April 7, 2025 • 28 mins
In this episode of One Thing Trump Did, we take a look at the President's repeated attacks against the press, and how these actions are affecting the media landscape. Jeremy is joined by CNN Chief Media Analyst Brian Stelter. #Trump #Media #AP #CNN #WaPo #FoxNews #FreePress
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 (00:14):
Welcome to One Thing Trump Did, available exclusively on The
Middle podcast feed. I'm Jeremy Hobson. Each week on this podcast,
we're looking at one thing President Trump did, since there
is so much happening, and we try to break things
down in the same rational, nonpartisan, factual way we do
on The Middle. In this episode, our focus is Trump's
attacks on the media. In his first term, President Trump
(00:36):
often called the press the enemy of the American people,
and he publicly feuded with reporters like CNN's Jim Acosta.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
Mister President elect, go to President elect, since you are
attacking our news organization, can you give us a chance?
You are attacking our news organization. Can you give us
a chance to ask a question? Sir?
Speaker 3 (00:53):
Sir?
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Can you say, mister president go ahead, president alike, can
you give us a don't us? Can you give us
a question? Don't be Can you give us any question?
I'm not going to give you.
Speaker 3 (01:04):
You are fake news?
Speaker 4 (01:07):
Sir.
Speaker 1 (01:08):
Well that was then this time around, Trump has already
banned the Associated Press from covering White House press events
over their decision to continue to refer to the body
of water just south of the United States as the
Gulf of Mexico rather than Trump's preferred Golf of America.
He's also sued media organizations and have settled some of
those lawsuits. His FCC chairman is investigating public radio stations,
(01:31):
and now the White House is considering changing up the
layout of the White House press briefings to put some
of the more cheerleading reporters in the front of the room. Well,
joining me now is someone who's been following all these developments,
CNN Chief Media analyst Brian Stelter, who puts out the
Fantastic Reliable Sources newsletter. Brian, Great to have you on.
Speaker 3 (01:50):
Great to be here, Thanks for having me in the middle.
Speaker 1 (01:52):
Okay, so let's go through some of these changes, starting
with the AP. They're still banned from the press pool
because they won't use the term Gulf of America for
the non journalist listening. Why does it matter that the
Associated Press is not getting the access that it has
always had?
Speaker 3 (02:07):
Two big reasons.
Speaker 4 (02:08):
Number One, the Associated Press is one of the biggest
news outlets in the world. It's a foundational part of
the press corps. The first time there was ever a
White House Press pool, it was the Associated Press doing
the work, letting us know if a president was alive
or dead. That goes back more than one hundred years.
So the AP is part of the fabric of the
American news media. When the Trump White House targets the AP,
(02:31):
it's also sending a message that it can take out
anybody else, that even the AP is not too big,
too important to be protected. And the number two, the
real message that Trump is sending is that we should
use his words or else, that what he says should go, period,
end of story. That if he says Golf of America,
(02:53):
if he changes the name inside the US government, then
the entire world should just roll over and do whatever
he wants. And that's a dangerous precedent for a news
organization because it might be the Golf of America or
the Golf of Mexico today, but what's it going to
be tomorrow? And for the AP, it simply can't go
along with what Trump says.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
Well, the AP is fighting back in court. Do you
expect that they'll win?
Speaker 3 (03:16):
I think it's.
Speaker 4 (03:17):
Quite likely the AP will win at least a limited
ruling on First Amendment grounds. Right now, this case is
before a Trump appointed judge who did not immediately rule
in favor of the AP, but did say, you know,
the president in this case benefits the news outlet and
not the government. He basically signaled that this was going
(03:37):
to be a hard case for the White House to win.
Now that said, he also at a recent hearing maybe
wondered where's the line, Where should he draw the line?
Should the AP be required into a really small group events.
He's wrestling with that right now. We don't know how
he will rule, but there is a history of news
(03:58):
outlets being able to challenge and dway House decisions and win.
You remember, during Trump's first term, CNN was in a
spat with the White House when correspondent Jim Acosta's press
pass was revoked. CNN went to court, CNN pretty quickly prevailed.
The Trump white House had to let Acosta back in.
So there is a history here, But this time around,
the Trump white House has been much more aggressive.
Speaker 1 (04:20):
So why won't the AP just to look at it
from the other side, Why won't they just use the
term Gulf of America as others including Google have.
Speaker 4 (04:29):
Because the rest of the world calls it the Golf
of Mexico, you know, because this is a body of
water that is now contested in the same way that
the South China Sea is contested. In this case, the
US government has one name and the rest of the
world has another name, and in an environment like that,
the AP uses both names. The AP says, hey, it's
the Golf of Mexico. That's what's been called for four
(04:49):
hundred years. But Trump has decreed it is the Golf
of America. So essentially, the AP is trying to recognize
the controversy and acknowledge it has clients and customers all
around the world. But in doing so, you know, I
think Trump would say, you're not putting America first, right,
that would be his response, put America first, use the
name that I tell you to use. Ultimately, it's a
(05:11):
power play on Trump's part, and you know, it has
had a little bit of a chilling effect within the
rest of the American news media as journalists try to
figure out what language to use without you know, getting
on the President's bad side, so to speak.
Speaker 1 (05:26):
Speaking of a chilling effect, let's talk about some of
the other lawsuits and settlements which you could say are
even more distressing. ABC News settle the lawsuit for sixteen
million dollars because anchored George Stephanopolos said Trump was liable
for rape rather than sexual assault. And then Meta, which
I would say is a media organization these days, settled
with Trump, who claimed he's been censored by them. Now
(05:48):
he's suing CBS in sixty minutes for the way it
edited an interview with Kamala Harris before the election. Why
are these companies settling with Trump.
Speaker 4 (05:56):
Because in most cases, these are really big companies with
big legal butdton with libel insurance, with the ability to
pay and the ability to make problems go away with money.
You know, it must be nice, right, but that's the
reality for some of these companies. It is cheaper to
write a check and make Trump go away than it
is to fight him, to again end up on his
(06:18):
bad side, to have a protracted legal case, to see
him extract revenge or attribution in.
Speaker 3 (06:25):
Other ways, etc. Etc.
Speaker 4 (06:27):
You know, these companies are making really cynical I would say,
really clear business risk reward, you know, decisions and proceeding accordingly.
But it is very worrisome, and we've heard that from
journalists at CBS News, for example, where this lawsuit against
sixty minutes is hanging over the heads of the journalists
(06:48):
as well as the parent company. You know, for the
context here about Paramount Shery Redstone, who controls Paramount, the
owner of CBS, is trying to suit Paramount.
Speaker 3 (06:56):
She wants to get out of the family business.
Speaker 4 (06:58):
She wants to cash out, take billlions off the table,
go retire, or do something else with her life.
Speaker 3 (07:03):
In order to get that deal done.
Speaker 4 (07:05):
In order to get her billions, she has to win
Trump administration approval for the deal. So that is the
context for this sixty Minutes lawsuit. She sees Trump suing CBS.
She sees Trump wanting to win, wanting to say he
beat sixty Minutes, a program that he is long ranted about,
(07:25):
and so she has personally urged the board of the company,
urged the lawyers of the company to try to reach
a settlement, to try to pay Trump to go away,
so to speak.
Speaker 3 (07:37):
She has not succeeded.
Speaker 4 (07:38):
However, there's been real internal resistance, and I also think
on the Trump side, they're not willing to settle for
the amount that Paramount's offering. So for now there hasn't
been a settlement, and sixty Minutes has been out there
trying to defend itself saying this is frivolous, this is
a meritless lawsuit, which it is. It is a frivolous lawsuit.
But it's a great example of the different incentives that
(08:01):
are in play here.
Speaker 3 (08:02):
Right.
Speaker 4 (08:02):
The incentives for sixty minutes are to do the work,
do the journalism report on Trump fearlessly without favor. The
incentives for the parent company are to write a check
and try to make them go away and bother somebody else.
And that is exactly what we're seeing at these different companies.
And as you said, Meta settled, Disney settled, some of
these big law firms or striking deals.
Speaker 3 (08:23):
Right.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
We just did an entire episode about that. And by
the way, I think also about the Washington Post, owned
by Jeff Bezos, who also owns Amazon and other companies,
and kind of many would say caved to Trump around
the time of the election, and so many people have
left the Washington Post since then. Every time I open
up another newspaper, the Wall Street Journal or the New
(08:45):
York Times or whatever, I see the bylines of people
that used to work at the Washington Post. Do you
expect that a lot of these journalists are going to
leave these companies if they settle with Trump, just out
of principle.
Speaker 4 (08:56):
Every reaction has reactions. I mean, that's what you're describing,
and that's what I'm seeing as well. There are many
of these cases already where a news outlet appears to
be softening itself, currying favor with Trump, trying to take
it easy, trying to lay low, trying not to get
hit by a lawsuit or or a Trump post. And
(09:17):
the result is that some of the journalists either either leave,
speak out, resist in other ways. And that's definitely a
tug of war.
Speaker 3 (09:27):
That's happening right now.
Speaker 4 (09:29):
It's it's maybe more obvious at some places than others.
At the Washington Post, it's really obvious. Bezos has curry
favored with Trump in multiple ways. Trump has returned to
the favor. Trump has been praising Bezos in interviews, so
has Caroline Levitt.
Speaker 3 (09:44):
We've seen this.
Speaker 4 (09:44):
It's it's not like it's in hiding this. In this case,
it is very obvious what is happening. And one of
the results has been this uprising within the Post, especially
on the opinion side. Bezos says he wants to reorient
the opinion pages to be about personal liberties and market
and Bezos is free to do whatever he wants, So
the opinion section, that's historically well within the rights of
(10:06):
the hipper owner to decide the editorial prerogatives of the institution.
But we've seen a number of columnists leave, some launching
their own sub stacks and startups as a result. And
in the newsroom there's a lot of fear that some
of this is going to trickle into the newsroom as
well well.
Speaker 1 (10:22):
And trickling into the newsroom, does that mean that these newsrooms,
because of the fear of lawsuits, are going to be
careful in how they edit interviews or even who they
interview or what stories they do because Trump has scared
them into doing that. Right.
Speaker 4 (10:38):
I made a comment about some of this is more visible.
In other cases it's less visible. It's really hard to
see what's not reported. It's almost impossible to know when
a story is softened or or a word is left out,
or a quote has left out, or a source is
not called for a quote, you know, to some extent,
you know, we're talking about ghosts at this point. But
(11:00):
I do think we're seeing a lot of exemplary journalism
in spite of all the pressure tactics that you and
I are talking about, so I think to give credit
where it's due. You know, the fact checkers of the
Washington Post still.
Speaker 3 (11:11):
Call a lie a lie.
Speaker 4 (11:13):
You know, the journalists, the investigative reporters of the Post
are still trying to chase down leads about agencies that
are shut down in ways that might be illegal.
Speaker 3 (11:21):
The work is still.
Speaker 4 (11:22):
Going on on an individual level, but institutionally, there are
all of these warning signs. There are all these alarm
bells ringing. And that's most of the way I see it.
Do you think that's too optimistic? Maybe no.
Speaker 1 (11:36):
I mean, I look, I still read all these papers,
I still follow the news, so I think I still
trust what I'm seeing. But it is worrying to see
places that are such important institutions kind of not be
as courageous as they once were speaking truth to power
or just holding people accountable. Anyway, stay with us, We're
going to take a quick break. One Thing Trump did
(11:57):
with ceeing in Chief media analyst Brian Stelter. Ope, right now,
(12:17):
welcome back to One Thing Trump did exclusively on the
Middle podcast feed. I'm Jeremy Hobson. In this episode, we're
talking about President Trump's attacks on the media and how
those attacks are escalating in his second presidency. I'm joined
by CNN Chief Media analyst Brian Stelter. Brian, let's talk
about what's happening at the FCC, a little close to
home for those of us in the public media world.
(12:38):
Chairman Brandon Carr has announced he's investigating public radio stations
on the issue of whether they're adhering to the strict
underwriting guidelines that they have to follow that they don't
allow commercials. So, just for audience to understand, I could
say on public radio, funding for the middle comes from
John Deere, maker of a new tractor that comes in
six different colors. More information at John Deere dot com.
(12:59):
But I you wouldn't say funding for the middle comes
from John Deere. They make the best tractor around. Buy
one today at Johndere dot com. I'm not allowed to
do that. That's a call to action. So my suspicion
is that they are not. The FCC are not going
to find any or many violations here. But if the administration,
the Trump administration, doesn't want public radio to have public money,
(13:20):
why go after the private funds like this?
Speaker 3 (13:24):
Intimidation A chill right, A chilling effect.
Speaker 4 (13:27):
We've used that phrase and we're going to keep using
it because that's the commonality between all of these different cases.
I agree with you that the SEC likely will not
find what it claims to be looking for, but I'm
also not sure they're really trying to find it. And
what I mean by that is we've seen Brennan Carr,
the SEC chair, who is very loyal to Trump, who
(13:47):
is hanging out at mar A Lago, who is riding
on Air Force one. He has open investigations into Disney
and Comcast as well. He has sent you know, ominous
sounding letters to lots of different media companies. And sometimes
the claim is about dei initiatives. Sometimes the claim is
about these you know, these sponsorships. But all of it
(14:11):
is of a piece, right, All of is related. All
of it is about using the power of government to
say we're paying attention, we're watching you, we're scrutinizing you
in these cases, we are investigating you, we're looking for wrongdoing.
And you know, a real cynic would say that that's
about trying to apply pressure against these media outlets, trying
(14:31):
to intimidate them, trying to tie up staffers and lawyers,
and you know, spend money in that way. You know,
we do know frivolous lawsuits exist in the private sector
in that way. So there's a version of that with
government as well that I think we're seeing now. I've
talked to Kara a bunch. He would say that he's
just trying to balance the scales. He would say that
the scales have been tipped against conservatives, the government's been
(14:55):
weaponized against the right, and he's just trying to balance
it out. That's what he would say. But I think
this scoreboard is what the scoreboard is. He has encouraged
an investigation of CBS over that sixty minute segment. He
has dismissed a complaint against Fox. You know, the scoreboard
is what it is.
Speaker 1 (15:11):
It's interesting we actually had him on the middle before
Trump came into office, because he was very much in
favor of banning TikTok. It'll be interesting to see now
that Trump doesn't want to ban TikTok anymore, whether Carr
gets in line. I'm guessing probably he will get in
line behind Trump and not be so adamantly against TikTok anymore.
(15:31):
But just on the issue of public broadcasting, I have
to say, as somebody who I've been working in this
medium my entire license. I was a kid in Illinois
hosting a talk show for kids. I'm sort of expecting
right now one day to wake up and see that
Elon Musk has gotten into the Corporation for Public Broadcasting,
locked the doors, kicked everybody out, fired them, and you
know that's it. What do you think.
Speaker 4 (15:52):
I hope you're wrong, but I fear you're right. We
have seen Doege do this at other similar organizations. We've
seen it in recent weeks at the US Agency for
Global Media, have Voice of America and other outfits.
Speaker 3 (16:06):
You know, public broadcasting is.
Speaker 4 (16:08):
Unique though, in that Republicans like to rail against it.
It feels good and it makes for a good SoundBite,
but then they always fund it when it comes time
for Congress to write the appropriation's budget.
Speaker 3 (16:22):
You know.
Speaker 4 (16:22):
So every year in Trump's first term, he came out
claiming that PBS and NPR should be defunded, and then
every year Republicans funded MPR and PBS.
Speaker 3 (16:31):
The The reason is obvious.
Speaker 4 (16:33):
It's because on the local level, in lots of states
and local markets, these stations are really vital, and that
hasn't changed. Of course, the politics have changed around DOGE
and around how this is all talked about. But I
do think it's notable that in polling, you know, we
see there is widespread support for public media. Of course
that doesn't stop Elon Musker DoD from trying various maneuvers,
(16:58):
but there is a lot more support than, for example,
there was for USAID. You know that public media does
have a unique space. But you know, what we're seeing
against public media, what we're seeing against the US Agency
for Global Media, you know, it's all related. I think
of this as like there's a dozen different examples and
we've touched on most of them at this point of
pressure points against the American news media.
Speaker 3 (17:19):
And some of those.
Speaker 4 (17:20):
Pressure points are really easy to access and they're really
painful for the people involved.
Speaker 3 (17:25):
Others are more subtle.
Speaker 4 (17:26):
They can't, you know, put you out of business or
kill the proverbial patient, but they can still hurt. But
they're all these pressure points, and it feels like the
Trump administration's trying to poke all of them at the
same time. Let's file lawsuits, let's try to defund the
public media. Let's try to probe these companies through the
FCC let's threaten their licenses, let's demean them on social media,
(17:51):
let's intimidate them in other ways. It's a dozen pressure points.
They're all being they're all being hit at the same time,
and we don't know how this ends, Like, we don't know.
Speaker 3 (18:04):
What the result of all this pressure is.
Speaker 4 (18:06):
We don't know what the outcome will be of all
this pressure being applied against the free press.
Speaker 1 (18:11):
Yeah, I want to ask about one other thing that's happening.
And it may sound yeah, which one did I forget?
Speaker 3 (18:17):
I'm sure I forgotten the pressure points?
Speaker 1 (18:19):
No, no, no, But there's another thing that's happening just
in general that may not seem that important compared to
these other ones, but maybe it is. You tell me,
the White House wants to control who gets to sit
where in the press room, which has typically been done
by the White House Correspondens Association. Does this matter and
(18:39):
why does the White House want to do this?
Speaker 4 (18:41):
This is another one of the pressure points because of
the symbolic value it has as well as the substantive
impact that it could have.
Speaker 3 (18:50):
Symbolically, the White House is saying.
Speaker 4 (18:52):
We're in charge, we decide, we decide who gets to
sit where, and you know, by extension, what kinds of
questions are going to be asked. Now, we'll see if
this plan is actually put in place, But if it
is put in place, it will also have a real
practical impact because if pro Trump media stars, you know,
(19:13):
I think people say podcasters, but there's actually not a
lot of podcasters that want to cover the White House
every day.
Speaker 3 (19:18):
But there are a.
Speaker 4 (19:19):
Bunch of pro Trump websites, pro Trump digital outlets, pro
Trump streamers that would like to have access more often
if they are put in the front rows, and the
big old newspapers and TV networks that actually have bigger audiences,
if they're kicked into the back rows, that will change
the dynamic of the briefings when the briefings happen. And
we've already seen that with coverage of President Trump. There
(19:42):
are pro Trump personalities that are frequently being added to
that press pool that the ap was kicked out of.
Speaker 1 (19:48):
The guy that's dating Marginie Tayler Green, who went when
Zelensky was in the over loscaid why aren't you wearing
a suit? He was a quote unquote reporter, I guess.
Speaker 4 (19:57):
And it affected Zelensky. It changed the tenor of the conversation,
and we see that on Air Force One when Trump
tastes questions. We see that in the Oval office, in
these small group settings where there are q and as
the questions have already been tilted.
Speaker 3 (20:09):
You know, going back to the idea.
Speaker 4 (20:10):
Of that balance, you know, it's already imbalanced when you
have these opinion people and frankly propagandists who are pretending
to be journalists who are in the room with the
other journalists. I think we will probably see that in
the briefing room when there are briefings. We're also seeing
that at the Pentagon. By the way, some big news outlets,
including CNN were booted from their longtime workspaces, ANDBC is
(20:32):
another example, The New York Times as an example, and
they've been replaced for this year. The Pentagon says it's
a one year change. By names like Breitbard and One
America News, some explicitly pro Trump outlets. At the Pentagon,
there has not been a single press briefing.
Speaker 3 (20:46):
Instead, they put.
Speaker 4 (20:47):
Out videos on x You know that there are not
the traditional examples of engagement with the media. Instead, there
is military propaganda that is supposed to look like news coverage,
and I think We're going to continue to see that
all across the government. And I would say that is
another one of these pressure points because some of these agencies,
some of these department heads, they believe or they want
(21:10):
to try replacing the news media with their own people,
you know, with their own pr people, with their own promoters.
To some degree, that might work in the short term,
I actually don't think it can be that successful in
the long term. I think a lot of what we're
talking about here and genders a backlash among people who
just want to know what is true and real. It
doesn't mean that people are going to rise up and
(21:31):
go go to pro media rallies.
Speaker 3 (21:33):
I'm not saying that.
Speaker 4 (21:34):
You know, journalists are not meant to be popular. You know,
we're meant to be rabble rousers. We're meant to be
asking awkward questions at awkward times, you.
Speaker 3 (21:41):
Know, ya YadA, YadA, YadA.
Speaker 4 (21:43):
But I do think all in total, when you take
all of this together, most people want to know what's
real in the world, and they don't want the government
to be the only source of information. They don't want
to just be told trust Trump, go check his true
social feed to see.
Speaker 3 (21:58):
What's going on.
Speaker 4 (21:59):
No they actually do want people asking real questions and
getting real answers, and so these pressure points are real,
but the reaction to them might be real too.
Speaker 1 (22:11):
There is talk right now of different outlets banding together
to try to stand up to the president just on
this issue of the seating chart. Do you expect that
to happen?
Speaker 4 (22:21):
I think this notion of collective action has been very
difficult to put into practice because, well, let's hit the
White House. For example, there's an association where everybody works
together in a limited way to cover the president when
he's traveling and to get messages out when there's a
small group with the president.
Speaker 3 (22:38):
But we're talking about rivals, you know.
Speaker 4 (22:41):
These are dozens of rivals, dozens of competitors, and getting
everybody who competes every day to work together to preserve
access is difficult. It's doable sometimes in some cases, but
it's really difficult.
Speaker 3 (22:53):
And it's been really difficult with this White House in
part because of these pro Trump outlets that are not
going to go along with it, you know, And so
you have to wonder. You have to wonder, is for
just for fun? Even though there's nothing fun about this.
If every major American news brand didn't show up at
the White House tomorrow, decided to keep its reporters at
(23:13):
the bureau, go out and find other stories elsewhere. Trump
would still have cameras on him at all times. He
would still have adoring fans, posy as reporters asking questions.
Would he get tired of that? Maybe?
Speaker 4 (23:27):
Does he like the back and forth with real journalists,
Yes he does. He actually like to spar with you know,
the New York Times place types places, Yes he does.
But the point is, a a blackout of Trump wouldn't happen.
It's not possible. It just it wouldn't happen. All of
these right wing outlets would fill in the voids. And
(23:48):
that's one of the reasons why I think we haven't
seen collective action on the part of the press corps.
Speaker 1 (23:53):
So, Brian Stelter, let me just finally ask you, and
I'm going to quote. I'm going to read a quote
that I'm sure you've heard a billion times. But Thomas
Jefferson famously wrote a government without newspapers or newspapers without
a government. If he had to choose between the two,
I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.
Do you have faith that, you know, with all these
pressure points on the media right now, that in four
(24:16):
years from now, we're going to have a vibrant and
strong press in this country that is able to do
what they need to do to cover any administration and
what's happening.
Speaker 4 (24:28):
I think for Americans who want a vibrant, healthy press,
there will be.
Speaker 3 (24:33):
My fear is that it'll.
Speaker 4 (24:34):
Increasingly be behind subscription walls or membership walls, or membership
clubs or affinity groups, where you know, only people who
are seeking it out will end up seeing it and
everybody else will see the slop that comes from generative
AI and comes from click baity ad websites and hyperpartisan
(24:55):
brands and disinformation artists. You know, there's this danger of
two tiered media system where people who really want accurate, reliable,
high claud information can get it, and everybody else just
gets entertained by stuff that looks like news but isn't.
And some of the pressure points we've described are hastening
that and encouraging that to happen. But I do think
(25:18):
that the American news media is stronger than any demagogue.
I started saying that in twenty seventeen when Trump started
calling the press the enemy of the people, and I
still believe it's true because the press in this country
is decentralized. Even though local news has been hollowed out,
there are still so many news brands out there, and
it's easier than ever to start.
Speaker 3 (25:37):
A new one. You know.
Speaker 4 (25:38):
Wherever there's a will, wherever there's a way, you know,
people will be able to create and find news sources,
and some can get big enough to stand up to
a demagogue.
Speaker 3 (25:50):
I think that that's real.
Speaker 4 (25:52):
But the dangers are also very real, and I'm glad
to have a chance to talk about them, because when
you add it all up, it is a very real
pressure campaign on many different fronts, and we don't know
how the story ends with regards to, you know, the
health of the American free press. My gut says yes,
(26:12):
in four years, there's going to be new brands. They're
gonna be startups that are launched next month that are
going to matter more than ever. There's going to be
a flourishing of subscriber based media outlets.
Speaker 3 (26:23):
You know.
Speaker 4 (26:23):
Substack is showing one way forward, but so are brands
like The New York Times, you know, and CNN and
lots of other outlets are trying to follow that path,
trying to create new vibrant business models for news. So
I'm optimistic on some fronts about that, but I worry
about who gets left behind in that scenario. And I
really worry about a group of hyperpartisan, really loyal Trump
(26:48):
voters who have given up on the news altogether. Who
And that's not all voters, and that's not all. That's
not all Trump voters. There are many many Trump voters
who who who want to know what is going on
with the government and want Trump held accountable. But there's
this base audience, this magabas, the kind of the folks
who see who go to Trump rallies, and they've given
(27:09):
up on news altogether. And I do wonder what consequences
that's going to have for the country for years and beyond.
Speaker 1 (27:16):
That is CNN chief media analyst Brian Stelter. His newsletter
is called Reliable Sources. Brian, thank you so much for
joining us, great talking with you. Thank you, and thanks
to you for listening to One Thing Trump did. It
was produced by Harrison Patino. Our next middle episode will
be in your podcast feed later this week, where we'll
be asking you how you feel about the first one
hundred days of Trump's presidency. If you like this podcast,
(27:37):
rate it Wherever you get your podcast, keep media alive,
Tell your friends, make sure you sign up for automatic downloads.
Our theme music was composed by Noah Haidu. I'm Jeremy Hobson.
Talk to you soon,
Welcome to One Thing Trump Did, available exclusively on The
Middle podcast feed. I'm Jeremy Hobson. Each week on this podcast,
we're looking at one thing President Trump did, since there
is so much happening, and we try to break things
down in the same rational, nonpartisan, factual way we do
on The Middle. In this episode, our focus is Trump's
attacks on the media. In his first term, President Trump
(00:36):
often called the press the enemy of the American people,
and he publicly feuded with reporters like CNN's Jim Acosta.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
Mister President elect, go to President elect, since you are
attacking our news organization, can you give us a chance?
You are attacking our news organization. Can you give us
a chance to ask a question? Sir?
Speaker 3 (00:53):
Sir?
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Can you say, mister president go ahead, president alike, can
you give us a don't us? Can you give us
a question? Don't be Can you give us any question?
I'm not going to give you.
Speaker 3 (01:04):
You are fake news?
Speaker 4 (01:07):
Sir.
Speaker 1 (01:08):
Well that was then this time around, Trump has already
banned the Associated Press from covering White House press events
over their decision to continue to refer to the body
of water just south of the United States as the
Gulf of Mexico rather than Trump's preferred Golf of America.
He's also sued media organizations and have settled some of
those lawsuits. His FCC chairman is investigating public radio stations,
(01:31):
and now the White House is considering changing up the
layout of the White House press briefings to put some
of the more cheerleading reporters in the front of the room. Well,
joining me now is someone who's been following all these developments,
CNN Chief Media analyst Brian Stelter, who puts out the
Fantastic Reliable Sources newsletter. Brian, Great to have you on.
Speaker 3 (01:50):
Great to be here, Thanks for having me in the middle.
Speaker 1 (01:52):
Okay, so let's go through some of these changes, starting
with the AP. They're still banned from the press pool
because they won't use the term Gulf of America for
the non journalist listening. Why does it matter that the
Associated Press is not getting the access that it has
always had?
Speaker 3 (02:07):
Two big reasons.
Speaker 4 (02:08):
Number One, the Associated Press is one of the biggest
news outlets in the world. It's a foundational part of
the press corps. The first time there was ever a
White House Press pool, it was the Associated Press doing
the work, letting us know if a president was alive
or dead. That goes back more than one hundred years.
So the AP is part of the fabric of the
American news media. When the Trump White House targets the AP,
(02:31):
it's also sending a message that it can take out
anybody else, that even the AP is not too big,
too important to be protected. And the number two, the
real message that Trump is sending is that we should
use his words or else, that what he says should go, period,
end of story. That if he says Golf of America,
(02:53):
if he changes the name inside the US government, then
the entire world should just roll over and do whatever
he wants. And that's a dangerous precedent for a news
organization because it might be the Golf of America or
the Golf of Mexico today, but what's it going to
be tomorrow? And for the AP, it simply can't go
along with what Trump says.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
Well, the AP is fighting back in court. Do you
expect that they'll win?
Speaker 3 (03:16):
I think it's.
Speaker 4 (03:17):
Quite likely the AP will win at least a limited
ruling on First Amendment grounds. Right now, this case is
before a Trump appointed judge who did not immediately rule
in favor of the AP, but did say, you know,
the president in this case benefits the news outlet and
not the government. He basically signaled that this was going
(03:37):
to be a hard case for the White House to win.
Now that said, he also at a recent hearing maybe
wondered where's the line, Where should he draw the line?
Should the AP be required into a really small group events.
He's wrestling with that right now. We don't know how
he will rule, but there is a history of news
(03:58):
outlets being able to challenge and dway House decisions and win.
You remember, during Trump's first term, CNN was in a
spat with the White House when correspondent Jim Acosta's press
pass was revoked. CNN went to court, CNN pretty quickly prevailed.
The Trump white House had to let Acosta back in.
So there is a history here, But this time around,
the Trump white House has been much more aggressive.
Speaker 1 (04:20):
So why won't the AP just to look at it
from the other side, Why won't they just use the
term Gulf of America as others including Google have.
Speaker 4 (04:29):
Because the rest of the world calls it the Golf
of Mexico, you know, because this is a body of
water that is now contested in the same way that
the South China Sea is contested. In this case, the
US government has one name and the rest of the
world has another name, and in an environment like that,
the AP uses both names. The AP says, hey, it's
the Golf of Mexico. That's what's been called for four
(04:49):
hundred years. But Trump has decreed it is the Golf
of America. So essentially, the AP is trying to recognize
the controversy and acknowledge it has clients and customers all
around the world. But in doing so, you know, I
think Trump would say, you're not putting America first, right,
that would be his response, put America first, use the
name that I tell you to use. Ultimately, it's a
(05:11):
power play on Trump's part, and you know, it has
had a little bit of a chilling effect within the
rest of the American news media as journalists try to
figure out what language to use without you know, getting
on the President's bad side, so to speak.
Speaker 1 (05:26):
Speaking of a chilling effect, let's talk about some of
the other lawsuits and settlements which you could say are
even more distressing. ABC News settle the lawsuit for sixteen
million dollars because anchored George Stephanopolos said Trump was liable
for rape rather than sexual assault. And then Meta, which
I would say is a media organization these days, settled
with Trump, who claimed he's been censored by them. Now
(05:48):
he's suing CBS in sixty minutes for the way it
edited an interview with Kamala Harris before the election. Why
are these companies settling with Trump.
Speaker 4 (05:56):
Because in most cases, these are really big companies with
big legal butdton with libel insurance, with the ability to
pay and the ability to make problems go away with money.
You know, it must be nice, right, but that's the
reality for some of these companies. It is cheaper to
write a check and make Trump go away than it
is to fight him, to again end up on his
(06:18):
bad side, to have a protracted legal case, to see
him extract revenge or attribution in.
Speaker 3 (06:25):
Other ways, etc. Etc.
Speaker 4 (06:27):
You know, these companies are making really cynical I would say,
really clear business risk reward, you know, decisions and proceeding accordingly.
But it is very worrisome, and we've heard that from
journalists at CBS News, for example, where this lawsuit against
sixty minutes is hanging over the heads of the journalists
(06:48):
as well as the parent company. You know, for the
context here about Paramount Shery Redstone, who controls Paramount, the
owner of CBS, is trying to suit Paramount.
Speaker 3 (06:56):
She wants to get out of the family business.
Speaker 4 (06:58):
She wants to cash out, take billlions off the table,
go retire, or do something else with her life.
Speaker 3 (07:03):
In order to get that deal done.
Speaker 4 (07:05):
In order to get her billions, she has to win
Trump administration approval for the deal. So that is the
context for this sixty Minutes lawsuit. She sees Trump suing CBS.
She sees Trump wanting to win, wanting to say he
beat sixty Minutes, a program that he is long ranted about,
(07:25):
and so she has personally urged the board of the company,
urged the lawyers of the company to try to reach
a settlement, to try to pay Trump to go away,
so to speak.
Speaker 3 (07:37):
She has not succeeded.
Speaker 4 (07:38):
However, there's been real internal resistance, and I also think
on the Trump side, they're not willing to settle for
the amount that Paramount's offering. So for now there hasn't
been a settlement, and sixty Minutes has been out there
trying to defend itself saying this is frivolous, this is
a meritless lawsuit, which it is. It is a frivolous lawsuit.
But it's a great example of the different incentives that
(08:01):
are in play here.
Speaker 3 (08:02):
Right.
Speaker 4 (08:02):
The incentives for sixty minutes are to do the work,
do the journalism report on Trump fearlessly without favor. The
incentives for the parent company are to write a check
and try to make them go away and bother somebody else.
And that is exactly what we're seeing at these different companies.
And as you said, Meta settled, Disney settled, some of
these big law firms or striking deals.
Speaker 3 (08:23):
Right.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
We just did an entire episode about that. And by
the way, I think also about the Washington Post, owned
by Jeff Bezos, who also owns Amazon and other companies,
and kind of many would say caved to Trump around
the time of the election, and so many people have
left the Washington Post since then. Every time I open
up another newspaper, the Wall Street Journal or the New
(08:45):
York Times or whatever, I see the bylines of people
that used to work at the Washington Post. Do you
expect that a lot of these journalists are going to
leave these companies if they settle with Trump, just out
of principle.
Speaker 4 (08:56):
Every reaction has reactions. I mean, that's what you're describing,
and that's what I'm seeing as well. There are many
of these cases already where a news outlet appears to
be softening itself, currying favor with Trump, trying to take
it easy, trying to lay low, trying not to get
hit by a lawsuit or or a Trump post. And
(09:17):
the result is that some of the journalists either either leave,
speak out, resist in other ways. And that's definitely a
tug of war.
Speaker 3 (09:27):
That's happening right now.
Speaker 4 (09:29):
It's it's maybe more obvious at some places than others.
At the Washington Post, it's really obvious. Bezos has curry
favored with Trump in multiple ways. Trump has returned to
the favor. Trump has been praising Bezos in interviews, so
has Caroline Levitt.
Speaker 3 (09:44):
We've seen this.
Speaker 4 (09:44):
It's it's not like it's in hiding this. In this case,
it is very obvious what is happening. And one of
the results has been this uprising within the Post, especially
on the opinion side. Bezos says he wants to reorient
the opinion pages to be about personal liberties and market
and Bezos is free to do whatever he wants, So
the opinion section, that's historically well within the rights of
(10:06):
the hipper owner to decide the editorial prerogatives of the institution.
But we've seen a number of columnists leave, some launching
their own sub stacks and startups as a result. And
in the newsroom there's a lot of fear that some
of this is going to trickle into the newsroom as
well well.
Speaker 1 (10:22):
And trickling into the newsroom, does that mean that these newsrooms,
because of the fear of lawsuits, are going to be
careful in how they edit interviews or even who they
interview or what stories they do because Trump has scared
them into doing that. Right.
Speaker 4 (10:38):
I made a comment about some of this is more visible.
In other cases it's less visible. It's really hard to
see what's not reported. It's almost impossible to know when
a story is softened or or a word is left out,
or a quote has left out, or a source is
not called for a quote, you know, to some extent,
you know, we're talking about ghosts at this point. But
(11:00):
I do think we're seeing a lot of exemplary journalism
in spite of all the pressure tactics that you and
I are talking about, so I think to give credit
where it's due. You know, the fact checkers of the
Washington Post still.
Speaker 3 (11:11):
Call a lie a lie.
Speaker 4 (11:13):
You know, the journalists, the investigative reporters of the Post
are still trying to chase down leads about agencies that
are shut down in ways that might be illegal.
Speaker 3 (11:21):
The work is still.
Speaker 4 (11:22):
Going on on an individual level, but institutionally, there are
all of these warning signs. There are all these alarm
bells ringing. And that's most of the way I see it.
Do you think that's too optimistic? Maybe no.
Speaker 1 (11:36):
I mean, I look, I still read all these papers,
I still follow the news, so I think I still
trust what I'm seeing. But it is worrying to see
places that are such important institutions kind of not be
as courageous as they once were speaking truth to power
or just holding people accountable. Anyway, stay with us, We're
going to take a quick break. One Thing Trump did
(11:57):
with ceeing in Chief media analyst Brian Stelter. Ope, right now,
(12:17):
welcome back to One Thing Trump did exclusively on the
Middle podcast feed. I'm Jeremy Hobson. In this episode, we're
talking about President Trump's attacks on the media and how
those attacks are escalating in his second presidency. I'm joined
by CNN Chief Media analyst Brian Stelter. Brian, let's talk
about what's happening at the FCC, a little close to
home for those of us in the public media world.
(12:38):
Chairman Brandon Carr has announced he's investigating public radio stations
on the issue of whether they're adhering to the strict
underwriting guidelines that they have to follow that they don't
allow commercials. So, just for audience to understand, I could
say on public radio, funding for the middle comes from
John Deere, maker of a new tractor that comes in
six different colors. More information at John Deere dot com.
(12:59):
But I you wouldn't say funding for the middle comes
from John Deere. They make the best tractor around. Buy
one today at Johndere dot com. I'm not allowed to
do that. That's a call to action. So my suspicion
is that they are not. The FCC are not going
to find any or many violations here. But if the administration,
the Trump administration, doesn't want public radio to have public money,
(13:20):
why go after the private funds like this?
Speaker 3 (13:24):
Intimidation A chill right, A chilling effect.
Speaker 4 (13:27):
We've used that phrase and we're going to keep using
it because that's the commonality between all of these different cases.
I agree with you that the SEC likely will not
find what it claims to be looking for, but I'm
also not sure they're really trying to find it. And
what I mean by that is we've seen Brennan Carr,
the SEC chair, who is very loyal to Trump, who
(13:47):
is hanging out at mar A Lago, who is riding
on Air Force one. He has open investigations into Disney
and Comcast as well. He has sent you know, ominous
sounding letters to lots of different media companies. And sometimes
the claim is about dei initiatives. Sometimes the claim is
about these you know, these sponsorships. But all of it
(14:11):
is of a piece, right, All of is related. All
of it is about using the power of government to
say we're paying attention, we're watching you, we're scrutinizing you
in these cases, we are investigating you, we're looking for wrongdoing.
And you know, a real cynic would say that that's
about trying to apply pressure against these media outlets, trying
(14:31):
to intimidate them, trying to tie up staffers and lawyers,
and you know, spend money in that way. You know,
we do know frivolous lawsuits exist in the private sector
in that way. So there's a version of that with
government as well that I think we're seeing now. I've
talked to Kara a bunch. He would say that he's
just trying to balance the scales. He would say that
the scales have been tipped against conservatives, the government's been
(14:55):
weaponized against the right, and he's just trying to balance
it out. That's what he would say. But I think
this scoreboard is what the scoreboard is. He has encouraged
an investigation of CBS over that sixty minute segment. He
has dismissed a complaint against Fox. You know, the scoreboard
is what it is.
Speaker 1 (15:11):
It's interesting we actually had him on the middle before
Trump came into office, because he was very much in
favor of banning TikTok. It'll be interesting to see now
that Trump doesn't want to ban TikTok anymore, whether Carr
gets in line. I'm guessing probably he will get in
line behind Trump and not be so adamantly against TikTok anymore.
(15:31):
But just on the issue of public broadcasting, I have
to say, as somebody who I've been working in this
medium my entire license. I was a kid in Illinois
hosting a talk show for kids. I'm sort of expecting
right now one day to wake up and see that
Elon Musk has gotten into the Corporation for Public Broadcasting,
locked the doors, kicked everybody out, fired them, and you
know that's it. What do you think.
Speaker 4 (15:52):
I hope you're wrong, but I fear you're right. We
have seen Doege do this at other similar organizations. We've
seen it in recent weeks at the US Agency for
Global Media, have Voice of America and other outfits.
Speaker 3 (16:06):
You know, public broadcasting is.
Speaker 4 (16:08):
Unique though, in that Republicans like to rail against it.
It feels good and it makes for a good SoundBite,
but then they always fund it when it comes time
for Congress to write the appropriation's budget.
Speaker 3 (16:22):
You know.
Speaker 4 (16:22):
So every year in Trump's first term, he came out
claiming that PBS and NPR should be defunded, and then
every year Republicans funded MPR and PBS.
Speaker 3 (16:31):
The The reason is obvious.
Speaker 4 (16:33):
It's because on the local level, in lots of states
and local markets, these stations are really vital, and that
hasn't changed. Of course, the politics have changed around DOGE
and around how this is all talked about. But I
do think it's notable that in polling, you know, we
see there is widespread support for public media. Of course
that doesn't stop Elon Musker DoD from trying various maneuvers,
(16:58):
but there is a lot more support than, for example,
there was for USAID. You know that public media does
have a unique space. But you know, what we're seeing
against public media, what we're seeing against the US Agency
for Global Media, you know, it's all related. I think
of this as like there's a dozen different examples and
we've touched on most of them at this point of
pressure points against the American news media.
Speaker 3 (17:19):
And some of those.
Speaker 4 (17:20):
Pressure points are really easy to access and they're really
painful for the people involved.
Speaker 3 (17:25):
Others are more subtle.
Speaker 4 (17:26):
They can't, you know, put you out of business or
kill the proverbial patient, but they can still hurt. But
they're all these pressure points, and it feels like the
Trump administration's trying to poke all of them at the
same time. Let's file lawsuits, let's try to defund the
public media. Let's try to probe these companies through the
FCC let's threaten their licenses, let's demean them on social media,
(17:51):
let's intimidate them in other ways. It's a dozen pressure points.
They're all being they're all being hit at the same time,
and we don't know how this ends, Like, we don't know.
Speaker 3 (18:04):
What the result of all this pressure is.
Speaker 4 (18:06):
We don't know what the outcome will be of all
this pressure being applied against the free press.
Speaker 1 (18:11):
Yeah, I want to ask about one other thing that's happening.
And it may sound yeah, which one did I forget?
Speaker 3 (18:17):
I'm sure I forgotten the pressure points?
Speaker 1 (18:19):
No, no, no, But there's another thing that's happening just
in general that may not seem that important compared to
these other ones, but maybe it is. You tell me,
the White House wants to control who gets to sit
where in the press room, which has typically been done
by the White House Correspondens Association. Does this matter and
(18:39):
why does the White House want to do this?
Speaker 4 (18:41):
This is another one of the pressure points because of
the symbolic value it has as well as the substantive
impact that it could have.
Speaker 3 (18:50):
Symbolically, the White House is saying.
Speaker 4 (18:52):
We're in charge, we decide, we decide who gets to
sit where, and you know, by extension, what kinds of
questions are going to be asked. Now, we'll see if
this plan is actually put in place, But if it
is put in place, it will also have a real
practical impact because if pro Trump media stars, you know,
(19:13):
I think people say podcasters, but there's actually not a
lot of podcasters that want to cover the White House
every day.
Speaker 3 (19:18):
But there are a.
Speaker 4 (19:19):
Bunch of pro Trump websites, pro Trump digital outlets, pro
Trump streamers that would like to have access more often
if they are put in the front rows, and the
big old newspapers and TV networks that actually have bigger audiences,
if they're kicked into the back rows, that will change
the dynamic of the briefings when the briefings happen. And
we've already seen that with coverage of President Trump. There
(19:42):
are pro Trump personalities that are frequently being added to
that press pool that the ap was kicked out of.
Speaker 1 (19:48):
The guy that's dating Marginie Tayler Green, who went when
Zelensky was in the over loscaid why aren't you wearing
a suit? He was a quote unquote reporter, I guess.
Speaker 4 (19:57):
And it affected Zelensky. It changed the tenor of the conversation,
and we see that on Air Force One when Trump
tastes questions. We see that in the Oval office, in
these small group settings where there are q and as
the questions have already been tilted.
Speaker 3 (20:09):
You know, going back to the idea.
Speaker 4 (20:10):
Of that balance, you know, it's already imbalanced when you
have these opinion people and frankly propagandists who are pretending
to be journalists who are in the room with the
other journalists. I think we will probably see that in
the briefing room when there are briefings. We're also seeing
that at the Pentagon. By the way, some big news outlets,
including CNN were booted from their longtime workspaces, ANDBC is
(20:32):
another example, The New York Times as an example, and
they've been replaced for this year. The Pentagon says it's
a one year change. By names like Breitbard and One
America News, some explicitly pro Trump outlets. At the Pentagon,
there has not been a single press briefing.
Speaker 3 (20:46):
Instead, they put.
Speaker 4 (20:47):
Out videos on x You know that there are not
the traditional examples of engagement with the media. Instead, there
is military propaganda that is supposed to look like news coverage,
and I think We're going to continue to see that
all across the government. And I would say that is
another one of these pressure points because some of these agencies,
some of these department heads, they believe or they want
(21:10):
to try replacing the news media with their own people,
you know, with their own pr people, with their own promoters.
To some degree, that might work in the short term,
I actually don't think it can be that successful in
the long term. I think a lot of what we're
talking about here and genders a backlash among people who
just want to know what is true and real. It
doesn't mean that people are going to rise up and
(21:31):
go go to pro media rallies.
Speaker 3 (21:33):
I'm not saying that.
Speaker 4 (21:34):
You know, journalists are not meant to be popular. You know,
we're meant to be rabble rousers. We're meant to be
asking awkward questions at awkward times, you.
Speaker 3 (21:41):
Know, ya YadA, YadA, YadA.
Speaker 4 (21:43):
But I do think all in total, when you take
all of this together, most people want to know what's
real in the world, and they don't want the government
to be the only source of information. They don't want
to just be told trust Trump, go check his true
social feed to see.
Speaker 3 (21:58):
What's going on.
Speaker 4 (21:59):
No they actually do want people asking real questions and
getting real answers, and so these pressure points are real,
but the reaction to them might be real too.
Speaker 1 (22:11):
There is talk right now of different outlets banding together
to try to stand up to the president just on
this issue of the seating chart. Do you expect that
to happen?
Speaker 4 (22:21):
I think this notion of collective action has been very
difficult to put into practice because, well, let's hit the
White House. For example, there's an association where everybody works
together in a limited way to cover the president when
he's traveling and to get messages out when there's a
small group with the president.
Speaker 3 (22:38):
But we're talking about rivals, you know.
Speaker 4 (22:41):
These are dozens of rivals, dozens of competitors, and getting
everybody who competes every day to work together to preserve
access is difficult. It's doable sometimes in some cases, but
it's really difficult.
Speaker 3 (22:53):
And it's been really difficult with this White House in
part because of these pro Trump outlets that are not
going to go along with it, you know, And so
you have to wonder. You have to wonder, is for
just for fun? Even though there's nothing fun about this.
If every major American news brand didn't show up at
the White House tomorrow, decided to keep its reporters at
(23:13):
the bureau, go out and find other stories elsewhere. Trump
would still have cameras on him at all times. He
would still have adoring fans, posy as reporters asking questions.
Would he get tired of that? Maybe?
Speaker 4 (23:27):
Does he like the back and forth with real journalists,
Yes he does. He actually like to spar with you know,
the New York Times place types places, Yes he does.
But the point is, a a blackout of Trump wouldn't happen.
It's not possible. It just it wouldn't happen. All of
these right wing outlets would fill in the voids. And
(23:48):
that's one of the reasons why I think we haven't
seen collective action on the part of the press corps.
Speaker 1 (23:53):
So, Brian Stelter, let me just finally ask you, and
I'm going to quote. I'm going to read a quote
that I'm sure you've heard a billion times. But Thomas
Jefferson famously wrote a government without newspapers or newspapers without
a government. If he had to choose between the two,
I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.
Do you have faith that, you know, with all these
pressure points on the media right now, that in four
(24:16):
years from now, we're going to have a vibrant and
strong press in this country that is able to do
what they need to do to cover any administration and
what's happening.
Speaker 4 (24:28):
I think for Americans who want a vibrant, healthy press,
there will be.
Speaker 3 (24:33):
My fear is that it'll.
Speaker 4 (24:34):
Increasingly be behind subscription walls or membership walls, or membership
clubs or affinity groups, where you know, only people who
are seeking it out will end up seeing it and
everybody else will see the slop that comes from generative
AI and comes from click baity ad websites and hyperpartisan
(24:55):
brands and disinformation artists. You know, there's this danger of
two tiered media system where people who really want accurate, reliable,
high claud information can get it, and everybody else just
gets entertained by stuff that looks like news but isn't.
And some of the pressure points we've described are hastening
that and encouraging that to happen. But I do think
(25:18):
that the American news media is stronger than any demagogue.
I started saying that in twenty seventeen when Trump started
calling the press the enemy of the people, and I
still believe it's true because the press in this country
is decentralized. Even though local news has been hollowed out,
there are still so many news brands out there, and
it's easier than ever to start.
Speaker 3 (25:37):
A new one. You know.
Speaker 4 (25:38):
Wherever there's a will, wherever there's a way, you know,
people will be able to create and find news sources,
and some can get big enough to stand up to
a demagogue.
Speaker 3 (25:50):
I think that that's real.
Speaker 4 (25:52):
But the dangers are also very real, and I'm glad
to have a chance to talk about them, because when
you add it all up, it is a very real
pressure campaign on many different fronts, and we don't know
how the story ends with regards to, you know, the
health of the American free press. My gut says yes,
(26:12):
in four years, there's going to be new brands. They're
gonna be startups that are launched next month that are
going to matter more than ever. There's going to be
a flourishing of subscriber based media outlets.
Speaker 3 (26:23):
You know.
Speaker 4 (26:23):
Substack is showing one way forward, but so are brands
like The New York Times, you know, and CNN and
lots of other outlets are trying to follow that path,
trying to create new vibrant business models for news. So
I'm optimistic on some fronts about that, but I worry
about who gets left behind in that scenario. And I
really worry about a group of hyperpartisan, really loyal Trump
(26:48):
voters who have given up on the news altogether. Who
And that's not all voters, and that's not all. That's
not all Trump voters. There are many many Trump voters
who who who want to know what is going on
with the government and want Trump held accountable. But there's
this base audience, this magabas, the kind of the folks
who see who go to Trump rallies, and they've given
(27:09):
up on news altogether. And I do wonder what consequences
that's going to have for the country for years and beyond.
Speaker 1 (27:16):
That is CNN chief media analyst Brian Stelter. His newsletter
is called Reliable Sources. Brian, thank you so much for
joining us, great talking with you. Thank you, and thanks
to you for listening to One Thing Trump did. It
was produced by Harrison Patino. Our next middle episode will
be in your podcast feed later this week, where we'll
be asking you how you feel about the first one
hundred days of Trump's presidency. If you like this podcast,
(27:37):
rate it Wherever you get your podcast, keep media alive,
Tell your friends, make sure you sign up for automatic downloads.
Our theme music was composed by Noah Haidu. I'm Jeremy Hobson.
Talk to you soon,
Host
Jeremy Hobson
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!
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com