October 15, 2025 • 38 mins
Last week, Paramount bought digital news site The Free Press for $150 million, and made one of its founders, Bari Weiss, the new editor-in-chief of CBS. Everyone has opinions on Weiss…and so do Nate and Maria. They debate whether Weiss has the expertise to be editor-in-chief of a TV network, discuss what her appointment says about Paramount CEO David Ellison’s vision for the company, and judge whether this was a good or a bad call.
For more from Nate and Maria, subscribe to their newsletters:
The Leap from Maria Konnikova
Silver Bulletin from Nate Silver
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 (00:15):
Pushkin. Welcome back to Risky Business, a show about making
better decisions. I'm Maria Kanakova and I'm Nate Silver.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Today on the show, Maria, I gotta be honest, this
is gonna be a little bit of a media naval
gazing kind of episode. People love talking about this stuff.
Some of them do, some of them don't write. But
we're gonna be talking about the recent acquisition by paramount
of the subset publication the Free Press, Barry Weis's publication
for one hundred and fifty million dollars. Barry Wise also
(00:53):
now the editor in chief of CBS News. I kind
of can't resist this topic because, as you'll hear, like
I just know and you know this landscape pretty well.
I used to work for ABC News, I used to
work for the New York Times where Barry is. I
have my own substack that doesn't compete quite with the
Free Press, but like, I know all this stuff really well.
You know, it's too close to the bone for me
not to have opinions about it. And there is some
(01:15):
strategy work too, as far as as far as what
CBS wants to get out of this. How do you
build a differentiated media brand? How do you know when
you're hiring a good editor in chief and they will
do a good called bad call, right?
Speaker 3 (01:25):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
Absolutely, to say at the end of the day, is
this a good decision for CBS, the acquisition of a
free press making Barry wise editor in chief? Is this
good for the brand? Is this good for the future
of media?
Speaker 2 (01:42):
Would you like to have one hundred and two million dollars, Maria,
I would love to have one hundred and fifty dollars
a night.
Speaker 1 (01:46):
So let's uh, let's dive in and just talk about
this decision. It's heavily tax you know what, Nate, I
will happily pay taxes.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
You just pay what taxes.
Speaker 1 (01:58):
I will happily pay more taxes. If someone were to
offer me one hundred and fifty million dollars, why night
are you offering?
Speaker 2 (02:04):
If I had one hundred and fifty billion dollars, I
might offer you like a really ice birthday gift.
Speaker 1 (02:11):
Ah, that's so sweet. This is where this is where
friendships come to die right on this podcast, ladies and gentlemen.
But let's talk about Barry Weiss's appointment. So with that
acquisition for one hundred and fifty million dollars, Barry Weiss
has become the editor in chief of CBS News, which
(02:35):
is now part of Paramount. Right, because there was just
a big deal where Paramount, which is owned by David Ellison,
who is I don't know how many billions he has,
but he has many of them.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
Not enough, not enough, clearly, not enough clearly.
Speaker 1 (02:53):
So yeah, so now she will be running CBS News. Nate,
you say everyone has opinions. I certainly have opinions, but
let's start. Let's start with your opinions. What do you
think about this decision? And then I will I will
speak to someone who formally worked in news.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
Yeah, and look, I should also say, like, you know,
I don't understand the whole I have a substack. I'm
an investor in substack. Just disclosing on my conflict of interest. Right.
I've met Barry once or twice. I had nice interactions
with her. I've talked about collaboration with the Free Press
different times. But I don't think i've any like conflicts
that make this awkward officially, or maybe awkward, but not
more than awkward, which is kind of always how it
(03:32):
is with this naval gazing, insight journalism and stuff. So
I have a few thoughts. Right, number one, the purchase
price of one hundred and fifty million dollars is actually
not ridiculous, right. And the reason I know this is because,
like I've spent a lot of time looking at multiples
(03:53):
of based on the number of paid subscribers that you have, Right,
what does that tend to sell for in the market,
for example? You know, the reason I'm interested in this
is that from time to time I get you know,
people want to have something to do with my substack,
silver bulletin invest capital in it. And it's weird because,
like when you accept money, there are a lot of
(04:14):
strings attached. Right. It's like not like you're just buying
like an annuity in whatever revenue that you have in
the future. Right, You're expected to give up some control,
You're expected to work a certain amount of time, maybe harder.
You're expected to you know, give up some of the
profit yourself. But like you know, they are the top
selling substack on the platform, I believe by some margin.
(04:38):
I do have some knowledge that I'm going to try
not to reveal, But like you know, they have well
over a million total subscribers right at typical rate that
translates probably into low six figure paid subscribers. The growth
has been solid. They have been spending a lot of
money on staff. It's not like, you know, I have
two people I hire. They have dozens, right, But like
(04:59):
you know, depending on whether it's a time for like
hot or cold kind of valuations in the market, I
feel like there's gonna be like a more scientific way
to put that, but like it's not inherently ridiculous.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
Yeah, I was. Actually that was one of the things
that I was curious to hear your opinion on because
I don't know anything about the financials, and when I
saw that amount, I was like, wow, that seems like
a lot.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
Yeah. Look, I mean you know when I was talking
with John Skipper, who was on the president of ESPN
when when they purchased the five thirty eight brand, right,
you know, he said, in my philosophy's in North Carolina,
got my philosophy and negotiations is always that it's worth
one dollar more the next guy is willing to pay
for it, right. So, and there's some of that, right.
(05:37):
But the thing about subscription models, and it's nice to
have myself, right, is if they are cash flow positive, right,
you can get a big burst of subscribers upfront, they're
paying for the whole year or the whole month in advance. Right,
So it's like not some future we're going to build
this brand up and then later on converted to advertising
(05:58):
revenues or make it a brand consultancy or something else.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
Right.
Speaker 2 (06:02):
You know if free press has north of one hundred
thousand paid subscribers, right and they're paying on average, after
after stripe fees and things like that, eighty dollars a
year or whatever, right, I mean that is like that's
like actual freaking money. You know, whether it justifies one
hundred and fifty billion, you get into multipless can be billion,
(06:26):
it can get to multiples. Multiples can be subjective.
Speaker 1 (06:29):
Right.
Speaker 2 (06:30):
There's maybe some notion that, like all those subscription businesses
get off to a fast start, you know, in theory
they have some upside cap, right. Yeah, Typically there's like
kind of a S curve sign you at first, you
have trouble finding anybody because I don't know about you. Right,
the developed brand awareness and you reach everybody in your
(06:50):
potential audience, the people who are the most excited about
your product, subscribed first rate and then probably encounter some
diminishing returns. And the point is that, like where do
you find yourself on that. You know, when do those
inflection points hit potentially right, you start to get more churn,
it gets harder. Right. One criticism that's and levied against
the Free press is that it focuses on some particular issues,
(07:18):
some of which, in various ways are becoming less relevant. Right.
You know, it focused a lot on woke excesses in
the kind of the liberal sphere. Right, I'm not going
to put woke in quotation marks. I think it was
a real thing. Barry Weiss quit The New York Times
in twenty twenty at a time when there was a
lot of peer pressure and group think, and so this
(07:40):
place sucks, right, I'm not going to be here anymore,
even though she'd been brought in to solicit conservative opinion pieces.
And part of what happens with these substacks is when
there is like a market inefficiency when for whatever reason,
because because there's peer pressure in newsrooms, because corporate big
(08:00):
wigs are cow towing to a particular opinion to Trump
maybe for example, you know, substack feels that vuli where
there was a lot of people who were like, yeah,
I'm liberal but I'm not woke. This shit seems ridiculous.
And so here's a free press that, like the free press,
which are called common sense, that like speaks to those
(08:21):
issues in a way that other publications don't write. I
think it's been more of a struggle for like, how
does this audience feel about like covering the Trump administration? Right?
Trump is president and therefore, you know he makes most
of the news. If you're kind of covering politics, right,
I think probably you're gonna see some Well, I'm speaking
(08:41):
my own book here, right, I think these blogs are
interesting but partisan. I think they tend to suck when
it comes to, like actually covering elections. I think they
tend to be extremely partisan and not good at like
keeping their arms legs from polls. But no doubt, like
if you kind of got in early that like there's
a lot of desire for it, and a lot of
the best commentary about what's going on right is on
substeck now and not in the Washington Post, for example. Right,
(09:04):
so you know, this creates a market were you no
longer have have gate keepers, and in some sense, like
I admire anybody who says fuck you, I don't care
about the gatekeepers. Right, I'm going to do my own thing,
and I'm going to prove it with the fact that
I've developed, you know, the largest audience on this very
competitive platform. I've been talking for a while, Maria, what
(09:26):
do you I haven't even I have you have Wooden
edge Wise, what do you? What do you think?
Speaker 1 (09:32):
Well, you know, I, I frankly probably find the choice
more concerning than you do. For you know, I think
that the free press has changed a lot since it
was since its inception, right. I actually I was much
(09:55):
more sympathetic to a lot of Barry Weiss's pieces earlier on,
and I feel like it has gone from like actually
wanting to be free press to being a little bit
too much on the other side, so to speak, right,
and now actually being quite biased. Like whenever Trump is
(10:19):
suddenly singing your praises, you should probably be just a
little bit worried that maybe you're not the champion of
free speech that that you once were. So so there,
there's that, and then this is CBS News, right, and
that's and so so let's talk about that, right, Let's
(10:43):
talk about the fact that Barry Wise has zero experience
running a newsroom running.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
Now you're making Now you're making the bad of the bargainment.
Speaker 1 (10:51):
But that's true.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
But it's true.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
It's not a bad it's hold on, hold on. I've
so she's never worked in television, right, and let me
just say one of the first things she did when
she started was send out a memo telling everyone to
take time to write a memo to her detailing how
they spend their entire day so that she could read that.
(11:16):
And to me, that's like, that's not even a red flag.
That's like flaming red fires. If someone asked me to
do that, I would probably be like, I'm very sorry,
but with all due respect, fuck you. Like, as someone
who actually worked on a daily news show and who
has worked in a magazine, you know, corporate world, which she,
(11:39):
by the way, didn't do on the editorial side. She
was just an opinion columnist, and then she started her
own thing. It is very, very different. Running CBS News
is not running the Free Press on substack and being
put in charge of that. It's you know, imagine if
all of a sudden, like let's imagine I'm still at
(11:59):
The New Yorker and we're told that, hey, David Remnick
is leaving and instead we're going to get I don't
even know who. Elon Musk. He's very smart, and he's
gonna be your editor in chief.
Speaker 2 (12:10):
Oh no, but Ria, this is getting more Libby.
Speaker 1 (12:13):
But it doesn't have to be at Elon Musk. It
could be Bill Gates. I don't care who it is,
but someone who has zero experience running a magazine. But now,
even if David Remnick were to go to CBS News,
that would be a little bit weird, and he probably
still isn't particularly qualified for that because even though he's
run something that's much more similar to that kind of organization,
(12:34):
it's still incredibly different.
Speaker 2 (12:36):
I mean, first, first of all, if you want to
talk about qualified, like a lot of the presidents of
these network news organizations, this.
Speaker 1 (12:42):
Is a president, she's she's not the president though, right,
This is someone who is in charge of the content.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
Those are very very she's act.
Speaker 1 (12:49):
But it's those are different roles.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
She reports to Ellison, right, right.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
But those are different roles.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
The role of editor can mean a lot of different things.
Speaker 1 (12:57):
Right now, I'm not talking about politics. I'm just talking
about like, who are you putting in charge of a
news organization? Do you are you putting someone who actually
understands how to run a newsroom.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
And yes, she has run she has run a newsroom
with like several dozen people. That is one of the
few successful businesses.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
But it's not television. It's a very different medium. Podcasts
are different from newsletters, are different from daily TV shows
are different from screenwriting, are differs.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
So you want you want more superficiality.
Speaker 1 (13:30):
No, I want someone who I think is qualified. If
you look at her resume, just pretend you don't even
see her name, right, and you see resumes of people,
this is not someone who would ever get that job, right, Like,
she just lacks some basic qualifications, some basic stepping stone.
Speaker 2 (13:45):
Go ahead and look at like who is hired to
these senior level positions at ABC, CBS, NBC. Right. Sometimes
it's longtime TV executives. Sometimes it's people with the journalism background.
Sometimes it's somebody who's a big name brought in from
the outside. Right. Sometimes it's somebody who who was a
(14:06):
star producing a different type of television, might producing sports
or something like that. Sometimes it's somebody who kind of
came up the corporate length since kind of like a bureaucrat.
The range of things that you do is like an editor,
including bureaucratic task, editorial task, and most of the people
have not been very successful or good. It's a kind
of high turnover. At least in the curtent environment. Used
(14:26):
to have like long standing people who would have this
job for years, right, but the turnover is very high.
And like, why wouldn't you want to pick somebody who
has actually built a successful news product before?
Speaker 1 (14:38):
Well, I would want someone who at least understands how
my medium works, someone who has worked in screen and
who understands that writing for the screen is very different
from writing for the page. Who understands that what it
takes to succeed in television is not what it takes
to succeed in print journalism. Who understands how all of
these different media products work together. I want someone with
(15:01):
a demonstrated capacity to make that sort of a transition,
and she I would at least have won her in
a more junior position to demonstrate that she's capable of
creating sixty minutes, right, of producing a show like that.
And let me tell you from having actually worked as
a television producer, it is not anything like what I
(15:23):
do as a print journalism. The things that you write
for it are vast, Like it's just a completely different
skill set, and to think that it's the same skill
set just is basically ignorant, to be perfectly honest. Like
it's it's like saying this.
Speaker 2 (15:38):
News is not a tell it doesn't want to be
a television company. It wouldn't have the valuation.
Speaker 1 (15:44):
And yet and yet so much of it is television.
And to bring in someone who does not understand television
and has no background in it, I think is just
a jaw dropping decision.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
I'm just dealt with enough like corporate suits at these
companies specifically, where like the bar is pretty low. Somebody
who's bright and hard working and has built a successful
editory brand right and understands video, you know, I mean,
their kindent is pretty tech steady, right, But like it's
not an easy thing to like build a brand when
(16:18):
you kind of start out.
Speaker 1 (16:19):
I'm not trying to I'm not trying. I'm not trying
to say that Barry Weiss does not you know, is
not good at what she does. I'm not, you know,
I'm not trying to say that, but I'm saying that
what she does is not necessarily what I'd be looking
for in the editor in chief, not the president of
(16:40):
CBS News, someone who's in charge of the editorial decisions
of this brand and the editorial decisions across the board.
So potentially, like what a CBS News saying, are we
saying we don't want to be a television company at all?
Are we gonna shut down sixty Minutes? Are we going
to shut down all of our flagship shows and we're
(17:00):
not gonna do TV We're gonna do We're just gonna
become the free press or or whatever it is. If
that's what they're saying, Okay, well that's one thing. But
I don't think that's what they're saying. I mean, I
think they still want to produce some of the best
quality television. That is some of the best quality news television.
That's what they're known for. I keep saying sixty Minutes
(17:21):
because it's one of the most respected brands, not just
in the United States but in the world. And a
lot of the people in sixty Minutes quit right over
the last year because there's been a lot of turmoil
and CBS has shown that it doesn't have a backbone
in terms of protecting the quality of it of its
editorial content. And the independence of its journalists. And so
this is to me just another reason to be skeptical
(17:46):
and alarmed. Now she I would be so thrilled, Nate,
if Barry Wies were to prove me wrong and were
to come in there and prove that, like you know what,
she's the best editor in chief CBS has seen. She
revolutionizes it. She ends up being a free, independent voice
who speaks truth to the Trump administration just as much
as she spoke truth to the woke left, and who
(18:09):
ends up making really good decisions, great hiring decisions, and
makes CBS News vibrant and relevant. I would love for
that to be the case CBS News. No, but we
need someone good, and it has become much less vibrant.
We need someone You're not even you're not engaging with
what I'm saying. You're you're picking one little thing, and
(18:31):
you need someone. As I said, CBS News has been
falling for the last year, and this is actually more
of the same. Right, it has lost some of its
most prominent voices who have left or been forced out,
and now they've hired Barry Weiss, which kind of doubles
down on that. And I don't think Ellison has any
desire to do anything other than make sure he gets
(18:53):
a lot of money and gets the deals that he
wants to go through and be approved by the Trump administration. Now,
once again, as someone who has worked in television, I've
worked for good producers bad producers. Like there's a huge difference, right,
the shows don't just make themselves. You need good people
there otherwise you're going to get absolute shit. And if
(19:14):
you want a good CBS News, if that's the goal,
then you know, is this was this the correct hire?
And what is the future of a news organization where
it seems like those values are being put aside for
something that looks like instead of editorial freedom, editorial oversight.
(19:39):
We'll be back right after this.
Speaker 2 (19:49):
The one I really got my goat was like John Oliver.
I'm sure some of the readers like John Oliver. Maybe
some don't fight them to their taste. I'm in the
latter camp, even though I probably agree with him on
some stuff, right, I find them kind of hectoring in luxury.
So John Oliver was making them the same complaint you
were that like Shay's dead and walked in excuse an
(20:10):
editorial journalist, right, And like sometimes the facts are wrong,
and it's like okay, Like you know, John Oliver takes
predictable opinions from one side of a spectrum, mixes them
with facts to a degree where it's sometimes ambiguous, kind
of like what's an opinion and what's the fact? Right,
(20:32):
and then states to them very confidently, and like, you know,
for you to criticize Barry Wise of that, which I
think might be a good characterization of some of what
they do, right, it just seems like kind of hypocritical,
And all these opinion journalists are like all his opinion journalists,
Like why is in York Times have an opinion page?
I write sometimes in your Times opinion page, right, you know,
(20:53):
I don't know, right the opinion is actually a vertical
It sells pretty well for the most part, and like,
but it just seems to me like a lot of publications,
including the big three networks pre Trump. I think a
lot of things have changed now in the Trump era, right,
but like there is an implicit is sometimes explicit, but
(21:14):
an implicit left leaning bias, not far left, not Bernie
Sanders Zoran bias left, their corporate right, maybe not quite
my kind of center left either, but like on cultural issues.
They're very progressive, and like what Barry does is kind
of like give the progressive left, not the zoran left,
(21:37):
the progressive kind of center left. I call it the
indgo blob, this merger between on the one hand, non
partisan media and then kind of like partisan institutions of
the Democratic Party and the left. Right, she is taking
that formula to produce on average center right leaning opinions
with high production guyues, meaning you know, the stories are
(21:58):
edited well in a sense of like they have a
good lead paragraph, they have a good headline, they get
promoted well on social media, they have attractive art to
the extent that's possible depending on the type of story,
and so forth. Right, And like that's kind of what
like a lot of these brands do on the left.
And is there some implicit or I would say, in
some cases fairly explicit bias, yes, But like it's the
(22:19):
same game that you've been seeing on in the progressive
left for like for a long time now.
Speaker 1 (22:25):
Right, I wouldn't want John Oliver to head CBS News either, Right,
I don't think that someone who's an opinion columnist, slush,
an opinion show host, you know, whatever it is, should
be heading a news organization. That's just me, right, I
wouldn't want Stephen Colbert running CBS News like I and
I love him. I don't think that that's that we should.
(22:48):
You know, if you're saying that, what you're I'm not
saying you personally, Nate. If one is saying is that
one wants to be a bastion of free speech and
try to kind of protect that and be an organization
that espouses the values of editorial integrity, then at least
you should try to hire someone who's not an op
(23:10):
ed columnist with a left or right leaning viewpoint. Right,
she was, but she was right. But you're saying that
the wait, hold on, you were just saying that the
way that her formula was the same right that you
That's what you were just talking about. You were saying
that the formula is to have an opinion with some
(23:30):
facts presented, leaning some direction.
Speaker 2 (23:33):
It's more compliated than that. Right that she did something
that was ambiguity. If you listen to John Oliver, right,
like every eight ten things he does are true, says
are true, but they're cherry picked and spun, and it's
kind of the same thing right, where like it's taking right.
Speaker 1 (23:48):
Which is why we don't want either one of them.
Speaker 2 (23:50):
A lot of the work that Free Press does, we.
Speaker 1 (23:52):
Don't want either one of them as head of CBS News.
Speaker 2 (23:55):
You think you're not getting out CBS News now. I remember,
I remember watching in the Pandemic, we had a prinned
up to her house and they had a story about
like how Ron DeSantis, the evil governor of Florida, was
distributing a vaccine at Public which is a giant supermarket
chain throughout Florida and the South, which to me, she
was like a fucking fantastic idea, you know, and where
(24:16):
you turn in Florida there is is an alligator and
a Public's basically and like you know, like to me, like,
I mean, that was an example of like, you know,
we're things narrowly fact sexually, fact chextually, that's not a
word wrong. Probably some things that sant As people were
mad about the story. And believe me, I'm not a
fan of run the Santa Say at all, but like
that was a story that was a it was a biased,
fucking story.
Speaker 1 (24:37):
Right now, of course you're misunderstanding me. I'm saying that
that's not a good that's not a good thing. Right,
We're we're not We're not saying that those that cherry
picking to the left or to the right is a
good thing. And so why would you pick someone whose
entire mo O was to create a publication like that
that has become much more right leaning. Don't you want
(25:00):
to at least start off with you know, Okay, fine,
maybe there there will end up being some bias, because
there always is. There's no such thing as an unbiased
piece of storytelling ever, because even the most factually correct
story is going to have a point of view on
which order to present the facts. You know, we can
(25:20):
get all philosophical about this, but there's no such thing
as an objective piece of writing. Like it just does
not exist. And we can, you can, I will, I
will die on that hill. True objectivity is impossible.
Speaker 3 (25:32):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (25:32):
Now, if we are saying that we still we want
to be a place that is open to all viewpoints,
et cetera, et cetera, don't you at least want to
start with someone in charge of that organization whose whole
mo wasn't something different.
Speaker 2 (25:55):
And we'll be right back after this break.
Speaker 1 (26:09):
By the way, if CBS was like, hey, Maria, you
should be our editor in chief, I'd be like, absolutely not.
I have no idea what I'm doing when it comes
to saidthing like that. You know, I know some specific
parts of the business from having worked on them, but like,
I'm not that person, right, that's not my world.
Speaker 2 (26:28):
This is the weird part. Right. If if CBS paramount
came to me and said, we'll offer to buy Silver
bulletin for one hundred and fifty million dollars, and how
much of that is my what are the terms, et cetera,
But I'd be very pleased to have that. Please have
that offer, Marie. You're after to playing some high rollers
in the World Series next summer. If they then said
(26:51):
you have to be editor in chief of CBS News,
I'd be like, no fucking way, right, it's a really
bad job you have. These are big bureaucratic news organizations
that like have a lot of people. They were once
highly secured jobs and now they're becoming less so, right,
and so you have kind of like the old guard
journalist too, are terrified for their livelihood. You have the
(27:12):
kind of younger, progressive, woke staff. You have ownership who's
trying to please Trump. You have a perpetually declining, although
these networks still give more audience. You might think their
for their Sunday shows, right and their evening shows right
in perpetual decline. Right. And you kind of come into
a job where a lot of people, probably not all
the staff, maybe not most of the staff, but a
(27:34):
lot of people kind of publicly hate your guts. I mean,
that sounds like a fucking terrible job. For one hundred
and fifty million dollars, I do it, But like I
wouldn't do that job for two million dollars a year.
I'm not fucking kidding, right, Like, I mean, that job
is like it's a terrible fucking job. Which makes me wonder,
is that this Barry want that to reshape the newsroom?
(27:54):
Where does Ellison want that for her?
Speaker 1 (27:57):
Or?
Speaker 2 (27:57):
I mean she's very ambitious, right, And one, you know,
I'm a little bit older than her, not that much older,
I don't think, but like a little bit older. And
like one thing, it's nice, it's like I got my
phase where I wanted to like dominate and take over
the media landscape out of the way with five thirty
eight at a big corporate news organization called ABC.
Speaker 3 (28:16):
Right.
Speaker 2 (28:16):
And also you know she is used to being an
environment where like she is the equity holder, and therefore,
when you grow, then you capture those proceeds. You can
choose to reinvest those pro seeds. You can choose to
take a nice, you know, vacation somewhere, you can choose
to hire more staff or whatever else. Right, And my
advice to her would be like, when you go from
(28:36):
kind of being the owner to being kind of the patron,
then that changes the incentives quite as absolutely absolutely.
Speaker 1 (28:46):
I mean, you know, one of the things, this is
something that we haven't really talked about, but from her perspective,
it's actually a really interesting question because she's someone who
left The New York Times. She wasn't fired. She chose
to quit because she felt like she at least the
way that she phrased it. Obviously, I have zero insider information.
I've never met Barrywise, but the way that she publicly
(29:08):
framed it is, you know, I want to be even
though like no one's forcing me out, and I was
hired for kind of express it to express more conservative
opinions like I want to be even more free, right,
Like I want to be in an environment where I
feel like I can do like my my own thing
and like really frame the conversation. So, you know, so
she left the New York Times to be you know, free,
(29:30):
to be even more herself. She founds the Free Press,
which is her own publication, right where she makes the
editorial decisions. She chooses what they cover, she chooses how
they cover it, you know, when they host presidential debates,
she chooses, you know, exactly how she wants to do it.
And you know, being being someone who was always so
(29:53):
vocal about needing to be fiercely independent, you then get
on Ellison's payroll, right, and there's no other way of
putting it right, Like you that that is that is
actually literally what is what is happening? I hate to say, like, Barry,
are you out like hell? For one hundred and fifty
million dollars, I'd sell out and go and probably go
(30:16):
do something like that. It's a lot of money. No
judgment in terms of people taking life changing money. Maybe
a little bit of judgment, we'll see, but you know,
it's in terms of her own goals, in terms of
like what are you going to be able to do?
You're being put in a position where maybe what you said,
(30:38):
you know, five years ago, that was the thing that
you stood for is not compatible necessarily with the role
that you chose and the way that you will now
have to be answering to kind of corporate powers that
be and political forces that are strong, and that hired
you for a very specific reason.
Speaker 2 (31:00):
Yeah. Look, she is the number one publication free press,
which is a lot of people on sub stack. Right.
Number two was Heather Cox Richardson, who just sends out
a newsletter at one am every day, lives in Maine,
has no real staff, as far as I can tell,
has no real format a right, occasionally does a media appearances. Right,
(31:21):
And she's making I know how much she's making, but
I can't say, right, but like she's just making all
that money and like apparently keeping it for her and
her I think she's like a hot like lobster man
husband in Maine or something, right, not the one running
for Yeah, and like yeah, no, I mean not a
(31:43):
bad life, right, But the point is that like no,
and look, I guess it's like a little bit personal
because like, you know, and I'm kind of in this
in between zone right where I I you know, I
hired uh, you know, Eli my politics analysts became full
time we hired a sports analyst. I'm probably looking to
looking ahead to next year and like probably gonna have
to hire another person, right, But I don't want to
(32:05):
recreate five thirty eight where I had like thirty people,
because yeah, look, even if you're nominally the editor in
chief and I have been an editor in chief, right,
then between corporate ownership and the staff, right, I mean
the point if I had thirty people, then it becomes,
you know, all of a sudden, the work I do
is representative of them, and like you kind of lose
control over over the hiring process.
Speaker 3 (32:28):
Right.
Speaker 2 (32:28):
So like my objective not that people should necessarily care,
is like, you know, I want to keep thinks kind
of more close knit, right, whereas is Barry is kind
of like let's take a big shot, right, Let's I mean,
she's got maybe more of the high risk entrepreneurial spirit.
I guess it is, right, but you know, the juxposition
(32:50):
of like that with like these dodgy old media companies
that I know a lot a lot about in my
own way too, having worked for ABC, is just like
I predict that she is going to become extremely frustrated, right,
And like the other thing that bugs me too, is
you know, I kind of hate the fact that, like,
(33:11):
why can't things just be medium sized and good and profitable?
Why is everything have to blow up so much?
Speaker 3 (33:19):
Right?
Speaker 2 (33:19):
Yeah, I want to say, Okay, the free press, we're
doing very well. Right, We'll continue to expand the user base,
and then we're gonna kind of generate a lot of income.
We can do with income what we want. We can
invest in the business and other business. Just keep the money.
It's capitalism. I have no problem with like people having
money at any point whatsoever, Right, but like, why do
we have to like fucking always like take over everything
(33:41):
and take over the world and not just say, like
we're at one of the you know, we have over
one hundred thousand subscribers. We're bigger already than paid subcribers, right,
We're bigger already than like terms of the print circulation
all but like one or two newspapers right in digital circulation,
you know, getting pretty far up there. And instead it's like, okay,
why do you you know, it's just a little bit
baffling to me that like there's so much emphasis and
(34:03):
a lot of these entrepreneurs and media I don't run
a shit about like I would trust Barry Weiss before Ellison.
You know what I mean? A million times over, that's
not saying much.
Speaker 3 (34:13):
Yes, so so okay, let's let's wrap up here then,
So if we're gonna frame this, you know, with what
we sometimes do on the show, like good call, bad call,
the hiring of Barry Weiss as editor in chief of
CBS News, and you can't hedge.
Speaker 1 (34:34):
It has to be good call or bad call? Is
it a good call or is it a bad call?
Speaker 2 (34:38):
What are his objectives? Too? Well?
Speaker 1 (34:43):
His objective is to make lots of money for himself personally,
I think. But let's say to have a vibrant news organization.
Let's let's uh take him out as word that the
objective is to make CBS a vibrant news organization and
a bastion of true free speech that protects free speech
(35:04):
on all sides of the political spectrum and is a
relevant voice in media and a respected voice in media.
Good call, bad call?
Speaker 2 (35:13):
Those are like different objectives, right, like I I you know,
they'll probably get better at avoiding a certain type of
progressive bias sometimes involve shutting down speech and substing with
it their own various kind of biases right now, Look,
I think it's if they are doing this for purely
journalistic reasons, then it's high risk, probably leaning bad. Right,
(35:34):
for financial reasons, I think the evaluation is quite reasonable.
Speaker 3 (35:37):
Right.
Speaker 2 (35:38):
If it's for political reasons, then then who knows, right,
I mean Trump, I mean it's a weird model because
like Trump certainly does rather explicitly play favorites.
Speaker 1 (35:48):
Yeah, so so give me, give me a final give
me a final judgment.
Speaker 2 (35:52):
Night.
Speaker 1 (35:52):
I started off by saying no caveats, and that was
what one big caveat is the buying.
Speaker 2 (35:58):
The Free Press good call? Having her be editor in
chief bad call?
Speaker 1 (36:03):
All right, that's a that's a.
Speaker 2 (36:07):
Are you bad call? Back call?
Speaker 1 (36:08):
I'm bad call bad? I think I think for for
reasons that I've already that I've already made quite clear.
And like I said, this is not a not a
dig on barrier what she accomplished at Free Press. I
just think it's it's a bad sign for the types
of lofty goals of editorial integrity, free speech, et cetera,
(36:30):
et cetera that CBS was once known for and hopes
to be known for years ago. Hopes to be yeah,
hopes to be known for once again. So yeah, I
think I think bad call, bad call, But I would love, love,
love to be wrong, like I really would, because I
want journalism to thrive, and I want the people at
(36:53):
CBS to thrive, and I want good people to be hired.
And so I really, I really hope that Barry Weiss
will pleasantly surprise me and will end up being a
much better editor in chief than I think she's going
to be. And if so, I will happily, you know,
come on Riskyusiness and say I was wrong. Yay, I'm
very happy that I was wrong. Let us know what
(37:24):
you think of the show. Reach out to us at
Risky Business at pushkin dot FM. Risky Business is hosted
by me Maria Kanakova.
Speaker 2 (37:33):
And by me Nate Silver. The show was a cool
production of Pushing Industries and iHeartMedia. This episode was produced
by Isaac Carter. Our associate producer is Sonya gerwit Lydia
Jean Kott and Daphne Chen are our editors, and our
executive producer is Jacob Goldstein. Mixing by Sarah Brubert.
Speaker 1 (37:52):
If you like the show, please rate and review us
so other people can find us too. But once again,
only if you like us. We don't want those bad
reviews out there. Thanks for tuning in.
Pushkin. Welcome back to Risky Business, a show about making
better decisions. I'm Maria Kanakova and I'm Nate Silver.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Today on the show, Maria, I gotta be honest, this
is gonna be a little bit of a media naval
gazing kind of episode. People love talking about this stuff.
Some of them do, some of them don't write. But
we're gonna be talking about the recent acquisition by paramount
of the subset publication the Free Press, Barry Weis's publication
for one hundred and fifty million dollars. Barry Wise also
(00:53):
now the editor in chief of CBS News. I kind
of can't resist this topic because, as you'll hear, like
I just know and you know this landscape pretty well.
I used to work for ABC News, I used to
work for the New York Times where Barry is. I
have my own substack that doesn't compete quite with the
Free Press, but like, I know all this stuff really well.
You know, it's too close to the bone for me
not to have opinions about it. And there is some
(01:15):
strategy work too, as far as as far as what
CBS wants to get out of this. How do you
build a differentiated media brand? How do you know when
you're hiring a good editor in chief and they will
do a good called bad call, right?
Speaker 3 (01:25):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
Absolutely, to say at the end of the day, is
this a good decision for CBS, the acquisition of a
free press making Barry wise editor in chief? Is this
good for the brand? Is this good for the future
of media?
Speaker 2 (01:42):
Would you like to have one hundred and two million dollars, Maria,
I would love to have one hundred and fifty dollars
a night.
Speaker 1 (01:46):
So let's uh, let's dive in and just talk about
this decision. It's heavily tax you know what, Nate, I
will happily pay taxes.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
You just pay what taxes.
Speaker 1 (01:58):
I will happily pay more taxes. If someone were to
offer me one hundred and fifty million dollars, why night
are you offering?
Speaker 2 (02:04):
If I had one hundred and fifty billion dollars, I
might offer you like a really ice birthday gift.
Speaker 1 (02:11):
Ah, that's so sweet. This is where this is where
friendships come to die right on this podcast, ladies and gentlemen.
But let's talk about Barry Weiss's appointment. So with that
acquisition for one hundred and fifty million dollars, Barry Weiss
has become the editor in chief of CBS News, which
(02:35):
is now part of Paramount. Right, because there was just
a big deal where Paramount, which is owned by David Ellison,
who is I don't know how many billions he has,
but he has many of them.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
Not enough, not enough, clearly, not enough clearly.
Speaker 1 (02:53):
So yeah, so now she will be running CBS News. Nate,
you say everyone has opinions. I certainly have opinions, but
let's start. Let's start with your opinions. What do you
think about this decision? And then I will I will
speak to someone who formally worked in news.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
Yeah, and look, I should also say, like, you know,
I don't understand the whole I have a substack. I'm
an investor in substack. Just disclosing on my conflict of interest. Right.
I've met Barry once or twice. I had nice interactions
with her. I've talked about collaboration with the Free Press
different times. But I don't think i've any like conflicts
that make this awkward officially, or maybe awkward, but not
more than awkward, which is kind of always how it
(03:32):
is with this naval gazing, insight journalism and stuff. So
I have a few thoughts. Right, number one, the purchase
price of one hundred and fifty million dollars is actually
not ridiculous, right. And the reason I know this is because,
like I've spent a lot of time looking at multiples
(03:53):
of based on the number of paid subscribers that you have, Right,
what does that tend to sell for in the market,
for example? You know, the reason I'm interested in this
is that from time to time I get you know,
people want to have something to do with my substack,
silver bulletin invest capital in it. And it's weird because,
like when you accept money, there are a lot of
(04:14):
strings attached. Right. It's like not like you're just buying
like an annuity in whatever revenue that you have in
the future. Right, You're expected to give up some control,
You're expected to work a certain amount of time, maybe harder.
You're expected to you know, give up some of the
profit yourself. But like you know, they are the top
selling substack on the platform, I believe by some margin.
(04:38):
I do have some knowledge that I'm going to try
not to reveal, But like you know, they have well
over a million total subscribers right at typical rate that
translates probably into low six figure paid subscribers. The growth
has been solid. They have been spending a lot of
money on staff. It's not like, you know, I have
two people I hire. They have dozens, right, But like
(04:59):
you know, depending on whether it's a time for like
hot or cold kind of valuations in the market, I
feel like there's gonna be like a more scientific way
to put that, but like it's not inherently ridiculous.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
Yeah, I was. Actually that was one of the things
that I was curious to hear your opinion on because
I don't know anything about the financials, and when I
saw that amount, I was like, wow, that seems like
a lot.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
Yeah. Look, I mean you know when I was talking
with John Skipper, who was on the president of ESPN
when when they purchased the five thirty eight brand, right,
you know, he said, in my philosophy's in North Carolina,
got my philosophy and negotiations is always that it's worth
one dollar more the next guy is willing to pay
for it, right. So, and there's some of that, right.
(05:37):
But the thing about subscription models, and it's nice to
have myself, right, is if they are cash flow positive, right,
you can get a big burst of subscribers upfront, they're
paying for the whole year or the whole month in advance. Right,
So it's like not some future we're going to build
this brand up and then later on converted to advertising
(05:58):
revenues or make it a brand consultancy or something else.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
Right.
Speaker 2 (06:02):
You know if free press has north of one hundred
thousand paid subscribers, right and they're paying on average, after
after stripe fees and things like that, eighty dollars a
year or whatever, right, I mean that is like that's
like actual freaking money. You know, whether it justifies one
hundred and fifty billion, you get into multipless can be billion,
(06:26):
it can get to multiples. Multiples can be subjective.
Speaker 1 (06:29):
Right.
Speaker 2 (06:30):
There's maybe some notion that, like all those subscription businesses
get off to a fast start, you know, in theory
they have some upside cap, right. Yeah, Typically there's like
kind of a S curve sign you at first, you
have trouble finding anybody because I don't know about you. Right,
the developed brand awareness and you reach everybody in your
(06:50):
potential audience, the people who are the most excited about
your product, subscribed first rate and then probably encounter some
diminishing returns. And the point is that, like where do
you find yourself on that. You know, when do those
inflection points hit potentially right, you start to get more churn,
it gets harder. Right. One criticism that's and levied against
the Free press is that it focuses on some particular issues,
(07:18):
some of which, in various ways are becoming less relevant. Right.
You know, it focused a lot on woke excesses in
the kind of the liberal sphere. Right, I'm not going
to put woke in quotation marks. I think it was
a real thing. Barry Weiss quit The New York Times
in twenty twenty at a time when there was a
lot of peer pressure and group think, and so this
(07:40):
place sucks, right, I'm not going to be here anymore,
even though she'd been brought in to solicit conservative opinion pieces.
And part of what happens with these substacks is when
there is like a market inefficiency when for whatever reason,
because because there's peer pressure in newsrooms, because corporate big
(08:00):
wigs are cow towing to a particular opinion to Trump
maybe for example, you know, substack feels that vuli where
there was a lot of people who were like, yeah,
I'm liberal but I'm not woke. This shit seems ridiculous.
And so here's a free press that, like the free press,
which are called common sense, that like speaks to those
(08:21):
issues in a way that other publications don't write. I
think it's been more of a struggle for like, how
does this audience feel about like covering the Trump administration? Right?
Trump is president and therefore, you know he makes most
of the news. If you're kind of covering politics, right,
I think probably you're gonna see some Well, I'm speaking
(08:41):
my own book here, right, I think these blogs are
interesting but partisan. I think they tend to suck when
it comes to, like actually covering elections. I think they
tend to be extremely partisan and not good at like
keeping their arms legs from polls. But no doubt, like
if you kind of got in early that like there's
a lot of desire for it, and a lot of
the best commentary about what's going on right is on
substeck now and not in the Washington Post, for example. Right,
(09:04):
so you know, this creates a market were you no
longer have have gate keepers, and in some sense, like
I admire anybody who says fuck you, I don't care
about the gatekeepers. Right, I'm going to do my own thing,
and I'm going to prove it with the fact that
I've developed, you know, the largest audience on this very
competitive platform. I've been talking for a while, Maria, what
(09:26):
do you I haven't even I have you have Wooden
edge Wise, what do you? What do you think?
Speaker 1 (09:32):
Well, you know, I, I frankly probably find the choice
more concerning than you do. For you know, I think
that the free press has changed a lot since it
was since its inception, right. I actually I was much
(09:55):
more sympathetic to a lot of Barry Weiss's pieces earlier on,
and I feel like it has gone from like actually
wanting to be free press to being a little bit
too much on the other side, so to speak, right,
and now actually being quite biased. Like whenever Trump is
(10:19):
suddenly singing your praises, you should probably be just a
little bit worried that maybe you're not the champion of
free speech that that you once were. So so there,
there's that, and then this is CBS News, right, and
that's and so so let's talk about that, right, Let's
(10:43):
talk about the fact that Barry Wise has zero experience
running a newsroom running.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
Now you're making Now you're making the bad of the bargainment.
Speaker 1 (10:51):
But that's true.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
But it's true.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
It's not a bad it's hold on, hold on. I've
so she's never worked in television, right, and let me
just say one of the first things she did when
she started was send out a memo telling everyone to
take time to write a memo to her detailing how
they spend their entire day so that she could read that.
(11:16):
And to me, that's like, that's not even a red flag.
That's like flaming red fires. If someone asked me to
do that, I would probably be like, I'm very sorry,
but with all due respect, fuck you. Like, as someone
who actually worked on a daily news show and who
has worked in a magazine, you know, corporate world, which she,
(11:39):
by the way, didn't do on the editorial side. She
was just an opinion columnist, and then she started her
own thing. It is very, very different. Running CBS News
is not running the Free Press on substack and being
put in charge of that. It's you know, imagine if
all of a sudden, like let's imagine I'm still at
(11:59):
The New Yorker and we're told that, hey, David Remnick
is leaving and instead we're going to get I don't
even know who. Elon Musk. He's very smart, and he's
gonna be your editor in chief.
Speaker 2 (12:10):
Oh no, but Ria, this is getting more Libby.
Speaker 1 (12:13):
But it doesn't have to be at Elon Musk. It
could be Bill Gates. I don't care who it is,
but someone who has zero experience running a magazine. But now,
even if David Remnick were to go to CBS News,
that would be a little bit weird, and he probably
still isn't particularly qualified for that because even though he's
run something that's much more similar to that kind of organization,
(12:34):
it's still incredibly different.
Speaker 2 (12:36):
I mean, first, first of all, if you want to
talk about qualified, like a lot of the presidents of
these network news organizations, this.
Speaker 1 (12:42):
Is a president, she's she's not the president though, right,
This is someone who is in charge of the content.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
Those are very very she's act.
Speaker 1 (12:49):
But it's those are different roles.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
She reports to Ellison, right, right.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
But those are different roles.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
The role of editor can mean a lot of different things.
Speaker 1 (12:57):
Right now, I'm not talking about politics. I'm just talking
about like, who are you putting in charge of a
news organization? Do you are you putting someone who actually
understands how to run a newsroom.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
And yes, she has run she has run a newsroom
with like several dozen people. That is one of the
few successful businesses.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
But it's not television. It's a very different medium. Podcasts
are different from newsletters, are different from daily TV shows
are different from screenwriting, are differs.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
So you want you want more superficiality.
Speaker 1 (13:30):
No, I want someone who I think is qualified. If
you look at her resume, just pretend you don't even
see her name, right, and you see resumes of people,
this is not someone who would ever get that job, right, Like,
she just lacks some basic qualifications, some basic stepping stone.
Speaker 2 (13:45):
Go ahead and look at like who is hired to
these senior level positions at ABC, CBS, NBC. Right. Sometimes
it's longtime TV executives. Sometimes it's people with the journalism background.
Sometimes it's somebody who's a big name brought in from
the outside. Right. Sometimes it's somebody who who was a
(14:06):
star producing a different type of television, might producing sports
or something like that. Sometimes it's somebody who kind of
came up the corporate length since kind of like a bureaucrat.
The range of things that you do is like an editor,
including bureaucratic task, editorial task, and most of the people
have not been very successful or good. It's a kind
of high turnover. At least in the curtent environment. Used
(14:26):
to have like long standing people who would have this
job for years, right, but the turnover is very high.
And like, why wouldn't you want to pick somebody who
has actually built a successful news product before?
Speaker 1 (14:38):
Well, I would want someone who at least understands how
my medium works, someone who has worked in screen and
who understands that writing for the screen is very different
from writing for the page. Who understands that what it
takes to succeed in television is not what it takes
to succeed in print journalism. Who understands how all of
these different media products work together. I want someone with
(15:01):
a demonstrated capacity to make that sort of a transition,
and she I would at least have won her in
a more junior position to demonstrate that she's capable of
creating sixty minutes, right, of producing a show like that.
And let me tell you from having actually worked as
a television producer, it is not anything like what I
(15:23):
do as a print journalism. The things that you write
for it are vast, Like it's just a completely different
skill set, and to think that it's the same skill
set just is basically ignorant, to be perfectly honest. Like
it's it's like saying this.
Speaker 2 (15:38):
News is not a tell it doesn't want to be
a television company. It wouldn't have the valuation.
Speaker 1 (15:44):
And yet and yet so much of it is television.
And to bring in someone who does not understand television
and has no background in it, I think is just
a jaw dropping decision.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
I'm just dealt with enough like corporate suits at these
companies specifically, where like the bar is pretty low. Somebody
who's bright and hard working and has built a successful
editory brand right and understands video, you know, I mean,
their kindent is pretty tech steady, right, But like it's
not an easy thing to like build a brand when
(16:18):
you kind of start out.
Speaker 1 (16:19):
I'm not trying to I'm not trying. I'm not trying
to say that Barry Weiss does not you know, is
not good at what she does. I'm not, you know,
I'm not trying to say that, but I'm saying that
what she does is not necessarily what I'd be looking
for in the editor in chief, not the president of
(16:40):
CBS News, someone who's in charge of the editorial decisions
of this brand and the editorial decisions across the board.
So potentially, like what a CBS News saying, are we
saying we don't want to be a television company at all?
Are we gonna shut down sixty Minutes? Are we going
to shut down all of our flagship shows and we're
(17:00):
not gonna do TV We're gonna do We're just gonna
become the free press or or whatever it is. If
that's what they're saying, Okay, well that's one thing. But
I don't think that's what they're saying. I mean, I
think they still want to produce some of the best
quality television. That is some of the best quality news television.
That's what they're known for. I keep saying sixty Minutes
(17:21):
because it's one of the most respected brands, not just
in the United States but in the world. And a
lot of the people in sixty Minutes quit right over
the last year because there's been a lot of turmoil
and CBS has shown that it doesn't have a backbone
in terms of protecting the quality of it of its
editorial content. And the independence of its journalists. And so
this is to me just another reason to be skeptical
(17:46):
and alarmed. Now she I would be so thrilled, Nate,
if Barry Wies were to prove me wrong and were
to come in there and prove that, like you know what,
she's the best editor in chief CBS has seen. She
revolutionizes it. She ends up being a free, independent voice
who speaks truth to the Trump administration just as much
as she spoke truth to the woke left, and who
(18:09):
ends up making really good decisions, great hiring decisions, and
makes CBS News vibrant and relevant. I would love for
that to be the case CBS News. No, but we
need someone good, and it has become much less vibrant.
We need someone You're not even you're not engaging with
what I'm saying. You're you're picking one little thing, and
(18:31):
you need someone. As I said, CBS News has been
falling for the last year, and this is actually more
of the same. Right, it has lost some of its
most prominent voices who have left or been forced out,
and now they've hired Barry Weiss, which kind of doubles
down on that. And I don't think Ellison has any
desire to do anything other than make sure he gets
(18:53):
a lot of money and gets the deals that he
wants to go through and be approved by the Trump administration. Now,
once again, as someone who has worked in television, I've
worked for good producers bad producers. Like there's a huge difference, right,
the shows don't just make themselves. You need good people
there otherwise you're going to get absolute shit. And if
(19:14):
you want a good CBS News, if that's the goal,
then you know, is this was this the correct hire?
And what is the future of a news organization where
it seems like those values are being put aside for
something that looks like instead of editorial freedom, editorial oversight.
(19:39):
We'll be back right after this.
Speaker 2 (19:49):
The one I really got my goat was like John Oliver.
I'm sure some of the readers like John Oliver. Maybe
some don't fight them to their taste. I'm in the
latter camp, even though I probably agree with him on
some stuff, right, I find them kind of hectoring in luxury.
So John Oliver was making them the same complaint you
were that like Shay's dead and walked in excuse an
(20:10):
editorial journalist, right, And like sometimes the facts are wrong,
and it's like okay, Like you know, John Oliver takes
predictable opinions from one side of a spectrum, mixes them
with facts to a degree where it's sometimes ambiguous, kind
of like what's an opinion and what's the fact? Right,
(20:32):
and then states to them very confidently, and like, you know,
for you to criticize Barry Wise of that, which I
think might be a good characterization of some of what
they do, right, it just seems like kind of hypocritical,
And all these opinion journalists are like all his opinion journalists,
Like why is in York Times have an opinion page?
I write sometimes in your Times opinion page, right, you know,
(20:53):
I don't know, right the opinion is actually a vertical
It sells pretty well for the most part, and like,
but it just seems to me like a lot of publications,
including the big three networks pre Trump. I think a
lot of things have changed now in the Trump era, right,
but like there is an implicit is sometimes explicit, but
(21:14):
an implicit left leaning bias, not far left, not Bernie
Sanders Zoran bias left, their corporate right, maybe not quite
my kind of center left either, but like on cultural issues.
They're very progressive, and like what Barry does is kind
of like give the progressive left, not the zoran left,
(21:37):
the progressive kind of center left. I call it the
indgo blob, this merger between on the one hand, non
partisan media and then kind of like partisan institutions of
the Democratic Party and the left. Right, she is taking
that formula to produce on average center right leaning opinions
with high production guyues, meaning you know, the stories are
(21:58):
edited well in a sense of like they have a
good lead paragraph, they have a good headline, they get
promoted well on social media, they have attractive art to
the extent that's possible depending on the type of story,
and so forth. Right, And like that's kind of what
like a lot of these brands do on the left.
And is there some implicit or I would say, in
some cases fairly explicit bias, yes, But like it's the
(22:19):
same game that you've been seeing on in the progressive
left for like for a long time now.
Speaker 1 (22:25):
Right, I wouldn't want John Oliver to head CBS News either, Right,
I don't think that someone who's an opinion columnist, slush,
an opinion show host, you know, whatever it is, should
be heading a news organization. That's just me, right, I
wouldn't want Stephen Colbert running CBS News like I and
I love him. I don't think that that's that we should.
(22:48):
You know, if you're saying that, what you're I'm not
saying you personally, Nate. If one is saying is that
one wants to be a bastion of free speech and
try to kind of protect that and be an organization
that espouses the values of editorial integrity, then at least
you should try to hire someone who's not an op
(23:10):
ed columnist with a left or right leaning viewpoint. Right,
she was, but she was right. But you're saying that
the wait, hold on, you were just saying that the
way that her formula was the same right that you
That's what you were just talking about. You were saying
that the formula is to have an opinion with some
(23:30):
facts presented, leaning some direction.
Speaker 2 (23:33):
It's more compliated than that. Right that she did something
that was ambiguity. If you listen to John Oliver, right,
like every eight ten things he does are true, says
are true, but they're cherry picked and spun, and it's
kind of the same thing right, where like it's taking right.
Speaker 1 (23:48):
Which is why we don't want either one of them.
Speaker 2 (23:50):
A lot of the work that Free Press does, we.
Speaker 1 (23:52):
Don't want either one of them as head of CBS News.
Speaker 2 (23:55):
You think you're not getting out CBS News now. I remember,
I remember watching in the Pandemic, we had a prinned
up to her house and they had a story about
like how Ron DeSantis, the evil governor of Florida, was
distributing a vaccine at Public which is a giant supermarket
chain throughout Florida and the South, which to me, she
was like a fucking fantastic idea, you know, and where
(24:16):
you turn in Florida there is is an alligator and
a Public's basically and like you know, like to me, like,
I mean, that was an example of like, you know,
we're things narrowly fact sexually, fact chextually, that's not a
word wrong. Probably some things that sant As people were
mad about the story. And believe me, I'm not a
fan of run the Santa Say at all, but like
that was a story that was a it was a biased,
fucking story.
Speaker 1 (24:37):
Right now, of course you're misunderstanding me. I'm saying that
that's not a good that's not a good thing. Right,
We're we're not We're not saying that those that cherry
picking to the left or to the right is a
good thing. And so why would you pick someone whose
entire mo O was to create a publication like that
that has become much more right leaning. Don't you want
(25:00):
to at least start off with you know, Okay, fine,
maybe there there will end up being some bias, because
there always is. There's no such thing as an unbiased
piece of storytelling ever, because even the most factually correct
story is going to have a point of view on
which order to present the facts. You know, we can
(25:20):
get all philosophical about this, but there's no such thing
as an objective piece of writing. Like it just does
not exist. And we can, you can, I will, I
will die on that hill. True objectivity is impossible.
Speaker 3 (25:32):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (25:32):
Now, if we are saying that we still we want
to be a place that is open to all viewpoints,
et cetera, et cetera, don't you at least want to
start with someone in charge of that organization whose whole
mo wasn't something different.
Speaker 2 (25:55):
And we'll be right back after this break.
Speaker 1 (26:09):
By the way, if CBS was like, hey, Maria, you
should be our editor in chief, I'd be like, absolutely not.
I have no idea what I'm doing when it comes
to saidthing like that. You know, I know some specific
parts of the business from having worked on them, but like,
I'm not that person, right, that's not my world.
Speaker 2 (26:28):
This is the weird part. Right. If if CBS paramount
came to me and said, we'll offer to buy Silver
bulletin for one hundred and fifty million dollars, and how
much of that is my what are the terms, et cetera,
But I'd be very pleased to have that. Please have
that offer, Marie. You're after to playing some high rollers
in the World Series next summer. If they then said
(26:51):
you have to be editor in chief of CBS News,
I'd be like, no fucking way, right, it's a really
bad job you have. These are big bureaucratic news organizations
that like have a lot of people. They were once
highly secured jobs and now they're becoming less so, right,
and so you have kind of like the old guard
journalist too, are terrified for their livelihood. You have the
(27:12):
kind of younger, progressive, woke staff. You have ownership who's
trying to please Trump. You have a perpetually declining, although
these networks still give more audience. You might think their
for their Sunday shows, right and their evening shows right
in perpetual decline. Right. And you kind of come into
a job where a lot of people, probably not all
the staff, maybe not most of the staff, but a
(27:34):
lot of people kind of publicly hate your guts. I mean,
that sounds like a fucking terrible job. For one hundred
and fifty million dollars, I do it, But like I
wouldn't do that job for two million dollars a year.
I'm not fucking kidding, right, Like, I mean, that job
is like it's a terrible fucking job. Which makes me wonder,
is that this Barry want that to reshape the newsroom?
(27:54):
Where does Ellison want that for her?
Speaker 1 (27:57):
Or?
Speaker 2 (27:57):
I mean she's very ambitious, right, And one, you know,
I'm a little bit older than her, not that much older,
I don't think, but like a little bit older. And
like one thing, it's nice, it's like I got my
phase where I wanted to like dominate and take over
the media landscape out of the way with five thirty
eight at a big corporate news organization called ABC.
Speaker 3 (28:16):
Right.
Speaker 2 (28:16):
And also you know she is used to being an
environment where like she is the equity holder, and therefore,
when you grow, then you capture those proceeds. You can
choose to reinvest those pro seeds. You can choose to
take a nice, you know, vacation somewhere, you can choose
to hire more staff or whatever else. Right, And my
advice to her would be like, when you go from
(28:36):
kind of being the owner to being kind of the patron,
then that changes the incentives quite as absolutely absolutely.
Speaker 1 (28:46):
I mean, you know, one of the things, this is
something that we haven't really talked about, but from her perspective,
it's actually a really interesting question because she's someone who
left The New York Times. She wasn't fired. She chose
to quit because she felt like she at least the
way that she phrased it. Obviously, I have zero insider information.
I've never met Barrywise, but the way that she publicly
(29:08):
framed it is, you know, I want to be even
though like no one's forcing me out, and I was
hired for kind of express it to express more conservative
opinions like I want to be even more free, right,
Like I want to be in an environment where I
feel like I can do like my my own thing
and like really frame the conversation. So, you know, so
she left the New York Times to be you know, free,
(29:30):
to be even more herself. She founds the Free Press,
which is her own publication, right where she makes the
editorial decisions. She chooses what they cover, she chooses how
they cover it, you know, when they host presidential debates,
she chooses, you know, exactly how she wants to do it.
And you know, being being someone who was always so
(29:53):
vocal about needing to be fiercely independent, you then get
on Ellison's payroll, right, and there's no other way of
putting it right, Like you that that is that is
actually literally what is what is happening? I hate to say, like, Barry,
are you out like hell? For one hundred and fifty
million dollars, I'd sell out and go and probably go
(30:16):
do something like that. It's a lot of money. No
judgment in terms of people taking life changing money. Maybe
a little bit of judgment, we'll see, but you know,
it's in terms of her own goals, in terms of
like what are you going to be able to do?
You're being put in a position where maybe what you said,
(30:38):
you know, five years ago, that was the thing that
you stood for is not compatible necessarily with the role
that you chose and the way that you will now
have to be answering to kind of corporate powers that
be and political forces that are strong, and that hired
you for a very specific reason.
Speaker 2 (31:00):
Yeah. Look, she is the number one publication free press,
which is a lot of people on sub stack. Right.
Number two was Heather Cox Richardson, who just sends out
a newsletter at one am every day, lives in Maine,
has no real staff, as far as I can tell,
has no real format a right, occasionally does a media appearances. Right,
(31:21):
And she's making I know how much she's making, but
I can't say, right, but like she's just making all
that money and like apparently keeping it for her and
her I think she's like a hot like lobster man
husband in Maine or something, right, not the one running
for Yeah, and like yeah, no, I mean not a
(31:43):
bad life, right, But the point is that like no,
and look, I guess it's like a little bit personal
because like, you know, and I'm kind of in this
in between zone right where I I you know, I
hired uh, you know, Eli my politics analysts became full
time we hired a sports analyst. I'm probably looking to
looking ahead to next year and like probably gonna have
to hire another person, right, But I don't want to
(32:05):
recreate five thirty eight where I had like thirty people,
because yeah, look, even if you're nominally the editor in
chief and I have been an editor in chief, right,
then between corporate ownership and the staff, right, I mean
the point if I had thirty people, then it becomes,
you know, all of a sudden, the work I do
is representative of them, and like you kind of lose
control over over the hiring process.
Speaker 3 (32:28):
Right.
Speaker 2 (32:28):
So like my objective not that people should necessarily care,
is like, you know, I want to keep thinks kind
of more close knit, right, whereas is Barry is kind
of like let's take a big shot, right, Let's I mean,
she's got maybe more of the high risk entrepreneurial spirit.
I guess it is, right, but you know, the juxposition
(32:50):
of like that with like these dodgy old media companies
that I know a lot a lot about in my
own way too, having worked for ABC, is just like
I predict that she is going to become extremely frustrated, right,
And like the other thing that bugs me too, is
you know, I kind of hate the fact that, like,
(33:11):
why can't things just be medium sized and good and profitable?
Why is everything have to blow up so much?
Speaker 3 (33:19):
Right?
Speaker 2 (33:19):
Yeah, I want to say, Okay, the free press, we're
doing very well. Right, We'll continue to expand the user base,
and then we're gonna kind of generate a lot of income.
We can do with income what we want. We can
invest in the business and other business. Just keep the money.
It's capitalism. I have no problem with like people having
money at any point whatsoever, Right, but like, why do
we have to like fucking always like take over everything
(33:41):
and take over the world and not just say, like
we're at one of the you know, we have over
one hundred thousand subscribers. We're bigger already than paid subcribers, right,
We're bigger already than like terms of the print circulation
all but like one or two newspapers right in digital circulation,
you know, getting pretty far up there. And instead it's like, okay,
why do you you know, it's just a little bit
baffling to me that like there's so much emphasis and
(34:03):
a lot of these entrepreneurs and media I don't run
a shit about like I would trust Barry Weiss before Ellison.
You know what I mean? A million times over, that's
not saying much.
Speaker 3 (34:13):
Yes, so so okay, let's let's wrap up here then,
So if we're gonna frame this, you know, with what
we sometimes do on the show, like good call, bad call,
the hiring of Barry Weiss as editor in chief of
CBS News, and you can't hedge.
Speaker 1 (34:34):
It has to be good call or bad call? Is
it a good call or is it a bad call?
Speaker 2 (34:38):
What are his objectives? Too? Well?
Speaker 1 (34:43):
His objective is to make lots of money for himself personally,
I think. But let's say to have a vibrant news organization.
Let's let's uh take him out as word that the
objective is to make CBS a vibrant news organization and
a bastion of true free speech that protects free speech
(35:04):
on all sides of the political spectrum and is a
relevant voice in media and a respected voice in media.
Good call, bad call?
Speaker 2 (35:13):
Those are like different objectives, right, like I I you know,
they'll probably get better at avoiding a certain type of
progressive bias sometimes involve shutting down speech and substing with
it their own various kind of biases right now, Look,
I think it's if they are doing this for purely
journalistic reasons, then it's high risk, probably leaning bad. Right,
(35:34):
for financial reasons, I think the evaluation is quite reasonable.
Speaker 3 (35:37):
Right.
Speaker 2 (35:38):
If it's for political reasons, then then who knows, right,
I mean Trump, I mean it's a weird model because
like Trump certainly does rather explicitly play favorites.
Speaker 1 (35:48):
Yeah, so so give me, give me a final give
me a final judgment.
Speaker 2 (35:52):
Night.
Speaker 1 (35:52):
I started off by saying no caveats, and that was
what one big caveat is the buying.
Speaker 2 (35:58):
The Free Press good call? Having her be editor in
chief bad call?
Speaker 1 (36:03):
All right, that's a that's a.
Speaker 2 (36:07):
Are you bad call? Back call?
Speaker 1 (36:08):
I'm bad call bad? I think I think for for
reasons that I've already that I've already made quite clear.
And like I said, this is not a not a
dig on barrier what she accomplished at Free Press. I
just think it's it's a bad sign for the types
of lofty goals of editorial integrity, free speech, et cetera,
(36:30):
et cetera that CBS was once known for and hopes
to be known for years ago. Hopes to be yeah,
hopes to be known for once again. So yeah, I
think I think bad call, bad call, But I would love, love,
love to be wrong, like I really would, because I
want journalism to thrive, and I want the people at
(36:53):
CBS to thrive, and I want good people to be hired.
And so I really, I really hope that Barry Weiss
will pleasantly surprise me and will end up being a
much better editor in chief than I think she's going
to be. And if so, I will happily, you know,
come on Riskyusiness and say I was wrong. Yay, I'm
very happy that I was wrong. Let us know what
(37:24):
you think of the show. Reach out to us at
Risky Business at pushkin dot FM. Risky Business is hosted
by me Maria Kanakova.
Speaker 2 (37:33):
And by me Nate Silver. The show was a cool
production of Pushing Industries and iHeartMedia. This episode was produced
by Isaac Carter. Our associate producer is Sonya gerwit Lydia
Jean Kott and Daphne Chen are our editors, and our
executive producer is Jacob Goldstein. Mixing by Sarah Brubert.
Speaker 1 (37:52):
If you like the show, please rate and review us
so other people can find us too. But once again,
only if you like us. We don't want those bad
reviews out there. Thanks for tuning in.
Hosts And Creators
Maria Konnikova
Nate Silver
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!
Ruthie's Table 4
For more than 30 years The River Cafe in London, has been the home-from-home of artists, architects, designers, actors, collectors, writers, activists, and politicians. Michael Caine, Glenn Close, JJ Abrams, Steve McQueen, Victoria and David Beckham, and Lily Allen, are just some of the people who love to call The River Cafe home. On River Cafe Table 4, Rogers sits down with her customers—who have become friends—to talk about food memories. Table 4 explores how food impacts every aspect of our lives. “Foods is politics, food is cultural, food is how you express love, food is about your heritage, it defines who you and who you want to be,” says Rogers. Each week, Rogers invites her guest to reminisce about family suppers and first dates, what they cook, how they eat when performing, the restaurants they choose, and what food they seek when they need comfort. And to punctuate each episode of Table 4, guests such as Ralph Fiennes, Emily Blunt, and Alfonso Cuarón, read their favourite recipe from one of the best-selling River Cafe cookbooks. Table 4 itself, is situated near The River Cafe’s open kitchen, close to the bright pink wood-fired oven and next to the glossy yellow pass, where Ruthie oversees the restaurant. You are invited to take a seat at this intimate table and join the conversation. For more information, recipes, and ingredients, go to https://shoptherivercafe.co.uk/ Web: https://rivercafe.co.uk/ Instagram: www.instagram.com/therivercafelondon/ Facebook: https://en-gb.facebook.com/therivercafelondon/ For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iheartradio app, apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.