorry. As a journalist,
you cannot professionally disseminate well and still expect to be
considered a journalist.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
And how can he make the argument that I'm speaking truth?
How can he make the argument that I put that
tweet out and I should not be criticized for it
because I am someone who put out information that was truth,
that was in my heart. How can you say about
another individual that they are a world class hater who
(03:52):
nourishes themselves with him themselves by eating hate. And that
is a fact, and that is truth, and because it is,
I can say it. I don't know how he's making
that argument.
Speaker 3 (04:03):
And to follow up with that he did. Terry Moran
did a couple of interviews on Monday, and in his
interview with The New York Times, the Times was able
to ascertain that Terry Moran admitted he has never met
Stephen Miller. So that's also of note. He doesn't personally
(04:24):
know him, So how can he personally make an assessment
of his Stephen Miller's emotional state or motivation for his beliefs.
Speaker 1 (04:32):
So, you know, I would almost I would almost be
more willing to listen to him, being such a believer
in what his statement was if I knew he had
a long standing relationship personal relationship. Okay, he knows that
guy in a way I don't. He does not even
met the guy.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
No, and he admitted that to The New York Times.
Obviously he's met President Trump, he sat down with him
in April for his one hundred days, and he even said, hey,
when it was questioned or his impartiality was questioned, he said,
when I was a journalist, when I was doing my interviews,
I stand on my interviews. Go back and look at them.
You'll see that I was fair and impartial. But to me,
(05:08):
you can't say that and then put out a tweet
and defend it and say that's my right as a
journalist to tell the truth, and so you can't hold
me accountable for that. It was Look, this is not
something that just I mean, obviously it affected him. He
lost his job, but a lot of folks in media
and journalists were upset about his comments because it was
a gift to anyone on the right who thinks that
(05:31):
all members of the press, all members of mainstream.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
Media, are out to get the right, are out to.
Speaker 3 (05:36):
Be anti conservative, and it fueled that narrative, and so
it actually did damage to a lot of well intentioned,
impartial journalists who are fighting that belief that has now
been reinforced by what Terry Moran not only did in
that tweet. But now what he's saying about his right
to make tweets.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
Like that as a journalist.
Speaker 1 (05:57):
I don't know in what world we could possibly live
in that a journalist could go out and say whatever
they want in their opinion, personal opinion, and then come
back and cover the people they just express their opinion about.
I had every single story we've ever done, sweetheart, we
(06:18):
were on the air, we had an opinion about it,
we had a feeling about it. But you don't let
it come through your reporting.
Speaker 3 (06:23):
It's that simple, correct and look, Terry Moran makes this point,
and of course this is true. We're all human beings
who have had personal experiences, who have families who believe
certain things, who have friends who believe certain things, and
were influenced by all of that in how we think
about not only policy.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
But about politicians.
Speaker 3 (06:45):
Of course, we personally have those beliefs, but it is
our job to set those beliefs and those opinions aside
when we are commenting on and reporting on politics period.
Our job, as I learned in journalism school and through
my career, that our jobs are to report facts and
(07:05):
let the people at home decide what they believe. It
is not our job to tell people what to think
how to think.
Speaker 1 (07:12):
It was a highlight. I'm sure this has happened to you,
especially at your time in cable. Yes, but at CNN
and MSNBC where you were, those are hardcore politics watchers
that watch those and most networks.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
People on those networks were left of center.
Speaker 1 (07:29):
Yes, absolutely, but it was always great. And you never
like criticism and harsh criticism. But when you finish a
political interview or doing a political segment and you start
getting hateful tweets from the left and from the right,
then you probably did a pretty good job.
Speaker 3 (07:45):
You know what's so funny. I've always believed that too.
One of the toughest interviews I think I did in
my entire career was when I got to sit down
with Hunter Biden and I had to ask him about
all of the improprieties that he was accused of. And
when I had folks from the right and folks from
the left saying that I was too harsh or I
(08:06):
wasn't hard enough. But they were both upset with me,
and I had that I had criticism coming from both sides,
and I thought, aha, I did my job.
Speaker 2 (08:15):
I did my job.
Speaker 1 (08:15):
Probably got it right, But how now I can't imagine?
So how about this is it okay? Suppose he was
doing a segment a story next week on President Trump
on ABC News and David Muir tosses to him, Terry
Moran is at the White House force Terry, and he starts, well, David,
(08:35):
this world class hater, this president. Well, he was heading
out today on air Force one a day. Is that okay? Can? Well?
Why is it?
Speaker 2 (08:43):
Of course?
Speaker 1 (08:44):
Why is If that's the case, if you are allowed
to speak your mind, then speak it on TV? Why
are you not allowed to speak it there? There's a
reason for that. I don't understand this guy sixty five
years old. He's got more time in this industry than
he's got decades, more than I have in the industry.
I don't know how he's coming out and making an
argument that this is okay and why hasn't he done
(09:07):
it for sixty five years?
Speaker 2 (09:08):
Correct? He knows better.
Speaker 3 (09:10):
So it's hard for us and we'll get into this
a little bit for me to buy the fact that
he claims nothing prompted this.
Speaker 2 (09:18):
He wasn't drinking, He had a normal night.
Speaker 3 (09:21):
Where he walked his dog in the woods and was
contemplating life and the state of our politics and the
state the world's in He then watched Oceans eleven with
his family, put his children to bed, and then thoughtfully
and carefully sat down at his computer and wrote what
his heart believed was true, and that just.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
I don't buy it with a couple of typos.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
I don't buy it.
Speaker 3 (09:43):
With the typeos we know he is a Everything I
have known of him and from him has been by
the book. He is a very brilliant man. He is
smart as hell. He knows grammar, and I would think
he'd be somebody, especially folks who have been in the media,
we know to check what we wrote twice, three times,
four times to make sure there aren't any factual errors
(10:04):
or even grammatical errors or misspellings, because that obviously can
speak to your intellect. So it's a thing that I
feel like most every journalist does. They know to reread, reread,
think about, and then post or then submit. I have
a hard time believing, with the grammatical errors that were
there and the stream of consciousness type of post it
(10:26):
was that this was something that he sat down to
do with intention, with a clear head.
Speaker 1 (10:32):
You know what he's making. The argument that it was deliberate,
right that he was. He took time, he was reflective.
I'll walk through the woods thinking about where the country was.
He talked about using language. He said, the harsh language
was deliberate. He makes it sound as if he gave
specific thought to the words that he used. If you
have time to slow down and do that, you have
(10:56):
time to slow down and punctuate and make sure you
don't have grammatical errors. It's bizarre. That's something this explosive
that he knew what he was doing. That he claims
he but.
Speaker 3 (11:07):
He claims he was surprised. He told The New York
Times he was surprised by the reaction.
Speaker 1 (11:14):
Might make strike a nerve as well.
Speaker 3 (11:16):
He said, Okay, possibly, come on, he had to know
what he was going to do.
Speaker 1 (11:21):
I'm struggling with this because I'm so always respect I still,
of course, will always respect what he does and has done,
and the time I got I didn't get to work
with him that closely, but more than plenty. I will
always respect that. This is just bizarre to me to
hear him defending coming out and personally attacking people. You
(11:41):
have to cover personally, you're this is a attack, and
keep your job and or or well, you can't.
Speaker 3 (11:48):
You can't do that and keep your job. And so I.
Speaker 1 (11:52):
I'm struggling to find a way to defend him. I
want to find a way to explain this.
Speaker 3 (11:57):
Okay, But in terms of the damage this does to
other journalists who are doing their best to maintain impartiality
and objectivity, I have an issue with what he told
the Bulwark. And this is what he said when they
pushed back, Hey, aren't journalists supposed to remain objective? Isn't
(12:17):
that what you're supposed to do. This is what Terry said,
and I'm quoting him here. There is no Mount Olympus
of objectivity where a mandarin class of wise people have
no feelings about their society. What you have to be
is fair and accurate. And that's when he said, I
would refer to the interview with the President that I did,
(12:37):
or a lot of my work, but fair and accurate.
Would you say calling someone a world class hater is fair?
And how do you know you're accurate? Because you can't
possibly know what someone feels or is, especially if you've
never met them, just because you don't like their policies
or you don't like the reasoning behind their actions.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
It doesn't mean you know who they are deep down.
Speaker 3 (13:00):
So I would take issue with his point where he
is basically saying that he was fair and accurate. And
I also disagree that we're not talking about a mount
Olympus of objectivity. And of course we're not saying that
no one has feelings about things, but you certainly strive
to be as objective as you can be period.
Speaker 1 (13:29):
Stride. You have to be. It's the job you check yourself.
I cried every morning before I came into GMA and
did a story on George Floyd, which I did every
single day after his death. And I have to check
black man, black community at the door and don't get
on TV and go off and get emotional and give
(13:52):
some of my personal feelings about things, even if I
think they are the truth, my truth fact or whatever
else's not. What's done? Robes? What is he talking about?
So I think I didn't know this. This is from
the New York Times article. Maybe this was a plan
all along. Maybe they're suggesting with some of the information,
(14:14):
at least they're reporting that his new venture is a
venture that could be profitable if you are taking on
the Trump administration.
Speaker 3 (14:23):
Yes, so this forum, it's a sub stack. According to
The New York Times, I honestly had never heard of it.
But a lot of anchors, journalists, reporters who have either
left their networks or been forced out of their networks
specifically or particularly if they take an anti Trump stance,
can actually have a really very lucrative income.
Speaker 2 (14:43):
If you're having people pay five.
Speaker 3 (14:45):
Dollars a month, and it says Terry Moranner already has
ninety thousand subscribers. You can do the math. You're talking
about being able to make a seven figure salary if
you are taking on this type of persuasion or this
type of stance.
Speaker 2 (15:01):
Now, in terms of him.
Speaker 3 (15:03):
Saying he was surprised that ABC News let him go
or initially suspended him, and then he's also digging issue
with what ABC's news ABC News's statement was about his release,
he says, we did have an oral agreement. They were
renewing my contract for three more years. He said it
was an oral agreement, not a written one yet. But
(15:25):
he said for them to say that they just decided
not to renew his contract, that they didn't actually have
to take action because his contract was up that week.
He says, that's not that's not fully truthful. Okay, he
said they had a deal. Quote, we had a deal.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
Okay. Well, he announced the Substack deal the same day
that ABC announced he wouldn't be returning. He turned around
and got Substack in line in a matter of hours.
Speaker 2 (15:56):
Seems like he had his ducks in a row.
Speaker 1 (15:58):
Maybe he did, Maybe he didn't. I don't know. Oh,
I don't want, I don't. I'm really am just trying
to make sense of it because this is a guy
who I know has to have known you don't make
it as far as he did in his career by
thinking you can do this, because there's plenty more he
could have said along the way for a long time.
It just doesn't make sense. Look, he wanted to go
out and blaze of glory, not yourself out. Do you
(16:20):
think I don't have a problem with that at all?
If that's what he wanted to do. I'm just struggling
to make sense of why he did it, and I'm
struggling to make sense of how he's justifying it, because
I just don't see how you could think that every report, now,
everybody that's a Trump supporter thinks obviously he was wrong.
(16:41):
But then you have everybody on the other side of
the aisle who looks the Yeah, he spoke the truth.
Leave him alone.
Speaker 3 (16:45):
Not everybody, because I do think journalists have acknowledged, even
if they tend to be left leaning journalists, that this
is doing harm to the industry and to the credibility art.
Speaker 1 (16:54):
I'm just talking about democrat political space.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
People outside of journalism.
Speaker 3 (16:59):
Yes, of course, of course they're saying, hey, finally someone
spoke the truth. But look, you've got jd Vance, the
Vice President, saying it was a full public meltdown, saying
Terry pulled off his mask, exposing himself among the radicals,
adopting a journalist's pose. It's just sad to me in
(17:19):
a field that we both love, that we both have
taken tremendous pride in, and I can speak for us
both saying that we have I know that you and
I both bend over backwards to make sure we try
to not editorialize personal opinions about specific candidates. We will
(17:40):
of course back up anything with facts, and certainly things
can lean one way or the other with when the
facts present themselves. But it is a fine line and
it is a tough job, but this is making it
even tougher. I think for folks who are really trying
to walk that line.
Speaker 1 (17:57):
I wish him well, I really really do. I hope
this for me, to be honest with you, it seemed
like you knew what he was doing, and maybe I
don't have to understand it, or ever will understand it,
but i'd like to. I'm really really curious. But other
than that, look, if he's okay and he's doing this
thing like always, as long as you're not hurting yourself
or anybody else, then I will support what you're doing.
(18:18):
Knock yourself out. I just don't get how this guy,
knowing what we know of him, could go out suggesting
that journalists should speak this way to things they cover,
people they cover.
Speaker 3 (18:32):
Because they think it's the truth versus it being the truth.
And look, I agree with you. Terry Moran has been
a consummate professional. I have relied on his reports, I.
Speaker 1 (18:42):
Have looked forward to him his information that leaned on him.
Speaker 3 (18:45):
Yes, and he has been a huge value, a huge
asset to ABC News for nearly three decades, and I
too wish him the very best. I just wish that
perhaps I tend to believe that there could be a
little bit more trans parency. I think it's hard to
imagine that this was a thought out, deliberate decision that
(19:08):
he continues to defend as a journalist. That's my only issue.
I do wish him the best, and I hope he
has an amazing career going forward.
Speaker 2 (19:17):
Where he says, and this is his.
Speaker 3 (19:21):
Final words that he left with The New York Times,
he said, I am now free to speak my mind,
and for that I wish him well.
Speaker 1 (19:31):
Well, folks, we always appreciate you hanging with us for
a little bit. Just wanted to drop a little bonus
episode because Roboq was really worked up about this one. Well,
thanks as always for listener. We'll catch you'all on the
next one for Angry Robot. I'm TJ.
Speaker 3 (19:44):
Holmes.
Speaker 1 (19:45):
Se y'all soon.
Hey, there, folks, Robes and I must admit we were
wrong about Terry Moran. Turns out he meant that shit.
And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ,
a bonus episode. We didn't plan on doing this, but Rose,
I am stunned now at this ABC Now former ABC
(00:22):
News correspondent lost his job over a tweety sent about
the Trump administration. Now he's coming out saying I meant
everything I said.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Yeah, it wasn't a mistake.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
And he very clearly states I wasn't drunk because he
knew a lot of folks, including us, thought that was
a possibility presented.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
And we know the guy, Yes, we know him.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
But yes, after midnight on a Saturday night, you fire
off a tweet that is highly critical and very personal
against not only President Trump but his deputy chief of staff.
And it seemed to have come out of nowhere.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
And so there are no.
Speaker 1 (00:58):
Good tweets after midnight on the weekend.
Speaker 2 (01:01):
Nothing good happens after midnight.
Speaker 3 (01:02):
Your mother told you that growing up, and it certainly
holds true with social media.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
I think what was the line?
Speaker 1 (01:07):
It was the one that nothing is opened after two
am except legs and Walmart there you go. That was
the line that they used to say in this out.
I'm not kidding, I hear, I believe. I'm just saying
you shouldn't be tweeting after midnight.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
It doesn't make sense.
Speaker 3 (01:21):
But he not only said that he meant to do
it and that he wasn't drunk while he did it,
he says he has no regrets even after all the fallout,
the fact that he lost his job. He says he
spoke the truth and you should never regret being honest.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
Okay, And that is where we kind of scratched our
heads this morning. Obviously, we know and respect Terry Moran.
We worked with him for several years and he has
a long and even storied career in this business. Has
covered the Supreme Court, has covered the Capitol, covered the.
Speaker 3 (01:54):
White House, covered foreign news. He was positioned in London
for quite some time.
Speaker 1 (01:58):
And he knows better than an anybody that this is
not something in business that is done in journalism that
you can go out and openly not just criticize, but
give a personal, biting attack against someone. This wasn't a
policy issue, Robes. The issue here is he called people haters.
How do you judge that that's your opinion about somebody,
(02:20):
and that's fine, you can have it, but that's no repercussions.
Speaker 3 (02:23):
Not as a journalist, and not as a journalist for
a mainstream network. And the interesting thing is he I
have to admit I expected him to apologize. I expected
him to say I shouldn't have put that tweet out.
I want to make clear that I was angry, upset
about X, Y and Z, and that I took my
journalism cap off in that moment and I became private
(02:46):
citizen Terry Moran in that moment and emotionally said how
I was feeling. But he didn't do any of the above.
Not only didn't he apologize, He said, and this is
what actually really interesting to me, because you were alluding
to this, and we talked about it after we were
done with Morning Run today. You can be critical of
(03:08):
an administration's policies as a journalist by supporting that with facts.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
This was not that, this was.
Speaker 3 (03:16):
An emotional personal assessment that I'm sorry. As a journalist,
you cannot professionally disseminate well and still expect to be
considered a journalist.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
And how can he make the argument that I'm speaking truth?
How can he make the argument that I put that
tweet out and I should not be criticized for it
because I am someone who put out information that was truth,
that was in my heart. How can you say about
another individual that they are a world class hater who
(03:52):
nourishes themselves with him themselves by eating hate. And that
is a fact, and that is truth, and because it is,
I can say it. I don't know how he's making
that argument.
Speaker 3 (04:03):
And to follow up with that he did. Terry Moran
did a couple of interviews on Monday, and in his
interview with The New York Times, the Times was able
to ascertain that Terry Moran admitted he has never met
Stephen Miller. So that's also of note. He doesn't personally
(04:24):
know him, So how can he personally make an assessment
of his Stephen Miller's emotional state or motivation for his beliefs.
Speaker 1 (04:32):
So, you know, I would almost I would almost be
more willing to listen to him, being such a believer
in what his statement was if I knew he had
a long standing relationship personal relationship. Okay, he knows that
guy in a way I don't. He does not even
met the guy.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
No, and he admitted that to The New York Times.
Obviously he's met President Trump, he sat down with him
in April for his one hundred days, and he even said, hey,
when it was questioned or his impartiality was questioned, he said,
when I was a journalist, when I was doing my interviews,
I stand on my interviews. Go back and look at them.
You'll see that I was fair and impartial. But to me,
(05:08):
you can't say that and then put out a tweet
and defend it and say that's my right as a
journalist to tell the truth, and so you can't hold
me accountable for that. It was Look, this is not
something that just I mean, obviously it affected him. He
lost his job, but a lot of folks in media
and journalists were upset about his comments because it was
a gift to anyone on the right who thinks that
(05:31):
all members of the press, all members of mainstream.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
Media, are out to get the right, are out to.
Speaker 3 (05:36):
Be anti conservative, and it fueled that narrative, and so
it actually did damage to a lot of well intentioned,
impartial journalists who are fighting that belief that has now
been reinforced by what Terry Moran not only did in
that tweet. But now what he's saying about his right
to make tweets.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
Like that as a journalist.
Speaker 1 (05:57):
I don't know in what world we could possibly live
in that a journalist could go out and say whatever
they want in their opinion, personal opinion, and then come
back and cover the people they just express their opinion about.
I had every single story we've ever done, sweetheart, we
(06:18):
were on the air, we had an opinion about it,
we had a feeling about it. But you don't let
it come through your reporting.
Speaker 3 (06:23):
It's that simple, correct and look, Terry Moran makes this point,
and of course this is true. We're all human beings
who have had personal experiences, who have families who believe
certain things, who have friends who believe certain things, and
were influenced by all of that in how we think
about not only policy.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
But about politicians.
Speaker 3 (06:45):
Of course, we personally have those beliefs, but it is
our job to set those beliefs and those opinions aside
when we are commenting on and reporting on politics period.
Our job, as I learned in journalism school and through
my career, that our jobs are to report facts and
(07:05):
let the people at home decide what they believe. It
is not our job to tell people what to think
how to think.
Speaker 1 (07:12):
It was a highlight. I'm sure this has happened to you,
especially at your time in cable. Yes, but at CNN
and MSNBC where you were, those are hardcore politics watchers
that watch those and most networks.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
People on those networks were left of center.
Speaker 1 (07:29):
Yes, absolutely, but it was always great. And you never
like criticism and harsh criticism. But when you finish a
political interview or doing a political segment and you start
getting hateful tweets from the left and from the right,
then you probably did a pretty good job.
Speaker 3 (07:45):
You know what's so funny. I've always believed that too.
One of the toughest interviews I think I did in
my entire career was when I got to sit down
with Hunter Biden and I had to ask him about
all of the improprieties that he was accused of. And
when I had folks from the right and folks from
the left saying that I was too harsh or I
(08:06):
wasn't hard enough. But they were both upset with me,
and I had that I had criticism coming from both sides,
and I thought, aha, I did my job.
Speaker 2 (08:15):
I did my job.
Speaker 1 (08:15):
Probably got it right, But how now I can't imagine?
So how about this is it okay? Suppose he was
doing a segment a story next week on President Trump
on ABC News and David Muir tosses to him, Terry
Moran is at the White House force Terry, and he starts, well, David,
(08:35):
this world class hater, this president. Well, he was heading
out today on air Force one a day. Is that okay? Can? Well?
Why is it?
Speaker 2 (08:43):
Of course?
Speaker 1 (08:44):
Why is If that's the case, if you are allowed
to speak your mind, then speak it on TV? Why
are you not allowed to speak it there? There's a
reason for that. I don't understand this guy sixty five
years old. He's got more time in this industry than
he's got decades, more than I have in the industry.
I don't know how he's coming out and making an
argument that this is okay and why hasn't he done
(09:07):
it for sixty five years?
Speaker 2 (09:08):
Correct? He knows better.
Speaker 3 (09:10):
So it's hard for us and we'll get into this
a little bit for me to buy the fact that
he claims nothing prompted this.
Speaker 2 (09:18):
He wasn't drinking, He had a normal night.
Speaker 3 (09:21):
Where he walked his dog in the woods and was
contemplating life and the state of our politics and the
state the world's in He then watched Oceans eleven with
his family, put his children to bed, and then thoughtfully
and carefully sat down at his computer and wrote what
his heart believed was true, and that just.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
I don't buy it with a couple of typos.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
I don't buy it.
Speaker 3 (09:43):
With the typeos we know he is a Everything I
have known of him and from him has been by
the book. He is a very brilliant man. He is
smart as hell. He knows grammar, and I would think
he'd be somebody, especially folks who have been in the media,
we know to check what we wrote twice, three times,
four times to make sure there aren't any factual errors
(10:04):
or even grammatical errors or misspellings, because that obviously can
speak to your intellect. So it's a thing that I
feel like most every journalist does. They know to reread, reread,
think about, and then post or then submit. I have
a hard time believing, with the grammatical errors that were
there and the stream of consciousness type of post it
(10:26):
was that this was something that he sat down to
do with intention, with a clear head.
Speaker 1 (10:32):
You know what he's making. The argument that it was deliberate,
right that he was. He took time, he was reflective.
I'll walk through the woods thinking about where the country was.
He talked about using language. He said, the harsh language
was deliberate. He makes it sound as if he gave
specific thought to the words that he used. If you
have time to slow down and do that, you have
(10:56):
time to slow down and punctuate and make sure you
don't have grammatical errors. It's bizarre. That's something this explosive
that he knew what he was doing. That he claims
he but.
Speaker 3 (11:07):
He claims he was surprised. He told The New York
Times he was surprised by the reaction.
Speaker 1 (11:14):
Might make strike a nerve as well.
Speaker 3 (11:16):
He said, Okay, possibly, come on, he had to know
what he was going to do.
Speaker 1 (11:21):
I'm struggling with this because I'm so always respect I still,
of course, will always respect what he does and has done,
and the time I got I didn't get to work
with him that closely, but more than plenty. I will
always respect that. This is just bizarre to me to
hear him defending coming out and personally attacking people. You
(11:41):
have to cover personally, you're this is a attack, and
keep your job and or or well, you can't.
Speaker 3 (11:48):
You can't do that and keep your job. And so I.
Speaker 1 (11:52):
I'm struggling to find a way to defend him. I
want to find a way to explain this.
Speaker 3 (11:57):
Okay, But in terms of the damage this does to
other journalists who are doing their best to maintain impartiality
and objectivity, I have an issue with what he told
the Bulwark. And this is what he said when they
pushed back, Hey, aren't journalists supposed to remain objective? Isn't
(12:17):
that what you're supposed to do. This is what Terry said,
and I'm quoting him here. There is no Mount Olympus
of objectivity where a mandarin class of wise people have
no feelings about their society. What you have to be
is fair and accurate. And that's when he said, I
would refer to the interview with the President that I did,
(12:37):
or a lot of my work, but fair and accurate.
Would you say calling someone a world class hater is fair?
And how do you know you're accurate? Because you can't
possibly know what someone feels or is, especially if you've
never met them, just because you don't like their policies
or you don't like the reasoning behind their actions.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
It doesn't mean you know who they are deep down.
Speaker 3 (13:00):
So I would take issue with his point where he
is basically saying that he was fair and accurate. And
I also disagree that we're not talking about a mount
Olympus of objectivity. And of course we're not saying that
no one has feelings about things, but you certainly strive
to be as objective as you can be period.
Speaker 1 (13:29):
Stride. You have to be. It's the job you check yourself.
I cried every morning before I came into GMA and
did a story on George Floyd, which I did every
single day after his death. And I have to check
black man, black community at the door and don't get
on TV and go off and get emotional and give
(13:52):
some of my personal feelings about things, even if I
think they are the truth, my truth fact or whatever
else's not. What's done? Robes? What is he talking about?
So I think I didn't know this. This is from
the New York Times article. Maybe this was a plan
all along. Maybe they're suggesting with some of the information,
(14:14):
at least they're reporting that his new venture is a
venture that could be profitable if you are taking on
the Trump administration.
Speaker 3 (14:23):
Yes, so this forum, it's a sub stack. According to
The New York Times, I honestly had never heard of it.
But a lot of anchors, journalists, reporters who have either
left their networks or been forced out of their networks
specifically or particularly if they take an anti Trump stance,
can actually have a really very lucrative income.
Speaker 2 (14:43):
If you're having people pay five.
Speaker 3 (14:45):
Dollars a month, and it says Terry Moranner already has
ninety thousand subscribers. You can do the math. You're talking
about being able to make a seven figure salary if
you are taking on this type of persuasion or this
type of stance.
Speaker 2 (15:01):
Now, in terms of him.
Speaker 3 (15:03):
Saying he was surprised that ABC News let him go
or initially suspended him, and then he's also digging issue
with what ABC's news ABC News's statement was about his release,
he says, we did have an oral agreement. They were
renewing my contract for three more years. He said it
was an oral agreement, not a written one yet. But
(15:25):
he said for them to say that they just decided
not to renew his contract, that they didn't actually have
to take action because his contract was up that week.
He says, that's not that's not fully truthful. Okay, he
said they had a deal. Quote, we had a deal.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
Okay. Well, he announced the Substack deal the same day
that ABC announced he wouldn't be returning. He turned around
and got Substack in line in a matter of hours.
Speaker 2 (15:56):
Seems like he had his ducks in a row.
Speaker 1 (15:58):
Maybe he did, Maybe he didn't. I don't know. Oh,
I don't want, I don't. I'm really am just trying
to make sense of it because this is a guy
who I know has to have known you don't make
it as far as he did in his career by
thinking you can do this, because there's plenty more he
could have said along the way for a long time.
It just doesn't make sense. Look, he wanted to go
out and blaze of glory, not yourself out. Do you
(16:20):
think I don't have a problem with that at all?
If that's what he wanted to do. I'm just struggling
to make sense of why he did it, and I'm
struggling to make sense of how he's justifying it, because
I just don't see how you could think that every report, now,
everybody that's a Trump supporter thinks obviously he was wrong.
(16:41):
But then you have everybody on the other side of
the aisle who looks the Yeah, he spoke the truth.
Leave him alone.
Speaker 3 (16:45):
Not everybody, because I do think journalists have acknowledged, even
if they tend to be left leaning journalists, that this
is doing harm to the industry and to the credibility art.
Speaker 1 (16:54):
I'm just talking about democrat political space.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
People outside of journalism.
Speaker 3 (16:59):
Yes, of course, of course they're saying, hey, finally someone
spoke the truth. But look, you've got jd Vance, the
Vice President, saying it was a full public meltdown, saying
Terry pulled off his mask, exposing himself among the radicals,
adopting a journalist's pose. It's just sad to me in
(17:19):
a field that we both love, that we both have
taken tremendous pride in, and I can speak for us
both saying that we have I know that you and
I both bend over backwards to make sure we try
to not editorialize personal opinions about specific candidates. We will
(17:40):
of course back up anything with facts, and certainly things
can lean one way or the other with when the
facts present themselves. But it is a fine line and
it is a tough job, but this is making it
even tougher. I think for folks who are really trying
to walk that line.
Speaker 1 (17:57):
I wish him well, I really really do. I hope
this for me, to be honest with you, it seemed
like you knew what he was doing, and maybe I
don't have to understand it, or ever will understand it,
but i'd like to. I'm really really curious. But other
than that, look, if he's okay and he's doing this
thing like always, as long as you're not hurting yourself
or anybody else, then I will support what you're doing.
(18:18):
Knock yourself out. I just don't get how this guy,
knowing what we know of him, could go out suggesting
that journalists should speak this way to things they cover,
people they cover.
Speaker 3 (18:32):
Because they think it's the truth versus it being the truth.
And look, I agree with you. Terry Moran has been
a consummate professional. I have relied on his reports, I.
Speaker 1 (18:42):
Have looked forward to him his information that leaned on him.
Speaker 3 (18:45):
Yes, and he has been a huge value, a huge
asset to ABC News for nearly three decades, and I
too wish him the very best. I just wish that
perhaps I tend to believe that there could be a
little bit more trans parency. I think it's hard to
imagine that this was a thought out, deliberate decision that
(19:08):
he continues to defend as a journalist. That's my only issue.
I do wish him the best, and I hope he
has an amazing career going forward.
Speaker 2 (19:17):
Where he says, and this is his.
Speaker 3 (19:21):
Final words that he left with The New York Times,
he said, I am now free to speak my mind,
and for that I wish him well.
Speaker 1 (19:31):
Well, folks, we always appreciate you hanging with us for
a little bit. Just wanted to drop a little bonus
episode because Roboq was really worked up about this one. Well,
thanks as always for listener. We'll catch you'all on the
next one for Angry Robot. I'm TJ.
Speaker 3 (19:44):
Holmes.
Speaker 1 (19:45):
Se y'all soon.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.