September 21, 2025 • 48 mins
It promised unlimited reach, direct engagement, and a more informed world. But instead devalued expertise, creating a ‘clicks and outrage’ economy where speed reigns over accuracy.
To help us get the full story, we’re joined by John DeDakis, an award-winning novelist, writing coach, public speaker, and former CNN Senior Copy Editor.
https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B002BM6WM0
https://www.instagram.com/dedakisjohn/
https://www.facebook.com/john.dedakis
https://bsky.app/profile/johndedakis.bsky.social
00:00 The Journey of a Journalist
02:16 The Impact of the Internet on Journalism
03:52 Skepticism and Trust in Digital News
06:25 Challenges for Editors in the Digital Age
08:48 The Shift Towards Clickbait and Investigative Journalism
11:35 The Rise of Citizen Journalism
13:55 The Role of AI in Journalism
16:37 The Future of Content Creation
19:14 The Ethics of AI and Journalism
21:19 Substack and the Future of Individual Journalism
24:08 The Evolution of Journalism in the Digital Age
30:15 The Importance of Media Literacy and Education
37:08 The Role of Public Broadcasting in Journalism
42:50 Hope for the Future of Journalism
45:18 Curiosity as a Key Skill for Writers
Let us know what else you’d like us to look into, or just say hello at https://www.ruinedbytheinternet.com/
journalism, internet, media literacy, investigative journalism, AI, misinformation, citizen journalism, public broadcasting, trust in news, writing
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Welcome to Ruined by the Internet.
I'm Gareth King. Today we're asking, has the
Internet ruined journalism? A promised unlimited reach,
direct engagement and a more informed world, but instead
devalued expertise, creating a clicks and outrage economy where
speed reigns over accuracy? To help us get the full story,
we're joined by John Dedekis, anaward winning novelist, writing
(00:21):
coach and former CNN senior copyeditor.
John, thank you so much for joining us and welcome to the
show. Thanks Gareth, it's good to be
here. Before we get into it, can you
tell us a bit about what you do and the journey that led you to
this point? What I do now is I'm a writing
coach, a manuscript editor, a novelist, a public speaker, and
(00:45):
I've been doing that since I retired from CNN in 2013,
although I was doing some of those things while I was still
at CNNI was a journalist for 45 years, covered the White House
when Reagan was president, went to CNN in 1988 in Atlanta and
was with the network for 25 years, the last 7 as an editor
(01:07):
for Wolf Blitzer on the Situation Room.
Yeah, wow. So it's quite a quite an
extensive repertoire and background that you've got
there. So obviously you've been in the
world of journalism and and writing long enough to have seen
the arrival of the Internet and also its effects play out.
From your perspective, what's been the most fundamental change
across the industry? I think that the I mean the most
(01:30):
fundamental change, at least forme, because I existed before the
Internet did the the biggest change is the connectivity of
it. I mean, you and I are half a
world away and we are able to talk in real time.
Being able to see each other. I mean, that was unheard of when
I was growing up. And so I think that's the
(01:52):
biggest thing, the reach that wehave to be able to connect with
people around the world. I mean, that's just spectacular,
I think. Yeah, absolutely.
And I think just on that point of reach, you know, as you said,
it would have been unheard of, but but looking back to that
time, what did the initial impact of the Internet and
technology look like on the industry and and what was the
(02:15):
reaction at the time? Well, in in journalism there was
certainly a fair degree of scepticism about the Internet.
I mean, we used it, but we had to be very careful about knowing
if the information was reliable.And so for the longest time, you
know, the, the, the Internet wasavailable as sort of a tip
(02:36):
service. We would get heads up about
things, but we would still checkit out the old way where you
pick up the phone and call somebody you know in authority
at a reputable organisation, a government agency or one of your
contacts or something like that.So you know, it took a while for
the Internet to become more insinuated into daily life.
(03:00):
Yeah, interesting to hear that. It almost generated those leads
easier to to people which he then still had to investigate.
And I think one of the things we'll probably get into as well
as we go through this conversation is the speed that
everything operates at these days and how that plays out.
Would you say that it was the Internet as a as a tool for
journalism was taken seriously right off the bat, like right
(03:23):
away, or do you think the industry was a little bit slow
to react? It's been a while now, but I, I
think that there was a fair amount of scepticism and, and I
think you know what, I think at reputable news organisations,
there's still a lot of scepticism for good reason,
because there is just so much BSout there and there's so much,
(03:46):
there are so many lies and conspiracy theories.
It's just gotten like it's the Wild West.
And so I think, I think reputable news organisations are
still cautious about it and yet it's used quite a bit as well.
Yeah, yeah. Especially, I mean your point
there around reputable news organisations.
(04:06):
And I think as we know, as it expands and and the rise of say
citizen journalism as well, the lines are kind of getting
blurred. And as I guess we've seen play
out over years now, that trust even in these reputable
organisations seems to be breaking down quite a lot too.
So obviously that's another challenge to to try and address
(04:26):
as everything keeps going. But I guess on that point, what
would you say beyond maintainingthat reputation and I guess that
trust from the audience, what would be the biggest challenge
for an editor trying to manage an outlet or publication in the
digital age? And how would that compare to
previously when it was kind of just implicitly trustworthy?
(04:48):
I'm not sure I can add much to that just because journalists
are sceptical. And so the the problem is the
sources that are making things up and it's just a matter of
trial and error. I mean, the, the sources that
journalists tend to rely on are sources they trust.
(05:11):
And so a lot of people are competing for attention.
The, the problem now is that, I mean, you even, look, you even
have the President of the UnitedStates, Donald Trump, who I'll
be honest, he, he lies constantly, reflexively, you
know, and, and so if he says it,you have to be sceptical.
(05:34):
But of course, if you ask him questions, then you're, you're
considered treasonous. You know, it's, it's gotten to
the point where, you know, Trumphimself has done a tremendous
disservice to the to the Internet because of the
falsehoods that he spews and then claims that the mainstream
(05:57):
media is fake news. And what he's done, it's not.
And he's not just undermining journalism.
He's undermining the intelligence community, the
judiciary, the scientific community.
And that's what dictators do. They undermine trust in
everything so that you believe them.
And I mean, he said when he first ran for president, only I
(06:17):
can solve it. Yeah, look, that's, that's an
entire, I guess world that we could probably spend hours going
down. And what it appears to me, you
know, I'm in Australia, I'm not on the ground in in the US
seeing what it's like over there.
But what I can kind of see around all of that is the way
that him or his team or whoever it is is kind of using the
(06:41):
Internet in like Internet culturally rather than an
official sense. And I think that not just him, I
think all officials do it to to varying degrees, where they've
got a team that manages their social media or something.
And the team is not staffed by people like them.
It's staffed by young people totally plugged into, you know,
(07:04):
the way to communicate to peopleonline.
So, so that communication is formatted as Internet
information, not kind of official information.
And then I think, you know, wires get crossed somewhere
along the line. That's obviously one of the
disservices that the democratisation of information
(07:24):
provides via the Internet. One of the things that's
happening right now in the WhiteHouse press corps is that they
have made room for what they call new media.
And, and it's a rotating thing. And they get the first question
in the briefing. They sit to Caroline Leavitt's
immediate right along that that Rose Garden wall and the New
(07:48):
York Times just did a piece on one of the, you know, the new
media people and the guy make stuff up.
I mean, he he's he's he's already got a reputation for not
being reputable, but that's OK for the White House because, you
know, he says what they want himto say and he slavishly asks
(08:10):
softball questions. It's, it's, it's so it's
complicated because you're rightabout, you know, young people,
you know, using the technology to get the, the message out as
effectively as possible. They're not necessarily dealing
with the content. They're dealing with the, the
way to make sure that the reach is as far as it needs to be.
(08:33):
But you know, you've got people in the White House, in the, in
the in the briefing room who aren't journalists, but they've
got hundreds of thousands of followers, but there's no editor
on their shoulder going. Where did you get that?
How do you know that's true? Yeah.
I mean that's that's an interesting point as well around
kind of I guess the speed that everything needs to operate.
(08:55):
We know that headlines Dr clicks, which drive revenue and
you know, the byproduct of that,of course, is the need to create
that kind of viral content that you know, is going to get a lot
of eyes, a lot of clicks and getthat revenue to keep the the
network or your own small publication, whatever is going.
But seeing them somewhat of the model head down that path, you
(09:17):
know, where everything is just, you know, we've seen the rise of
opinion pieces as as like, you know, quite polarising by their
nature for that, I guess for that purpose.
Does that kind of cheap form of content, Does that mean that
expensive investigative journalism and writing just
becomes too expensive to producefor the most part?
And and does that shift towards clickbait and headline, You
(09:41):
know, a lot of people don't readbeyond the headline.
Is driving things through headlines rather than content
simply a necessity of a businessmodel that might be struggling?
Yes, that's that's a real danger.
And what's happening is, in fact, the Internet is probably
responsible for a lot of newspapers going out of business
because they had to monetize what they were doing.
(10:03):
But people wanted free news. And, and so they were, you know,
a lot of a lot of newspapers were late to put up a paywall.
And so they're, they were kind of caught flat footed responding
to the Internet. And so you're absolutely right,
it really puts a chill in investigative reporting because
(10:23):
in order to do effective investigative reporting, you
have to be backed up by a news organisation that has deep
pockets and skilled lawyers thatcan protect you.
You know, if you are branching out on your own and you're doing
investigative reporting, you arevery likely going to get sued.
And even if you are in the right, even if truth is an
(10:46):
absolute defence, someone with deep pockets and a lot of
patients can run out the clock and run out your bank account.
Even though, I mean, look at we're we're seeing Trump shake
down, you know, the Wall Street Journal, CBS News, The New York
Times, you know, he's suing, youknow, some of these people for
$20 billion and they're settling.
(11:08):
And these are big news organisations, you know, they're
not settling for 20 billion, they're settling for 16,000,000.
Just to kind of get it off theirplate now, of course.
And look, it's, it's, I guess just for context, it's very
different over here in terms of the litigious nature of, of
things. I think over here our legal
system doesn't allow, well, not from what I can see anyway, like
(11:32):
that level of, of suing over of kind of everything.
But you said you said something there around orgs, you know, and
publications being slow to put up a paywall around their
content. Why did they originally just
decide to start giving away the content for free?
What was the strategy behind that and how did they imagine
they could capitalise on that economically?
(11:54):
It's hard for me to, to know forsure, but my hunch is they still
had the, the physical newspaper and they, I don't think realised
that, you know, people were moving to the Internet.
And I think that they still trusted in the history that
people will still gravitate towards the actual paper.
And I think they just were slow to realise the tectonic shift
(12:17):
that took place in news consumption.
And that, that makes total sense.
And you know, on that point, howthe how do you think the rise of
that citizen journalism that we we mentioned a couple of minutes
ago, which is obviously fueled by the Internet and the ease it
is to publish and and share yourown stuff.
How do you think that changed the way traditional media
outlets do their jobs? Like now, with the ability for
(12:40):
anyone to curate their own unique interest, News feed is
the one size fits all, let's saybroadcast model a thing of the
past and like how much future doyou reckon it has?
That's an intriguing question. I think that the search for
truth, I don't think that the principles involved with that
(13:00):
have gone away or will go away. You know, you still need to
verify your sources. If you're getting something
anonymously, you need to be ableto confirm it with two other
sources at least. There are still reputable news
organisations, The Associated Press, Reuters, The New York
Times, the Guardian, BBC, just to name a few.
(13:21):
So I, I still think that the fundamentals of journalism still
still exist. But the problem, of course, is
that even the Russian government, I mean, the
military, they are, they have, they have, what are they troll
farms? You know, they, they are
planting false information. You know, that that is something
(13:43):
they're doing on an industrial strength level, on a state
level. And, and it's, it's weaponizing
falsehoods and that's hard to fight against.
It's hard to fight against. No, absolutely.
And I think that, you know, that's something that I'm sure
you you'd understand that comes up here as well.
You know, anytime there's an election or anything to do with
(14:05):
government going on, it's this kind of it's whether whether
it's it's real or not. It's almost the go to now that
they're they're these Russian troll farms are doing these kind
of interference jobs. And I'm sure that they're not
the only ones. Like I'm sure basically every
nation is probably. China as well, you know, and one
thing you haven't mentioned is the is artificial intelligence,
(14:27):
I mean. Yes, yes, the.
Deep fakes that are becoming much more sophisticated.
We can segue into that now because that's a.
It's a great, great thing to talk about.
I remember, you know, when that must be a few years ago now,
playing with the first kind of image generators and they were
terrible. You know, they were laughable at
what you would get back from them.
(14:48):
And then seeing the first examples of, of when you could
kind of make an image of somebody doing something and
then when the first video came out where you could just take an
existing video of put someone else's face on it.
Even then, you know, I remember having conversations with people
around this is going to be really bad.
(15:09):
Like once this kind of starts exponentially increasing quality
wise. You know, it's so funny.
We've, we've spent the last decade.
You, you mentioned the, the termfake news just before and
whether anyone likes it or not, that has just become part of the
vernacular for, for everybody now.
And, and, and it's kind of just refers to everything that
(15:30):
somebody doesn't like. They can kind of call it that.
And, and it's so it's so interesting to me that we've
spent so much of the last decadefighting against fake news and,
and things that are misinformation, disinformation,
etcetera, to now be barrelling at super speed into a digital
world full of stuff that's fake and we'll have no way of
(15:55):
telling. And it's just quite an
interesting irony that all of that fight against fake stuff
seems to have fallen by the wayside as we now embrace, you
know, generative AI and other forms of AI.
How do you think that's going tohappen and play out?
Well, here's the thing. I mean, technology is morally
neutral and the, the, the problem is the people and, and
(16:21):
what people do with it. And, you know, going forward, I
mean, I think that one of the points you made about AI being
so sophisticated that we won't be able to tell the real from
the fake. But I think that there are ways
that there might be able to put watermarks on things or, you
know, a digital watermark for authenticity's sake.
(16:41):
I mean, this is way beyond my understanding or ability to deal
with. And, you know, in, in this
country, there's, you know, the 1st Amendment freedom of speech.
And so, you know, you, you really want to be very careful
about fiddling with content because that was that was always
the case. Even when we're talking about
the printing press, you could still lie, you know, and use a
(17:03):
printing press to do it and reach a lot of people.
So, you know, lying is nothing new.
It's just that the technology inthe pipeline is more
sophisticated, but the responsibility is still on us to
be discerning. There's no surprise that there's
lying out there, so that means we've just got to be alert to it
(17:24):
and not just swallow everything whole.
Yeah, no, totally. And I think that your your point
you raised there about watermarks or or something like
that. You know, I have seen certain
pieces of, of content that mightbe shared on various platforms
that will have kind of a watermark identifier built in.
People do want that, you know, because we've seen the amount of
what they call slop out there interms of text and and and
(17:48):
writing is insane. And everybody, you know, they
have these debates around how you can tell formats.
It's got a certain tone, etcetera.
Like the use of an M dash. She's like a big one, but that's
short form content. Obviously you're you've got a
background in journalism, but you're now a longer form writer
in the world of novels. And I make it up.
(18:09):
Yeah, yeah. But I guess that's coming from
your from your, your own mind. How do these are these tools,
are they starting to impact thatworld at all or are they OK?
In what ways? I want to say, I want to say one
thing, though, to go back to, you know, the future.
I think a lot can be said for the education system.
(18:29):
I think that there really needs to be not just, you know, in
education where people learn howto use it, but I think that
there needs to be some classes in, you know, being more
sophisticated in using it responsibly and being able to
discern what's real and what's fake.
So I think education in elementary school on up, you
(18:51):
know, I think is, is important, but as far as AI is concerned,
that's something I've been playing with because I teach a
lot. I do a lot of writing classes.
And so the, the question comes up a lot.
And so I've, you know, I've fiddled with AIA little bit and
it's here to stay. And I found that it can be
(19:11):
useful as a research tool as long as you get, you know,
sources that you can check out. But you know, AI isn't really
creative. It just regurgitates
information. And I actually tried that.
I had to write a short story, which is not my specialty.
And so I plugged in the parameters.
I need a short story, 5000 words, this style.
(19:32):
This is the title. These are the elements.
And it's spit out something in nanoseconds and it sucked it.
Suck. And that then was a reminder
that I hadn't lost my chops and that, you know, there is
something to say for the human element here.
And it is definitely, I mean, there's a lawsuit in the US
(19:54):
about copyright infringement because, you know, people's
books are being used to train AI.
But, you know, ChatGPT is not buying these people's novels.
They're just stealing them. And and that and that's still
going through the courts. So copyright infringement is an
issue. But, you know, it's almost a
moot point because the damage has already been done, Although
(20:15):
it could protect, it could protect people who are now
writing, but their stuff hasn't,you know, been published yet.
Yeah. And on the, on the kind of, I
guess copyright infringement stuff, as you've alluded to
there, it is just pulling from all information available to it
and kind of summarising it, which if you, if you play that
out over a long enough time, themore it does that, the more of
(20:37):
itself it's putting out there and then the more of itself it's
kind of drawing from. So it should theoretically just
come to this ultimately beige point that it's just nothing.
You know what I mean? Once it loses, as you said, all
that humanness, that's, yeah, not very exciting to think
about. I would bet though that AI is
becoming is going to become muchmore sophisticated to the point
(20:59):
where it really can replicate the human thought and the
emotions. I read or I heard a story
recently that you know, unstablepeople are using ChatGPT or or
you know, generative AI to to betheir therapist and that it
actually can talk them into committing suicide.
Yeah, I've seen a couple of the same stories and that's very,
(21:22):
very scary that not only are we so insularised, I don't know if
that's a word, but we're so interested now, you know, our
devices and things and our digital lives where we're not
interacting with real people offline, that turning to a
screen for therapy is it seems like a very dystopian next step.
(21:45):
And then seeing as you said, these stories of these these
young people ending up kind of committing suicide be because of
what it said or whether it's because of what it said directly
or not. It's just a so tragic.
And hopefully there gets to be some guardrails and, you know,
regulations around that because that's awful.
If you were a nefarious actor, you could easily sabotage that
(22:09):
and, and commit some kind of OP.But that's, that's a very dark
place to go down. But what I did want to talk to
you around, as you said, those large language models and, and
generative AI to, to make pieces.
If we rewind back to the contextof, say a, let's say, a book
publisher or even a newsroom or,or anything that deals in words,
(22:34):
theoretically, could they get toa point where you could be
running just agentic AI systems producing all the content
drawing from what's happening out there in the world?
And so you could be running an entirely fake newsroom or, or
book publisher. Yeah, awesome.
Yeah, have a nice day. Yeah, God, that sounds awful.
(22:58):
OK, another, another thing, if we go back to that citizen
journalism, I'm sure you've heard of platforms like
Substack, right? Would you say that on, on an
individual level that the Substack model is potentially A
viable future for journalism? Or is it just a niche where I
guess if you've got a big enoughname and platform already, you
can capitalise on that? Oh, well, I think you you can
(23:21):
definitely do that. I mean, there are a couple of
people who left the Washington Post and, you know, started
their own Substack. I've always seen Substack is
more of a newsletter kind of thing, but you know, technology
evolves. I don't know if I don't see it
necessarily replacing, you know,day to day journalism, but it
certainly supplements it and it can be a useful, valuable
(23:44):
contribution to the search for truth that and I mean, that's
the thing. It's, I think that anything is
possible and that it can be usedfor good or for I'll.
And it goes back to being discerning and being able to use
things responsibly with the understanding that there are
going to be a lot of people who don't use it responsibly or use
(24:06):
it nefariously or even in an evil with evil intent.
But that's been the human condition since the beginning.
It's it's just more sophisticated now.
Yeah, on that point, you said something.
They obviously the search for truth and you got to be a bit
discerning around whether it's your sources or what you're
(24:27):
producing. A little while ago we touched on
kind of how the Internet affected, say, newsrooms and
journalism right at the get go. How has that changed over time
now that there's this 24/7 news cycle and just constant demand
for new stuff and the speed thateverything operates at?
Well, in in some ways, it's it'svery useful because one of the
(24:50):
things I noticed when I was at CNN is that, you know, we could,
it was hard for us to do interviews with people who
didn't live in a Bureau city. In other words, you had to get a
camera in front of them. And, you know, that took time,
it took effort, travel, all thatkind of stuff.
So, you know, the newsmakers were in the big cities near
(25:11):
where we had a camera. Well, now with the Internet, we
can hook U to somebody in Function Junction, Utah.
And that's great because the technology allows us to reach
more people and draw from the expertise and the experience of
people who aren't just in the elite gatekeeping kinds of
(25:32):
places. So I think that's a value you
have now. You know, everybody who's got a
cell phone, cell phones are verysophisticated in that they have
that camera function and the video function.
So people can go live during a traffic stop that goes South
and, you know, people see it in real time badly.
(25:53):
However, mass shooters have alsolive streamed their crimes.
It's sick. But just because the ability
that is there doesn't make the Internet sick.
It means that people misuse it. But as far as journalism is
concerned, it's been wonderful in terms of getting video fast
(26:15):
from people right on the scene. You know, if you've got, if, you
know, when Trump was shot in Butler, PA, everybody had it on
tape. You know, I mean, you, you get
so many different angles of the same thing.
And that is helpful to law enforcement as well.
Yeah, Look, I think that that aswell, as you said, if
(26:35):
theoretically any event that happens, you've got somebody on
the scene. And and we know that people not
even interested in producing news, they're just interested in
getting likes online, putting a video out there.
And, and one of the things that we've all noticed is whether big
or small doesn't really matter. Sources of news do scour the
(26:56):
Internet and and social media platforms to find those stories
that might originate on someone's Instagram or TikTok
account or as you said, a video just shared somewhere.
How how much of that goes on? Would you say there's people
that that's their job just to like be trolling the Internet
for things like that that can turn into stories or or do you
(27:16):
hear the story and then find? I don't think, I don't think
news organisations are doing that.
Again, we're talking reputable news organisations.
I don't think that's where they get their news.
Now, there's a friend of mine inBaltimore when the, you know,
the Key Bridge was hit by a barge and it collapsed.
There was video, there was therewas surveillance video and they
(27:38):
had to go through a rigorous check to make sure they had to
check with, you know, the police, you know, is this is
what we see is this did this happen?
And so that then means though, that there are people out in the
hinterlands who will, you know, send you a video and say, isn't
this amazing? And it is amazing, but it's, is
(28:00):
it true? And so I think again, the
reputable news organisations, they're not searching for that
kind of stuff because the stuff comes at them.
One of the things I'd like to see, and maybe they actually
exist, is look, if you've got a video of some event that you
know is stunning, but there's no, you know, no one else
(28:21):
happened to be there with a camera, did it really happen or
is it fake? I would think there need to be
people in newsrooms that are able to tell if a news event is
really a news event. There have been a couple of
cases where Fox News, which is sort of a very conservative
network in the US, sort of Trumps personal, almost personal
(28:43):
website. They were giving stories about,
you know, burning down cities, but the video was from something
entirely different. But, you know, you got to be
able to show where the original came from, show how they're
using it. And I mean, that take.
That's Investigative Journal. Yeah.
Look, that's, that's a great point.
(29:03):
And I think that that is one of the problems with this.
And and you know, as we, as we mentioned a little while ago,
like a lot of people are not doing any deeper digging on
anything. You know, they see the video,
that's the truth. They see a claim, that's the
truth. You know, I've seen things like
that, even those US ones that you're talking about, like I
might have seen it in my feed. And I'm like, this just seems
(29:25):
absurd, whether it's about firesor something else.
And within a minute of further, you know, amateur investigation
that I can do, I can find that it's fake.
But let's be honest, the vast majority of people aren't doing
that. That's true.
It's totally understandable how this stuff spreads and I guess.
(29:46):
Which which goes back to, which goes back to my feeling that the
education system needs to step up as well.
Because people are, you know, they're sheep in many ways.
They'll believe whatever they want to believe.
And that when you have an informed electorate, when you
know, civics is taught, when science is taught, you know, the
(30:07):
education system I think really needs to step up to let people
know that at a, at a young age, that, you know, the dangers of
falsehoods, the consequences of that.
I mean, I, I think we can turn it around if we educate people.
I mean, that's not a, that's notmeant to be a panacea, but I
think it is at least one place where we can start to make a
(30:31):
difference. Yeah, No, absolutely.
I totally agree with you there. That kind of teaching digital,
digital literacy, I mean, look, if you're in, if you're a 14
year old kid now, you, you don'tknow anything other than having
a the supercomputer in your handat all times.
So you know how to use all of this stuff.
But it's like, as you said, being able to discern the
(30:53):
objective truth versus the subjective truth is, is a skill
that I know it'd be interesting to see whether people want that
or they want their own opinions,whatever they are to to be
nurtured and kind of coddled in that regard.
You know, you mentioned Fox Newsthere and, and you've got
publications on the other end. And look, everybody's got their
bias and, and kind of angle to different things.
(31:14):
But would you say that journalism is in better shape
when when you've got a strong public broadcaster that needs to
appeal to a broad audience representing the entire nation?
Like in Australia we've got the ABC and so obviously being
publicly funded, they need to appear right down the middle.
Now, that said, I don't think there's a single person in
(31:37):
Australia that thinks the ABC isthat.
Everybody thinks that it's catering to the views that they
don't like, which is probably anindicator that they're actually
doing quite a good balanced job.But those publicly funded
broadcasters that do need to play right down the middle, how
do you think that they keep the truth in journalism alive?
(31:57):
Well, the problem is that Trump is defunding them.
And so that, you know, that's one of the problems we have.
It's not that, you know, they never were, well, I shouldn't
say never, but you know, at thispoint it's not publicly funded.
There's, there's a public streamof money, but it's, it's a small
percentage, but it's, but it's enough that when that money goes
(32:18):
away, that does have an impact on, you know, the quality of
reporting. And I, and I think though that
they're really, I have a problemwith, with publicly funded news
organisations because if you've got a dictator, that then means
the information is curated by somebody who really has an axe
to grind. I don't.
(32:40):
I don't see public as necessarily the same as as
unbiased. I mean, yeah, that's that's a
fair fairpoint. I guess the flip side of that is
that hypothetically, let's say Donald Trump destroys it.
Couldn't someone just reinstate it in a few more years?
Sure, absolutely. And you know there was a time in
(33:00):
the US where they had the fairness doctrine and equal time
provisions. It got to be very difficult to
administer and and a lot of broadcasting organisations got
their licences from the government.
So in order to get their licencerenewed they needed to play it
straight and to be fair to all sides.
And when those particular rules went away, it was the Wild West.
(33:23):
It it gave rise to talk radio, Rush Limbaugh, you know, people
who you know, who didn't have editors, they could spew
whatever they wanted. I think it's a pendulum.
You know, we talked about truth.We talked about objectivity.
I think on a fundamental level, people really do appreciate
(33:43):
truth. We don't like to be lied to,
certainly don't like to be lied to in relationships.
And that's really what we're talking about, a relationship
between, you know, the people and a president, the people and
their government. So I think that on some
fundamental level there still isa desirable for reliable
information. Yeah, 100%.
(34:06):
And I think that that's one of the benefits that the access to
finding that truth for anybody that is interested is you can
just see how much these stuff iskind of curated and you know,
it's it's gives you a little bitthat doesn't give you the full
story that you can find. So you can obviously see what
(34:26):
anyone's agenda and how much anybody is is lying to you.
Do you think people still value journalism as a public good even
if they're not willing to pay for it?
And does the amount they value it, You know, like I, I value it
quite a lot and I, I read a widemix of things.
But do you think for a lot of people that the amount they
value it depends on how much it aligns to their own, I guess
(34:50):
mindset? Yeah, because look, going back
to when this country, the US, was founded, you know, they
didn't have anything called objective journalism.
You know, there were a lot of newspapers, but each newspaper
was spouting a particular political position.
And it wasn't until probably the1920s, maybe 100 years ago,
(35:12):
where the concept of objectivityeven entered journalism, entered
the public sphere. And, and so that was then
curated and it became more sophisticated.
It was always controversial. I think the Vietnam War was, was
probably a perfect example of that because, you know, Nixon
(35:32):
was prosecuting a war and lying about.
And, and it wasn't just Nixon, It was every president up until
Nixon and beyond, you know, lying about it.
And during the Vietnam War, the reporters that were actually in
Vietnam covering it, they go in the field with the troops and
then they'd come back and there would be a briefing in Saigon
(35:54):
from the military leaders. And they called the briefing the
5:00 follies because there was no, there was no coherence,
because there was no, there was no comparison to the lies that
were told from the podium and what these guys were seeing in
the field. But Nixon's vice President,
Spiro Agnew was going around thecountry calling journalists
(36:15):
nattering nabobs of negativism and and a feet core of impudent
snobs, which is just another sophisticated way of saying fake
news. So, you know, I I think we are
fooling ourselves if we really think that this is going to be
solved. There is no matter what the
(36:36):
technology is, as long as peopleare as involved, there is going
to be funny business. And I just, I sound like a
broken record, but it just meansthat those of us who care about
the truth need to be discerning and need to do what we can to
let others know that not everything you see on the
Internet is trustworthy. I think we all know that.
(36:59):
But I think that politics has gotten to be a blood sport.
It's all about power. It's all about power and
winning. And truth doesn't matter anymore
because the bottom line is beingin control.
And that's so sad. It's really sad.
Yeah, look that that again, 100%agree with that.
(37:19):
And I'm only speaking in an Australian context.
And from what I can see from theUS, it seems just kind of on
another planet in that kind of sense that even here it has kind
of broken down to a team sport to varying degrees.
You know, it's kind of and just that that hypocrisy and almost
(37:40):
not holding anybody to anything that they say of or promise.
Yeah. Do you see any spillover from
the US where you know our craziness is starting to seep
into your politics? Really.
Of course. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Look, I mean, rightly wrongly, good or bad, like obviously the
US is probably one of the, if not the most influential culture
(38:01):
in in the world, right. And I think that being that
highly visible, let's say leaderof the of the Western world that
your political, cultural, whatever it is, issues
definitely bleed over into otherWestern nations.
And I think one of the, the biggest ones is it's almost like
we have bootleg versions like you've got over there, you've
(38:22):
got mega, right? And then someone will, will
repurpose that here and, and it's make Australia great again.
And, you know, similar kind of sentiments, obviously, like
Australia put Australians first and, and, you know, same kind of
thing. And I think that it's not a, a
uniquely Trumpian thing. I think that it's just very easy
(38:44):
to spread around so much shared I guess culture and values in
general. Does that then mean that?
You don't really have any other places to go for reliable
information because the Internethas been so polluted entirely.
Look, I would I would say. That look and I could be
(39:07):
completely wrong here, I'll justtalk from my perspective.
I feel that, as I said, the US being on another level with all
of this stuff, it again comes down to that like, I think here
people aren't, from what I can tell, as supremely emotionally
invested in politics as as what they are in the US.
Like, you know, don't get me wrong, we've got kind of
(39:28):
politics super fans here, but they seem to be in in far
smaller numbers. And I think that that what it's
like here is most people generally have this perception
that the political class is justcompletely mediocre.
And so that doesn't have this weight to the normal person.
Like normal people are kind of somewhat detached from it.
(39:51):
And I think that that's a benefit that we can enjoy.
How did it get that way? How do?
Just how can we? How can we learn from you?
Look, I think. I think find the least
charismatic people you can find,the least interesting people you
can find and you know, like straight down the middle
(40:13):
inoffensive never rocked like they're, they're careerists,
right. And look, I'm and again, we,
we'll go off on a tangent, but it is an interesting one.
But it's like, you know, we knowthat politicians are careerists,
right? Like what a what a job like get
on that gravy train and you can just ride it.
And it's the same here, like, you know, except here there's
(40:33):
the salaries are probably far less than what you would get in
the US Politics here is kind of got that control lever, but it
doesn't have the cultural cache that I guess, you know, like
during election, someone might put a a core flute or a sign in
their yard or on their fence if their local candidate.
(40:54):
But it's like there's they've never videos of someone driving
their car through someone's yardto smash them down.
And fights breaking out and things like that.
It's just, it's just not like that.
And I think that at the end of the day for the vast majority
here, we are able to kind of interact with each other.
It does it hasn't broken societytribally is is what I can
(41:16):
observe. But I think on on that while we
were talking around, you know, public broadcasters and and the
search for truth, like, I think one healthy thing on that here
is this inherent cynicism, like any, any claim that you might
see from the from the government, so many people are
just like, that's bullshit. You know, I'm gonna try and
(41:37):
look, I'm gonna find why that's wrong.
So that's I guess that's one benefit.
And like I said, there is of course, sycophants and
mouthpieces, but I don't know, it just doesn't have the
cultural weight here. I think that it might in the USI
think though that. Roughly the US is broken into
thirds. You know, there's the extreme
(41:57):
right, the extreme left, and then I think that there's the
middle that really isn't as tuned in anymore.
There's sort of fatigue about it.
And I and I think that's where I'm hopeful that those people,
you know, might actually, you know, swing it one way or the
other if they're not persuadableby 1 extreme or the other.
(42:19):
Yeah, absolutely. And look that.
That pretty much sounds like like here, most people are in
that kind of grey area. And I think that the, the, the
good thing about that is obviously being able to find
common cause with people that aren't on your team as such.
And then that's that shared humanity, which obviously can
help hopefully move, move society along.
I think we're, I think you're really on to something.
(42:41):
I feel very strongly about that,that common human ground.
Yeah. Look.
Fingers crossed. But while we're on a positive
note, what would you say one thing that the introduction of
the Internet and and technology has enabled in the world of
journalism and writing that's made you more hopeful about the
future of it? Being able to have this
conversation I. Think is a perfect example I
(43:02):
mean you're concerned about whatthe Internet is doing to
society, the world, and we're talking about that.
We are half a world away talkingabout it.
I think that is what gives me hope.
Awesome. On that point then we.
Need those people to believe in and and deliver that hope moving
forward from from within the industry.
What would you say in your opinion is the most important
(43:25):
skill for a young writer, whatever form of writing that
they're, you know, looking to pursue?
The most important skill for them to have today that was not
needed, say, 20 years ago. Boy I I hadn't.
Thought about that one because Imean, you know, the obvious
skill is just being able to havea vocabulary and be able to put
(43:46):
into words succinctly and quickly whatever it is that
you're trying to communicate. I think here's here's one
thought just off the top of my head, and that is it's almost
the antithesis of the Blizzard of information that we get.
It would seem to me that the ultimate is to be able to say
(44:11):
something quickly and succinctlyand speak in sound bites, get
the point across without belabouring it.
And now I'm going to stop. No, that's that's an
interesting. Point there around especially
since we've been talking about people reading that headline or
just the top level of it. So I wonder if that's the skill
to develop is figuring out a wayto deliver a real truthful
(44:37):
headline or or sound bite that is actually going to deliver
that truth rather than just thatclick and that intrigue to then
deliver. I don't know something else with
a different different agenda A lot to think about.
I know a lot to. Think about.
Just to finish up then, what advice would you give to anybody
(44:58):
either you know currently withinthe industry or thinking of
getting into it sometime in the near future or or down the line,
what how would you advise them to not only navigate the current
landscape and world of journalism and writing, but also
help future proof themselves as well?
Be curious. I think that's.
Fundamental I I don't think thatthat will ever go away.
(45:21):
And not only be be curious, but be assertive about your
curiosity. Don't be afraid to ask questions
and and why is a wonderful question. 5 year olds, you know,
get it, You know, it's time for bed.
Why? Because I said so why and so on.
So I think curiosity will never go out of fashion and and asking
(45:46):
The Who, what, where, when, why and how questions.
Yeah, I think stay curious. Is a great piece of advice not
just for anybody in that world, but obviously anybody in the
world itself. That's how people adopt that as
it's kind of a mindset and we can maybe get through this
quagmire of mess using the Internet to to help find those
(46:08):
pieces of truth. I'm hopeful for no apparent.
Reason. That's good.
Me too. Me too.
Thanks so much for that, John. What have you got coming up on
the horizon? Where can people follow what
you're up to? Probably the best thing is my
website. Which is myname.com,
johndidakis.com, JOHND as in dogEd as in dog Akis as in
(46:34):
samjohndidakis.com. And I think that there are
actually some Didakis is living in Australia.
Oh, really? I have to look that up.
Yeah, that. Migrated from Lofka.
In in Greece on the Peloponnese,I was just there where my
grandpa and great grandpa were born.
Yeah, right. Yeah, we do have a decent.
Greek population here, so it wouldn't wouldn't surprise me.
(46:54):
Yeah, right. Pasiotis is another.
Greek family that moved to Australia.
So yeah, my website is probably the best place to do.
I'm doing more public speaking now on helping people use
writing as a way to heal from grief.
I'm working on my 7th novel. I have a short story that's
that's with an editor and I've written a memoir that's with a
(47:17):
publisher and they're deciding whether to publish it.
So I've got, you know, plus I'm teaching classes online and
because it's online on the Internet, you could even take
one of my classes even though you're in Australia.
And where can people find find? Those it's just at your website.
Go to my website, go to upcomingevents.
And you'll find it awesome, John, thank.
(47:38):
You so much. Thank you, Gareth, it was
wonderful talking. To you.
Thank you for more info on what we've discussed today.
Check out the show notes if you enjoyed this one.
You can subscribe to Ruined by the Internet on your favourite
podcast app and help spread the word by sharing this episode or
leaving a review. I'm Gareth King, see you next
time.
Welcome to Ruined by the Internet.
I'm Gareth King. Today we're asking, has the
Internet ruined journalism? A promised unlimited reach,
direct engagement and a more informed world, but instead
devalued expertise, creating a clicks and outrage economy where
speed reigns over accuracy? To help us get the full story,
we're joined by John Dedekis, anaward winning novelist, writing
(00:21):
coach and former CNN senior copyeditor.
John, thank you so much for joining us and welcome to the
show. Thanks Gareth, it's good to be
here. Before we get into it, can you
tell us a bit about what you do and the journey that led you to
this point? What I do now is I'm a writing
coach, a manuscript editor, a novelist, a public speaker, and
(00:45):
I've been doing that since I retired from CNN in 2013,
although I was doing some of those things while I was still
at CNNI was a journalist for 45 years, covered the White House
when Reagan was president, went to CNN in 1988 in Atlanta and
was with the network for 25 years, the last 7 as an editor
(01:07):
for Wolf Blitzer on the Situation Room.
Yeah, wow. So it's quite a quite an
extensive repertoire and background that you've got
there. So obviously you've been in the
world of journalism and and writing long enough to have seen
the arrival of the Internet and also its effects play out.
From your perspective, what's been the most fundamental change
across the industry? I think that the I mean the most
(01:30):
fundamental change, at least forme, because I existed before the
Internet did the the biggest change is the connectivity of
it. I mean, you and I are half a
world away and we are able to talk in real time.
Being able to see each other. I mean, that was unheard of when
I was growing up. And so I think that's the
(01:52):
biggest thing, the reach that wehave to be able to connect with
people around the world. I mean, that's just spectacular,
I think. Yeah, absolutely.
And I think just on that point of reach, you know, as you said,
it would have been unheard of, but but looking back to that
time, what did the initial impact of the Internet and
technology look like on the industry and and what was the
(02:15):
reaction at the time? Well, in in journalism there was
certainly a fair degree of scepticism about the Internet.
I mean, we used it, but we had to be very careful about knowing
if the information was reliable.And so for the longest time, you
know, the, the, the Internet wasavailable as sort of a tip
(02:36):
service. We would get heads up about
things, but we would still checkit out the old way where you
pick up the phone and call somebody you know in authority
at a reputable organisation, a government agency or one of your
contacts or something like that.So you know, it took a while for
the Internet to become more insinuated into daily life.
(03:00):
Yeah, interesting to hear that. It almost generated those leads
easier to to people which he then still had to investigate.
And I think one of the things we'll probably get into as well
as we go through this conversation is the speed that
everything operates at these days and how that plays out.
Would you say that it was the Internet as a as a tool for
journalism was taken seriously right off the bat, like right
(03:23):
away, or do you think the industry was a little bit slow
to react? It's been a while now, but I, I
think that there was a fair amount of scepticism and, and I
think you know what, I think at reputable news organisations,
there's still a lot of scepticism for good reason,
because there is just so much BSout there and there's so much,
(03:46):
there are so many lies and conspiracy theories.
It's just gotten like it's the Wild West.
And so I think, I think reputable news organisations are
still cautious about it and yet it's used quite a bit as well.
Yeah, yeah. Especially, I mean your point
there around reputable news organisations.
(04:06):
And I think as we know, as it expands and and the rise of say
citizen journalism as well, the lines are kind of getting
blurred. And as I guess we've seen play
out over years now, that trust even in these reputable
organisations seems to be breaking down quite a lot too.
So obviously that's another challenge to to try and address
(04:26):
as everything keeps going. But I guess on that point, what
would you say beyond maintainingthat reputation and I guess that
trust from the audience, what would be the biggest challenge
for an editor trying to manage an outlet or publication in the
digital age? And how would that compare to
previously when it was kind of just implicitly trustworthy?
(04:48):
I'm not sure I can add much to that just because journalists
are sceptical. And so the the problem is the
sources that are making things up and it's just a matter of
trial and error. I mean, the, the sources that
journalists tend to rely on are sources they trust.
(05:11):
And so a lot of people are competing for attention.
The, the problem now is that, I mean, you even, look, you even
have the President of the UnitedStates, Donald Trump, who I'll
be honest, he, he lies constantly, reflexively, you
know, and, and so if he says it,you have to be sceptical.
(05:34):
But of course, if you ask him questions, then you're, you're
considered treasonous. You know, it's, it's gotten to
the point where, you know, Trumphimself has done a tremendous
disservice to the to the Internet because of the
falsehoods that he spews and then claims that the mainstream
(05:57):
media is fake news. And what he's done, it's not.
And he's not just undermining journalism.
He's undermining the intelligence community, the
judiciary, the scientific community.
And that's what dictators do. They undermine trust in
everything so that you believe them.
And I mean, he said when he first ran for president, only I
(06:17):
can solve it. Yeah, look, that's, that's an
entire, I guess world that we could probably spend hours going
down. And what it appears to me, you
know, I'm in Australia, I'm not on the ground in in the US
seeing what it's like over there.
But what I can kind of see around all of that is the way
that him or his team or whoever it is is kind of using the
(06:41):
Internet in like Internet culturally rather than an
official sense. And I think that not just him, I
think all officials do it to to varying degrees, where they've
got a team that manages their social media or something.
And the team is not staffed by people like them.
It's staffed by young people totally plugged into, you know,
(07:04):
the way to communicate to peopleonline.
So, so that communication is formatted as Internet
information, not kind of official information.
And then I think, you know, wires get crossed somewhere
along the line. That's obviously one of the
disservices that the democratisation of information
(07:24):
provides via the Internet. One of the things that's
happening right now in the WhiteHouse press corps is that they
have made room for what they call new media.
And, and it's a rotating thing. And they get the first question
in the briefing. They sit to Caroline Leavitt's
immediate right along that that Rose Garden wall and the New
(07:48):
York Times just did a piece on one of the, you know, the new
media people and the guy make stuff up.
I mean, he he's he's he's already got a reputation for not
being reputable, but that's OK for the White House because, you
know, he says what they want himto say and he slavishly asks
(08:10):
softball questions. It's, it's, it's so it's
complicated because you're rightabout, you know, young people,
you know, using the technology to get the, the message out as
effectively as possible. They're not necessarily dealing
with the content. They're dealing with the, the
way to make sure that the reach is as far as it needs to be.
(08:33):
But you know, you've got people in the White House, in the, in
the in the briefing room who aren't journalists, but they've
got hundreds of thousands of followers, but there's no editor
on their shoulder going. Where did you get that?
How do you know that's true? Yeah.
I mean that's that's an interesting point as well around
kind of I guess the speed that everything needs to operate.
(08:55):
We know that headlines Dr clicks, which drive revenue and
you know, the byproduct of that,of course, is the need to create
that kind of viral content that you know, is going to get a lot
of eyes, a lot of clicks and getthat revenue to keep the the
network or your own small publication, whatever is going.
But seeing them somewhat of the model head down that path, you
(09:17):
know, where everything is just, you know, we've seen the rise of
opinion pieces as as like, you know, quite polarising by their
nature for that, I guess for that purpose.
Does that kind of cheap form of content, Does that mean that
expensive investigative journalism and writing just
becomes too expensive to producefor the most part?
And and does that shift towards clickbait and headline, You
(09:41):
know, a lot of people don't readbeyond the headline.
Is driving things through headlines rather than content
simply a necessity of a businessmodel that might be struggling?
Yes, that's that's a real danger.
And what's happening is, in fact, the Internet is probably
responsible for a lot of newspapers going out of business
because they had to monetize what they were doing.
(10:03):
But people wanted free news. And, and so they were, you know,
a lot of a lot of newspapers were late to put up a paywall.
And so they're, they were kind of caught flat footed responding
to the Internet. And so you're absolutely right,
it really puts a chill in investigative reporting because
(10:23):
in order to do effective investigative reporting, you
have to be backed up by a news organisation that has deep
pockets and skilled lawyers thatcan protect you.
You know, if you are branching out on your own and you're doing
investigative reporting, you arevery likely going to get sued.
And even if you are in the right, even if truth is an
(10:46):
absolute defence, someone with deep pockets and a lot of
patients can run out the clock and run out your bank account.
Even though, I mean, look at we're we're seeing Trump shake
down, you know, the Wall Street Journal, CBS News, The New York
Times, you know, he's suing, youknow, some of these people for
$20 billion and they're settling.
(11:08):
And these are big news organisations, you know, they're
not settling for 20 billion, they're settling for 16,000,000.
Just to kind of get it off theirplate now, of course.
And look, it's, it's, I guess just for context, it's very
different over here in terms of the litigious nature of, of
things. I think over here our legal
system doesn't allow, well, not from what I can see anyway, like
(11:32):
that level of, of suing over of kind of everything.
But you said you said something there around orgs, you know, and
publications being slow to put up a paywall around their
content. Why did they originally just
decide to start giving away the content for free?
What was the strategy behind that and how did they imagine
they could capitalise on that economically?
(11:54):
It's hard for me to, to know forsure, but my hunch is they still
had the, the physical newspaper and they, I don't think realised
that, you know, people were moving to the Internet.
And I think that they still trusted in the history that
people will still gravitate towards the actual paper.
And I think they just were slow to realise the tectonic shift
(12:17):
that took place in news consumption.
And that, that makes total sense.
And you know, on that point, howthe how do you think the rise of
that citizen journalism that we we mentioned a couple of minutes
ago, which is obviously fueled by the Internet and the ease it
is to publish and and share yourown stuff.
How do you think that changed the way traditional media
outlets do their jobs? Like now, with the ability for
(12:40):
anyone to curate their own unique interest, News feed is
the one size fits all, let's saybroadcast model a thing of the
past and like how much future doyou reckon it has?
That's an intriguing question. I think that the search for
truth, I don't think that the principles involved with that
(13:00):
have gone away or will go away. You know, you still need to
verify your sources. If you're getting something
anonymously, you need to be ableto confirm it with two other
sources at least. There are still reputable news
organisations, The Associated Press, Reuters, The New York
Times, the Guardian, BBC, just to name a few.
(13:21):
So I, I still think that the fundamentals of journalism still
still exist. But the problem, of course, is
that even the Russian government, I mean, the
military, they are, they have, they have, what are they troll
farms? You know, they, they are
planting false information. You know, that that is something
(13:43):
they're doing on an industrial strength level, on a state
level. And, and it's, it's weaponizing
falsehoods and that's hard to fight against.
It's hard to fight against. No, absolutely.
And I think that, you know, that's something that I'm sure
you you'd understand that comes up here as well.
You know, anytime there's an election or anything to do with
(14:05):
government going on, it's this kind of it's whether whether
it's it's real or not. It's almost the go to now that
they're they're these Russian troll farms are doing these kind
of interference jobs. And I'm sure that they're not
the only ones. Like I'm sure basically every
nation is probably. China as well, you know, and one
thing you haven't mentioned is the is artificial intelligence,
(14:27):
I mean. Yes, yes, the.
Deep fakes that are becoming much more sophisticated.
We can segue into that now because that's a.
It's a great, great thing to talk about.
I remember, you know, when that must be a few years ago now,
playing with the first kind of image generators and they were
terrible. You know, they were laughable at
what you would get back from them.
(14:48):
And then seeing the first examples of, of when you could
kind of make an image of somebody doing something and
then when the first video came out where you could just take an
existing video of put someone else's face on it.
Even then, you know, I remember having conversations with people
around this is going to be really bad.
(15:09):
Like once this kind of starts exponentially increasing quality
wise. You know, it's so funny.
We've, we've spent the last decade.
You, you mentioned the, the termfake news just before and
whether anyone likes it or not, that has just become part of the
vernacular for, for everybody now.
And, and, and it's kind of just refers to everything that
(15:30):
somebody doesn't like. They can kind of call it that.
And, and it's so it's so interesting to me that we've
spent so much of the last decadefighting against fake news and,
and things that are misinformation, disinformation,
etcetera, to now be barrelling at super speed into a digital
world full of stuff that's fake and we'll have no way of
(15:55):
telling. And it's just quite an
interesting irony that all of that fight against fake stuff
seems to have fallen by the wayside as we now embrace, you
know, generative AI and other forms of AI.
How do you think that's going tohappen and play out?
Well, here's the thing. I mean, technology is morally
neutral and the, the, the problem is the people and, and
(16:21):
what people do with it. And, you know, going forward, I
mean, I think that one of the points you made about AI being
so sophisticated that we won't be able to tell the real from
the fake. But I think that there are ways
that there might be able to put watermarks on things or, you
know, a digital watermark for authenticity's sake.
(16:41):
I mean, this is way beyond my understanding or ability to deal
with. And, you know, in, in this
country, there's, you know, the 1st Amendment freedom of speech.
And so, you know, you, you really want to be very careful
about fiddling with content because that was that was always
the case. Even when we're talking about
the printing press, you could still lie, you know, and use a
(17:03):
printing press to do it and reach a lot of people.
So, you know, lying is nothing new.
It's just that the technology inthe pipeline is more
sophisticated, but the responsibility is still on us to
be discerning. There's no surprise that there's
lying out there, so that means we've just got to be alert to it
(17:24):
and not just swallow everything whole.
Yeah, no, totally. And I think that your your point
you raised there about watermarks or or something like
that. You know, I have seen certain
pieces of, of content that mightbe shared on various platforms
that will have kind of a watermark identifier built in.
People do want that, you know, because we've seen the amount of
what they call slop out there interms of text and and and
(17:48):
writing is insane. And everybody, you know, they
have these debates around how you can tell formats.
It's got a certain tone, etcetera.
Like the use of an M dash. She's like a big one, but that's
short form content. Obviously you're you've got a
background in journalism, but you're now a longer form writer
in the world of novels. And I make it up.
(18:09):
Yeah, yeah. But I guess that's coming from
your from your, your own mind. How do these are these tools,
are they starting to impact thatworld at all or are they OK?
In what ways? I want to say, I want to say one
thing, though, to go back to, you know, the future.
I think a lot can be said for the education system.
(18:29):
I think that there really needs to be not just, you know, in
education where people learn howto use it, but I think that
there needs to be some classes in, you know, being more
sophisticated in using it responsibly and being able to
discern what's real and what's fake.
So I think education in elementary school on up, you
(18:51):
know, I think is, is important, but as far as AI is concerned,
that's something I've been playing with because I teach a
lot. I do a lot of writing classes.
And so the, the question comes up a lot.
And so I've, you know, I've fiddled with AIA little bit and
it's here to stay. And I found that it can be
(19:11):
useful as a research tool as long as you get, you know,
sources that you can check out. But you know, AI isn't really
creative. It just regurgitates
information. And I actually tried that.
I had to write a short story, which is not my specialty.
And so I plugged in the parameters.
I need a short story, 5000 words, this style.
(19:32):
This is the title. These are the elements.
And it's spit out something in nanoseconds and it sucked it.
Suck. And that then was a reminder
that I hadn't lost my chops and that, you know, there is
something to say for the human element here.
And it is definitely, I mean, there's a lawsuit in the US
(19:54):
about copyright infringement because, you know, people's
books are being used to train AI.
But, you know, ChatGPT is not buying these people's novels.
They're just stealing them. And and that and that's still
going through the courts. So copyright infringement is an
issue. But, you know, it's almost a
moot point because the damage has already been done, Although
(20:15):
it could protect, it could protect people who are now
writing, but their stuff hasn't,you know, been published yet.
Yeah. And on the, on the kind of, I
guess copyright infringement stuff, as you've alluded to
there, it is just pulling from all information available to it
and kind of summarising it, which if you, if you play that
out over a long enough time, themore it does that, the more of
(20:37):
itself it's putting out there and then the more of itself it's
kind of drawing from. So it should theoretically just
come to this ultimately beige point that it's just nothing.
You know what I mean? Once it loses, as you said, all
that humanness, that's, yeah, not very exciting to think
about. I would bet though that AI is
becoming is going to become muchmore sophisticated to the point
(20:59):
where it really can replicate the human thought and the
emotions. I read or I heard a story
recently that you know, unstablepeople are using ChatGPT or or
you know, generative AI to to betheir therapist and that it
actually can talk them into committing suicide.
Yeah, I've seen a couple of the same stories and that's very,
(21:22):
very scary that not only are we so insularised, I don't know if
that's a word, but we're so interested now, you know, our
devices and things and our digital lives where we're not
interacting with real people offline, that turning to a
screen for therapy is it seems like a very dystopian next step.
(21:45):
And then seeing as you said, these stories of these these
young people ending up kind of committing suicide be because of
what it said or whether it's because of what it said directly
or not. It's just a so tragic.
And hopefully there gets to be some guardrails and, you know,
regulations around that because that's awful.
If you were a nefarious actor, you could easily sabotage that
(22:09):
and, and commit some kind of OP.But that's, that's a very dark
place to go down. But what I did want to talk to
you around, as you said, those large language models and, and
generative AI to, to make pieces.
If we rewind back to the contextof, say a, let's say, a book
publisher or even a newsroom or,or anything that deals in words,
(22:34):
theoretically, could they get toa point where you could be
running just agentic AI systems producing all the content
drawing from what's happening out there in the world?
And so you could be running an entirely fake newsroom or, or
book publisher. Yeah, awesome.
Yeah, have a nice day. Yeah, God, that sounds awful.
(22:58):
OK, another, another thing, if we go back to that citizen
journalism, I'm sure you've heard of platforms like
Substack, right? Would you say that on, on an
individual level that the Substack model is potentially A
viable future for journalism? Or is it just a niche where I
guess if you've got a big enoughname and platform already, you
can capitalise on that? Oh, well, I think you you can
(23:21):
definitely do that. I mean, there are a couple of
people who left the Washington Post and, you know, started
their own Substack. I've always seen Substack is
more of a newsletter kind of thing, but you know, technology
evolves. I don't know if I don't see it
necessarily replacing, you know,day to day journalism, but it
certainly supplements it and it can be a useful, valuable
(23:44):
contribution to the search for truth that and I mean, that's
the thing. It's, I think that anything is
possible and that it can be usedfor good or for I'll.
And it goes back to being discerning and being able to use
things responsibly with the understanding that there are
going to be a lot of people who don't use it responsibly or use
(24:06):
it nefariously or even in an evil with evil intent.
But that's been the human condition since the beginning.
It's it's just more sophisticated now.
Yeah, on that point, you said something.
They obviously the search for truth and you got to be a bit
discerning around whether it's your sources or what you're
(24:27):
producing. A little while ago we touched on
kind of how the Internet affected, say, newsrooms and
journalism right at the get go. How has that changed over time
now that there's this 24/7 news cycle and just constant demand
for new stuff and the speed thateverything operates at?
Well, in in some ways, it's it'svery useful because one of the
(24:50):
things I noticed when I was at CNN is that, you know, we could,
it was hard for us to do interviews with people who
didn't live in a Bureau city. In other words, you had to get a
camera in front of them. And, you know, that took time,
it took effort, travel, all thatkind of stuff.
So, you know, the newsmakers were in the big cities near
(25:11):
where we had a camera. Well, now with the Internet, we
can hook U to somebody in Function Junction, Utah.
And that's great because the technology allows us to reach
more people and draw from the expertise and the experience of
people who aren't just in the elite gatekeeping kinds of
(25:32):
places. So I think that's a value you
have now. You know, everybody who's got a
cell phone, cell phones are verysophisticated in that they have
that camera function and the video function.
So people can go live during a traffic stop that goes South
and, you know, people see it in real time badly.
(25:53):
However, mass shooters have alsolive streamed their crimes.
It's sick. But just because the ability
that is there doesn't make the Internet sick.
It means that people misuse it. But as far as journalism is
concerned, it's been wonderful in terms of getting video fast
(26:15):
from people right on the scene. You know, if you've got, if, you
know, when Trump was shot in Butler, PA, everybody had it on
tape. You know, I mean, you, you get
so many different angles of the same thing.
And that is helpful to law enforcement as well.
Yeah, Look, I think that that aswell, as you said, if
(26:35):
theoretically any event that happens, you've got somebody on
the scene. And and we know that people not
even interested in producing news, they're just interested in
getting likes online, putting a video out there.
And, and one of the things that we've all noticed is whether big
or small doesn't really matter. Sources of news do scour the
(26:56):
Internet and and social media platforms to find those stories
that might originate on someone's Instagram or TikTok
account or as you said, a video just shared somewhere.
How how much of that goes on? Would you say there's people
that that's their job just to like be trolling the Internet
for things like that that can turn into stories or or do you
(27:16):
hear the story and then find? I don't think, I don't think
news organisations are doing that.
Again, we're talking reputable news organisations.
I don't think that's where they get their news.
Now, there's a friend of mine inBaltimore when the, you know,
the Key Bridge was hit by a barge and it collapsed.
There was video, there was therewas surveillance video and they
(27:38):
had to go through a rigorous check to make sure they had to
check with, you know, the police, you know, is this is
what we see is this did this happen?
And so that then means though, that there are people out in the
hinterlands who will, you know, send you a video and say, isn't
this amazing? And it is amazing, but it's, is
(28:00):
it true? And so I think again, the
reputable news organisations, they're not searching for that
kind of stuff because the stuff comes at them.
One of the things I'd like to see, and maybe they actually
exist, is look, if you've got a video of some event that you
know is stunning, but there's no, you know, no one else
(28:21):
happened to be there with a camera, did it really happen or
is it fake? I would think there need to be
people in newsrooms that are able to tell if a news event is
really a news event. There have been a couple of
cases where Fox News, which is sort of a very conservative
network in the US, sort of Trumps personal, almost personal
(28:43):
website. They were giving stories about,
you know, burning down cities, but the video was from something
entirely different. But, you know, you got to be
able to show where the original came from, show how they're
using it. And I mean, that take.
That's Investigative Journal. Yeah.
Look, that's, that's a great point.
(29:03):
And I think that that is one of the problems with this.
And and you know, as we, as we mentioned a little while ago,
like a lot of people are not doing any deeper digging on
anything. You know, they see the video,
that's the truth. They see a claim, that's the
truth. You know, I've seen things like
that, even those US ones that you're talking about, like I
might have seen it in my feed. And I'm like, this just seems
(29:25):
absurd, whether it's about firesor something else.
And within a minute of further, you know, amateur investigation
that I can do, I can find that it's fake.
But let's be honest, the vast majority of people aren't doing
that. That's true.
It's totally understandable how this stuff spreads and I guess.
(29:46):
Which which goes back to, which goes back to my feeling that the
education system needs to step up as well.
Because people are, you know, they're sheep in many ways.
They'll believe whatever they want to believe.
And that when you have an informed electorate, when you
know, civics is taught, when science is taught, you know, the
(30:07):
education system I think really needs to step up to let people
know that at a, at a young age, that, you know, the dangers of
falsehoods, the consequences of that.
I mean, I, I think we can turn it around if we educate people.
I mean, that's not a, that's notmeant to be a panacea, but I
think it is at least one place where we can start to make a
(30:31):
difference. Yeah, No, absolutely.
I totally agree with you there. That kind of teaching digital,
digital literacy, I mean, look, if you're in, if you're a 14
year old kid now, you, you don'tknow anything other than having
a the supercomputer in your handat all times.
So you know how to use all of this stuff.
But it's like, as you said, being able to discern the
(30:53):
objective truth versus the subjective truth is, is a skill
that I know it'd be interesting to see whether people want that
or they want their own opinions,whatever they are to to be
nurtured and kind of coddled in that regard.
You know, you mentioned Fox Newsthere and, and you've got
publications on the other end. And look, everybody's got their
bias and, and kind of angle to different things.
(31:14):
But would you say that journalism is in better shape
when when you've got a strong public broadcaster that needs to
appeal to a broad audience representing the entire nation?
Like in Australia we've got the ABC and so obviously being
publicly funded, they need to appear right down the middle.
Now, that said, I don't think there's a single person in
(31:37):
Australia that thinks the ABC isthat.
Everybody thinks that it's catering to the views that they
don't like, which is probably anindicator that they're actually
doing quite a good balanced job.But those publicly funded
broadcasters that do need to play right down the middle, how
do you think that they keep the truth in journalism alive?
(31:57):
Well, the problem is that Trump is defunding them.
And so that, you know, that's one of the problems we have.
It's not that, you know, they never were, well, I shouldn't
say never, but you know, at thispoint it's not publicly funded.
There's, there's a public streamof money, but it's, it's a small
percentage, but it's, but it's enough that when that money goes
(32:18):
away, that does have an impact on, you know, the quality of
reporting. And I, and I think though that
they're really, I have a problemwith, with publicly funded news
organisations because if you've got a dictator, that then means
the information is curated by somebody who really has an axe
to grind. I don't.
(32:40):
I don't see public as necessarily the same as as
unbiased. I mean, yeah, that's that's a
fair fairpoint. I guess the flip side of that is
that hypothetically, let's say Donald Trump destroys it.
Couldn't someone just reinstate it in a few more years?
Sure, absolutely. And you know there was a time in
(33:00):
the US where they had the fairness doctrine and equal time
provisions. It got to be very difficult to
administer and and a lot of broadcasting organisations got
their licences from the government.
So in order to get their licencerenewed they needed to play it
straight and to be fair to all sides.
And when those particular rules went away, it was the Wild West.
(33:23):
It it gave rise to talk radio, Rush Limbaugh, you know, people
who you know, who didn't have editors, they could spew
whatever they wanted. I think it's a pendulum.
You know, we talked about truth.We talked about objectivity.
I think on a fundamental level, people really do appreciate
(33:43):
truth. We don't like to be lied to,
certainly don't like to be lied to in relationships.
And that's really what we're talking about, a relationship
between, you know, the people and a president, the people and
their government. So I think that on some
fundamental level there still isa desirable for reliable
information. Yeah, 100%.
(34:06):
And I think that that's one of the benefits that the access to
finding that truth for anybody that is interested is you can
just see how much these stuff iskind of curated and you know,
it's it's gives you a little bitthat doesn't give you the full
story that you can find. So you can obviously see what
(34:26):
anyone's agenda and how much anybody is is lying to you.
Do you think people still value journalism as a public good even
if they're not willing to pay for it?
And does the amount they value it, You know, like I, I value it
quite a lot and I, I read a widemix of things.
But do you think for a lot of people that the amount they
value it depends on how much it aligns to their own, I guess
(34:50):
mindset? Yeah, because look, going back
to when this country, the US, was founded, you know, they
didn't have anything called objective journalism.
You know, there were a lot of newspapers, but each newspaper
was spouting a particular political position.
And it wasn't until probably the1920s, maybe 100 years ago,
(35:12):
where the concept of objectivityeven entered journalism, entered
the public sphere. And, and so that was then
curated and it became more sophisticated.
It was always controversial. I think the Vietnam War was, was
probably a perfect example of that because, you know, Nixon
(35:32):
was prosecuting a war and lying about.
And, and it wasn't just Nixon, It was every president up until
Nixon and beyond, you know, lying about it.
And during the Vietnam War, the reporters that were actually in
Vietnam covering it, they go in the field with the troops and
then they'd come back and there would be a briefing in Saigon
(35:54):
from the military leaders. And they called the briefing the
5:00 follies because there was no, there was no coherence,
because there was no, there was no comparison to the lies that
were told from the podium and what these guys were seeing in
the field. But Nixon's vice President,
Spiro Agnew was going around thecountry calling journalists
(36:15):
nattering nabobs of negativism and and a feet core of impudent
snobs, which is just another sophisticated way of saying fake
news. So, you know, I I think we are
fooling ourselves if we really think that this is going to be
solved. There is no matter what the
(36:36):
technology is, as long as peopleare as involved, there is going
to be funny business. And I just, I sound like a
broken record, but it just meansthat those of us who care about
the truth need to be discerning and need to do what we can to
let others know that not everything you see on the
Internet is trustworthy. I think we all know that.
(36:59):
But I think that politics has gotten to be a blood sport.
It's all about power. It's all about power and
winning. And truth doesn't matter anymore
because the bottom line is beingin control.
And that's so sad. It's really sad.
Yeah, look that that again, 100%agree with that.
(37:19):
And I'm only speaking in an Australian context.
And from what I can see from theUS, it seems just kind of on
another planet in that kind of sense that even here it has kind
of broken down to a team sport to varying degrees.
You know, it's kind of and just that that hypocrisy and almost
(37:40):
not holding anybody to anything that they say of or promise.
Yeah. Do you see any spillover from
the US where you know our craziness is starting to seep
into your politics? Really.
Of course. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Look, I mean, rightly wrongly, good or bad, like obviously the
US is probably one of the, if not the most influential culture
(38:01):
in in the world, right. And I think that being that
highly visible, let's say leaderof the of the Western world that
your political, cultural, whatever it is, issues
definitely bleed over into otherWestern nations.
And I think one of the, the biggest ones is it's almost like
we have bootleg versions like you've got over there, you've
(38:22):
got mega, right? And then someone will, will
repurpose that here and, and it's make Australia great again.
And, you know, similar kind of sentiments, obviously, like
Australia put Australians first and, and, you know, same kind of
thing. And I think that it's not a, a
uniquely Trumpian thing. I think that it's just very easy
(38:44):
to spread around so much shared I guess culture and values in
general. Does that then mean that?
You don't really have any other places to go for reliable
information because the Internethas been so polluted entirely.
Look, I would I would say. That look and I could be
(39:07):
completely wrong here, I'll justtalk from my perspective.
I feel that, as I said, the US being on another level with all
of this stuff, it again comes down to that like, I think here
people aren't, from what I can tell, as supremely emotionally
invested in politics as as what they are in the US.
Like, you know, don't get me wrong, we've got kind of
(39:28):
politics super fans here, but they seem to be in in far
smaller numbers. And I think that that what it's
like here is most people generally have this perception
that the political class is justcompletely mediocre.
And so that doesn't have this weight to the normal person.
Like normal people are kind of somewhat detached from it.
(39:51):
And I think that that's a benefit that we can enjoy.
How did it get that way? How do?
Just how can we? How can we learn from you?
Look, I think. I think find the least
charismatic people you can find,the least interesting people you
can find and you know, like straight down the middle
(40:13):
inoffensive never rocked like they're, they're careerists,
right. And look, I'm and again, we,
we'll go off on a tangent, but it is an interesting one.
But it's like, you know, we knowthat politicians are careerists,
right? Like what a what a job like get
on that gravy train and you can just ride it.
And it's the same here, like, you know, except here there's
(40:33):
the salaries are probably far less than what you would get in
the US Politics here is kind of got that control lever, but it
doesn't have the cultural cache that I guess, you know, like
during election, someone might put a a core flute or a sign in
their yard or on their fence if their local candidate.
(40:54):
But it's like there's they've never videos of someone driving
their car through someone's yardto smash them down.
And fights breaking out and things like that.
It's just, it's just not like that.
And I think that at the end of the day for the vast majority
here, we are able to kind of interact with each other.
It does it hasn't broken societytribally is is what I can
(41:16):
observe. But I think on on that while we
were talking around, you know, public broadcasters and and the
search for truth, like, I think one healthy thing on that here
is this inherent cynicism, like any, any claim that you might
see from the from the government, so many people are
just like, that's bullshit. You know, I'm gonna try and
(41:37):
look, I'm gonna find why that's wrong.
So that's I guess that's one benefit.
And like I said, there is of course, sycophants and
mouthpieces, but I don't know, it just doesn't have the
cultural weight here. I think that it might in the USI
think though that. Roughly the US is broken into
thirds. You know, there's the extreme
(41:57):
right, the extreme left, and then I think that there's the
middle that really isn't as tuned in anymore.
There's sort of fatigue about it.
And I and I think that's where I'm hopeful that those people,
you know, might actually, you know, swing it one way or the
other if they're not persuadableby 1 extreme or the other.
(42:19):
Yeah, absolutely. And look that.
That pretty much sounds like like here, most people are in
that kind of grey area. And I think that the, the, the
good thing about that is obviously being able to find
common cause with people that aren't on your team as such.
And then that's that shared humanity, which obviously can
help hopefully move, move society along.
I think we're, I think you're really on to something.
(42:41):
I feel very strongly about that,that common human ground.
Yeah. Look.
Fingers crossed. But while we're on a positive
note, what would you say one thing that the introduction of
the Internet and and technology has enabled in the world of
journalism and writing that's made you more hopeful about the
future of it? Being able to have this
conversation I. Think is a perfect example I
(43:02):
mean you're concerned about whatthe Internet is doing to
society, the world, and we're talking about that.
We are half a world away talkingabout it.
I think that is what gives me hope.
Awesome. On that point then we.
Need those people to believe in and and deliver that hope moving
forward from from within the industry.
What would you say in your opinion is the most important
(43:25):
skill for a young writer, whatever form of writing that
they're, you know, looking to pursue?
The most important skill for them to have today that was not
needed, say, 20 years ago. Boy I I hadn't.
Thought about that one because Imean, you know, the obvious
skill is just being able to havea vocabulary and be able to put
(43:46):
into words succinctly and quickly whatever it is that
you're trying to communicate. I think here's here's one
thought just off the top of my head, and that is it's almost
the antithesis of the Blizzard of information that we get.
It would seem to me that the ultimate is to be able to say
(44:11):
something quickly and succinctlyand speak in sound bites, get
the point across without belabouring it.
And now I'm going to stop. No, that's that's an
interesting. Point there around especially
since we've been talking about people reading that headline or
just the top level of it. So I wonder if that's the skill
to develop is figuring out a wayto deliver a real truthful
(44:37):
headline or or sound bite that is actually going to deliver
that truth rather than just thatclick and that intrigue to then
deliver. I don't know something else with
a different different agenda A lot to think about.
I know a lot to. Think about.
Just to finish up then, what advice would you give to anybody
(44:58):
either you know currently withinthe industry or thinking of
getting into it sometime in the near future or or down the line,
what how would you advise them to not only navigate the current
landscape and world of journalism and writing, but also
help future proof themselves as well?
Be curious. I think that's.
Fundamental I I don't think thatthat will ever go away.
(45:21):
And not only be be curious, but be assertive about your
curiosity. Don't be afraid to ask questions
and and why is a wonderful question. 5 year olds, you know,
get it, You know, it's time for bed.
Why? Because I said so why and so on.
So I think curiosity will never go out of fashion and and asking
(45:46):
The Who, what, where, when, why and how questions.
Yeah, I think stay curious. Is a great piece of advice not
just for anybody in that world, but obviously anybody in the
world itself. That's how people adopt that as
it's kind of a mindset and we can maybe get through this
quagmire of mess using the Internet to to help find those
(46:08):
pieces of truth. I'm hopeful for no apparent.
Reason. That's good.
Me too. Me too.
Thanks so much for that, John. What have you got coming up on
the horizon? Where can people follow what
you're up to? Probably the best thing is my
website. Which is myname.com,
johndidakis.com, JOHND as in dogEd as in dog Akis as in
(46:34):
samjohndidakis.com. And I think that there are
actually some Didakis is living in Australia.
Oh, really? I have to look that up.
Yeah, that. Migrated from Lofka.
In in Greece on the Peloponnese,I was just there where my
grandpa and great grandpa were born.
Yeah, right. Yeah, we do have a decent.
Greek population here, so it wouldn't wouldn't surprise me.
(46:54):
Yeah, right. Pasiotis is another.
Greek family that moved to Australia.
So yeah, my website is probably the best place to do.
I'm doing more public speaking now on helping people use
writing as a way to heal from grief.
I'm working on my 7th novel. I have a short story that's
that's with an editor and I've written a memoir that's with a
(47:17):
publisher and they're deciding whether to publish it.
So I've got, you know, plus I'm teaching classes online and
because it's online on the Internet, you could even take
one of my classes even though you're in Australia.
And where can people find find? Those it's just at your website.
Go to my website, go to upcomingevents.
And you'll find it awesome, John, thank.
(47:38):
You so much. Thank you, Gareth, it was
wonderful talking. To you.
Thank you for more info on what we've discussed today.
Check out the show notes if you enjoyed this one.
You can subscribe to Ruined by the Internet on your favourite
podcast app and help spread the word by sharing this episode or
leaving a review. I'm Gareth King, see you next
time.
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!
Cardiac Cowboys
The heart was always off-limits to surgeons. Cutting into it spelled instant death for the patient. That is, until a ragtag group of doctors scattered across the Midwest and Texas decided to throw out the rule book. Working in makeshift laboratories and home garages, using medical devices made from scavenged machine parts and beer tubes, these men and women invented the field of open heart surgery. Odds are, someone you know is alive because of them. So why has history left them behind? Presented by Chris Pine, CARDIAC COWBOYS tells the gripping true story behind the birth of heart surgery, and the young, Greatest Generation doctors who made it happen. For years, they competed and feuded, racing to be the first, the best, and the most prolific. Some appeared on the cover of Time Magazine, operated on kings and advised presidents. Others ended up disgraced, penniless, and convicted of felonies. Together, they ignited a revolution in medicine, and changed the world.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.