September 2, 2025 • 28 mins
Roger welcomes Sam Feist, longtime journalist and CEO of C-SPAN, for a conversation about why the role of nonpartisan reporting and transparency remains essential to the future of journalism and public trust.
They discuss the importance of unfiltered access to government, the challenge of maintaining neutrality in a polarized media environment, and the upcoming launch of "Ceasefire," a program designed to foster civil dialogue and bipartisan common ground. Feist also reflects on lessons learned from covering historic events like 9/11, producing landmark debate programs, and interviewing world leaders from Margaret Thatcher to Yitzhak Rabin. Plus, how young journalists can prepare for meaningful careers, and why balanced reporting is vital to a healthy democracy.
Sam Feist previously served as Washington bureau chief and senior vice president at CNN, where he produced award-winning coverage of major political events and breaking news. Over his career he has interviewed U.S. presidents, prime ministers, and other world leaders, earning five Emmy Awards and a Peabody Award. He is active in several professional organizations and now leads C-SPAN in its mission to provide Americans with fair, unfiltered access to their government.
The Liberty + Leadership Podcast is hosted by TFAS president Roger Ream and produced by Podville Media. If you have a comment or question for the show, please email us at podcast@TFAS.org. To support TFAS and its mission, please visit TFAS.org/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Welcome to the Liberty and Leadership Podcast,
a conversation with TFAS alumni,faculty and friends who are
making an impact.
Today I'm your host, roger Ream.
It's a pleasure to welcome SamFeist to today's show.
Sam is the CEO of C-SPAN, atelevision network that every
(00:22):
American has at least passingfamiliarity with and many of us
watch regularly.
Prior to C-SPAN, sam held aseries of leadership roles at
CNN, including serving asWashington bureau chief and
senior vice president.
He produced many of CNN'snewscasts and programs,
including Crossfire, insidePolitics, the Capital Gang,
(00:43):
evans Novak Late Edition andWolf Blitzer Reports.
Sam has interviewed many worldleaders, including all five of
our past presidents, primeministers such as Margaret
Thatcher and Mikhail Gorbachev,and Itzhak Rabin, and many, many
others.
He's the recipient of fiveEmmys and one Peabody Award for
his reporting coverage.
(01:04):
Sam's active in manyorganizations too many for me to
name, but I'll name a fewanyway the Washington Economic
Club, the Bar of the DistrictColumbia, the National Press
Club, journalism Institute.
I'm delighted to have him joinour Liberty and Leadership
podcast today.
Welcome, sam.
Thanks so much, roger.
Well, let me dive into somequestions about C-SPAN.
(01:25):
To begin, it's known has thisgreat reputation for unfiltered,
nonpartisan access togovernment proceedings,
including both houses ofCongress.
We've had Brian Lamb at one ofour awards dinners, honored him
for his leadership of C-SPAN,and now you're there.
Why do you think thetransparency that C-SPAN offers
is so vital to the health of ourdemocracy?
Speaker 2 (01:46):
Unfortunately, in our country in recent years we've
really sorted ourselves in waysthat I don't think are good for
the country Blue neighborhoods,red neighborhoods, red media,
blue media, red colleges, bluecolleges.
Americans who might live neareach other are watching
different things, hearingdifferent things, hearing
different perspectives,sometimes hearing different
(02:07):
versions of the truth.
I think that's unfortunate andthat's just how we've sorted
ourselves.
C-span is a little different.
We've worked really hard tostay above the partisan fray.
We've worked really hard tomake sure that everyone knows
our mission is to give you theraw material of American
politics, the events unfiltered,whether it's in Congress or the
(02:29):
president or a cabinetsecretary hearing or an event.
We work to be as balanced as wecan in what events we cover and
what we put on our air, and theresult of that is that our
audience is the most balancedaudience in American television.
Our audience is 30% Republican,30% Democrat, 36% Independent
and 4% Other.
(02:50):
Unfortunately, I think for thecountry, nobody else in media of
any flavor can say that Part ofthe result of us working so
hard to stay balanced make surethat we don't put our thumb on
the scale is that we've beenrewarded with an audience that
actually represents America.
So we work hard to do thatevery day.
If a Republican is president,there'll be more Republicans on,
(03:11):
because the president and hisor her cabinet are on TV more.
If a Democrat's president, sure, there'll be more Democrats on.
But otherwise, I think if youwatch C-SPAN and you watch the
events that we cover and thechoices that we make about what
we cover, I think, regardless ofyour political or ideological
background, you will believe ohyeah, c-span's been fair to us
and I think that's the answer.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
Well, let me go back a little to first ask you what
drew you into journalism.
Like me, you went to Vanderbiltas an undergrad.
You got a law degree, yet youended up in journalism.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
So when I was at Vanderbilt I had done what a lot
of student journalists do aneditor of the student newspaper
and reporter and wanted to gointo journalism but thought
about going to law school rightafter college, was given great
advice by a gentleman who alsowent to Vanderbilt named Fred
Graham and you may know him asat the time he was the chief
Supreme Court correspondent forCBS News.
But he later went on to foundand anchor Court TV, which
(04:05):
everybody knows, and his advicewas if you want to be a
journalist, go be a journalist.
You can always get a law degreelater.
So I took his advice.
So I left college, went tobecome a journalist, went to
work for CNN, got lucky and gotan entry-level job and got a law
degree part time at night whileI was working at CNN.
So never really wanted to be alawyer, just thought it'd be a
(04:25):
helpful degree.
But I was always interested injournalism, really never fancied
myself as very ideological atall, never could see myself as a
Democrat or as a Republican,but I love politics.
For me, political journalismmight be a way to have a front
row seat to politics withoutactually picking one side or
another, which never really feltcomfortable for me.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
We run a journalism program at TFAS and I've heard
from our professor of thejournalism course that
increasingly he saw studentscoming to the program who were
going into journalism becausethey had an agenda they wanted
to push and he thought that wasdisappointing to him because he
went to journalism school andbecame a journalist for USA
Today actually to go tell thestory, report the news, what he
(05:08):
sees, and he thought it wasunfortunate.
More students are driven by apolitical agenda and ideology in
that field.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
I actually agree with that gentleman.
Our job is to be the eyes andears for the public in places
where they can't be the eyes andears.
Tell them what's happening, goto places they can't go.
Go into the room where an eventis happening, describe it, tell
the public what happened andthen let the public make up
their own mind, becauseeverybody can't be everywhere at
once, so you need somebody tobe there for you.
(05:36):
My view of journalism is thatthis notion that we are
reporters, reporters' job is totell an audience what you see,
what you hear, what happenedSometimes, explain why, if you
can also do that without gettinginto an ideological perspective
, and sometimes you explain how.
None of those, in my opinion,should have an ideological
(05:57):
leaning bias.
I don't believe it's ajournalist's job to tell you who
to vote for, who should win oreven who would do a better job.
I think we tell you everythingthat you can learn about a
candidate or a party or a policyor a platform, and then you
make up your own mind.
The moment we begin to tell youwhose policy is better, who's a
better human being, who will doa better job, then we don't
(06:20):
have the credibility the nexttime because the audience will
think I've already picked sides.
My whole career I've tried tosubscribe to this notion that
it's not up to me.
I don't get to decide who winsor loses, and I shouldn't be
telling you who to vote for.
Speaker 1 (06:35):
I know it's hard to maintain that kind of
perspective in a town where welive that's so political, where
you run into the politicalpeople at dinner parties and
wherever you go.
But it takes a strongcommitment to that and I admire
that.
Let me ask you what attractedyou to C-SPAN when you accepted
the job there.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
So I grew up watching C-SPAN.
When I was in middle school wemoved from Tennessee to a small
town in Connecticut a little bitof culture shock.
But in that small town and alot of places around the country
before cable TV, if you werenot near a major city you could
barely get the broadcastnetworks.
So you might have those bigaerials on your house.
(07:13):
In our case we could get alittle bit of New York
television and maybe oneHartford station, but none of
them very well.
The early days of cable TV inmany cases grew to solve for
that problem.
In our case we got cable TVmostly so that we could have TV
and it came with C-SPAN becauseit was just after C-SPAN
launched.
So I grew up watching C-SPAN athome.
I was even a high school bit ofa political junkie.
(07:33):
Fast forward to last year I'dbeen at CNN for a long time.
I've got to call it Brian Lamb,the founder, and Susan Swain
and Rob Kennedy the then CEOs,were going to retire last year,
in 2024.
And was I interested?
And I did something you shouldprobably never do if a recruiter
calls you and that'simmediately say, yes, I want
that job.
But that's what I did becausethat was my first reaction,
(07:55):
because it's an incrediblyimportant place.
It's a nonprofit, it has amission, it does something that
no other news or televisionoutlet in America does covers
our government unfiltered and Ithought it would be a great fit
for me and that I can make adifference.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
Well, you've been there about a year.
You've no doubt identifiedopportunities and challenges,
but you did make an announcementrecently of a new program
that's going to air this fallcalled Ceasefire.
Ceasefire A little bit of atake maybe, on when you were
producing Crossfire at CNN, buttell us about the motivation and
kind of what that show's allabout.
Speaker 2 (08:29):
Off and on during my CNN career, I produced Crossfire
, which was this raucous debateprogram, intended to be a
raucous debate program, withhosts on the right and the left,
including Bob Novak.
Including Bob Novak, who I mayowe my career to Bob Novak
because I saw him come.
Everything goes back toVanderbilt for you and me, roger
.
He spoke at Vanderbilt when Iwas a student and I went on to
(08:50):
apply for an internship with hisprogram, the Evans and Novak
program, and I ended up comingto Washington for summer.
But unexpectedly, I also workedon the Crossfire program.
So that was my first entry intonational journalism.
But throughout my career at CNNI worked on the program.
I was the executive producer ofthe program and I really
enjoyed it.
I thought there was a realpurpose of laying out what did
(09:11):
the left say, what did the rightsay, what did the Republicans
say, what did the Democrats say,and have a debate.
But you know one of the hostsof Crossfire, legendary
progressive columnist namedMichael Kinsley.
When he left Crossfire to goand run Slate Magazine, we had
lunch and he pulled me aside andhe said you know, sam, one day
you should think about thisprogram, maybe a different
program, a program that maybeyou'd call it Ceasefire where
(09:34):
the goal of the program is tolook for compromise and common
ground and see if you can have acivil conversation.
He said I love Crossfire,there's a purpose for Crossfire,
but something to think about.
And I maybe nodded and said,okay, yeah, maybe, but I've had
that voice in my head for 20years and I got to C-SPAN and
that's a place you could reallydo this.
So we're launching a programthis fall, not too long from now
(09:55):
, where the goal of the programis to have that constructive
conversation, have a Democratand a Republican on with the
purpose of figuring out where dowe agree.
We all know the areas whereRepublicans and Democrats
disagree.
We never talk about where weagree, and I'm one of those
people that believes that almostevery case, there's more that
Republicans, Democrats,americans of all political
(10:17):
stripes agree on than wedisagree, but we never talk
about that.
So that's what this show isgoing to do.
Is there room for compromise onan issue right now?
Is there room for common ground?
Even if you can't get yourentire policy, can you get some
of it?
Ronald Reagan always used tosay if I get 80% of my policy, I
win, but now, in 2025,.
I don't think that belief isshared by people in either party
(10:39):
, so we're going to see if wecan find some common ground.
Speaker 1 (10:42):
We've made some attempts at that in our student
programming.
I know a few years ago we hadSenator Ron Wyden, a liberal
Democrat, and Senator Rand Paul,kind of a libertarian
Republican, together on aprogram talking about things
they agreed about.
Did they find a few things?
We've done some, oh yeah, yeahthey do.
Maybe I'll have them onceasefire and they'd be good on
(11:03):
some of the issues related tothe intelligence bills that want
to monitor American activities.
And also we've done some BraverAngels debates.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
What makes this interesting for me is there's no
other program on televisionthat's doing this.
People talk about it.
We need more civility in ourpolitics.
People talk about trying toreach across the aisle, but
perhaps because of the fracturedmedia environment or the
economics of cable news, I don'tknow it's just not happening.
I think C-SPAN's a good placeto do it, to host it.
(11:29):
What will make it special isnobody else is doing it.
So it's a place that, if you'rea little tired of the noise,
come check out C-SPAN.
Speaker 1 (11:37):
One of the things that C-SPAN offers that I think
it's one of my favorites, atleast personally, is the book,
tv and the treatment you have of.
Well, there's still a lot ofmaterial to cover the president
or committee hearings.
Speaker 2 (12:04):
But on the weekends, official Washington is a little
more quiet.
We dedicate 24 hours ofcoverage to history TV and 24
hours to book TV.
That is something that we'regoing to continue, I would say,
over the course of the next yearand a quarter, as we go through
the rest of 2025 and into 2026,as America celebrates our 250th
(12:24):
birthday.
We'll probably do more book TVauthors and American history or
the American Revolution, some ofour founding fathers but, yes,
book TV is very popular.
The same C-SPAN viewers whomight watch a committee hearing
or the president during the weekwould be interested in a
biography about Ben Franklin orThomas Jefferson and in book TV.
Even if we're doing a historybook, we'll apply.
(12:46):
What have we seen?
What does that subject of thatbook say about America today?
Happy, not so happy.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
We do a lot with young people who are interested
in careers in journalism.
What would be your advice to ayoung person?
Is it still a career worthpursuing?
Absolutely, roger.
100%.
It's incredibly rewarding.
It's incredibly.
What would be your advice to ayoung person?
Is it still a career worthpursuing with the media?
Absolutely, roger, like it istoday 100%.
Speaker 2 (13:04):
It's incredibly rewarding.
It's incredibly important.
Now, as I said earlier, I fancymyself not an ideological
journalist, and I know that someof your viewers say that's not
possible Everybody has theiropinions but I actually think it
is.
I actually have spent my entirecareer recognizing that my job
is to give you information andit's your job to have the
opinions, the perspectives, tomake a voting decision.
(13:26):
There are ideologicaljournalists and publications and
there's room for people who areconservatives, who want to work
for a conservative publication.
But I think there's a bigopportunity and I think there's
a yearning for journalism toreturn to its roots and just
report the facts, just reportwhat's happening and let people
decide.
Pendulum swing in politics andmedia.
(13:48):
I feel like it has swung oneway to this sorting of media
outlets and I hope it swingsanother way so that we're a
little less sorted.
What I hope for, and I thinkwe're missing right now, is that
we're not all reading the samething and watching the same
thing, and I think that'svaluable for the country,
because let's agree on a set offacts what happened yesterday
(14:10):
and then we'll talk about whatshould happen and what should
the political implication be.
But when we disagree on whathappened is where it gets tricky
.
I think there's an opportunityfor journalists down the middle,
journalists and yes, folks withperspectives.
There are more outlets thanever.
We are on a video podcast right.
15 years ago there was no suchthing.
There are video podcasts withenormous audiences, medium
(14:32):
audiences, targeted programs,big programs, small programs.
The country needs journalists.
Speaker 1 (14:37):
We need them especially in our communities.
Local news, television stations, local news, what we used to
(14:58):
call papers are frequently nowdigital outlets.
The country needs them, and soI'd be dating myself here.
But let me ask you, lookingback at your time in journalism,
were there certain moments thatbig events occurred, that kind
of stick with you, or they wereprofound moments in your career?
Speaker 2 (15:15):
Sure, I mean every journalist working on 9-11, no
matter at what level and whatcommunity.
We'll never forget that daybecause every community in
America was affected.
It just so happened that I wasat CNN.
You know, cnn was the dominantnews channel in the United
States and, to be honest, aroundthe world in 2001.
We believe more people watchedour coverage of 9-11 than any
(15:36):
other place in the world and itwas an extraordinary moment,
extraordinary day and incrediblydifficult day, because I
produced six hours of ourcoverage that day.
You know, cnn scrambled to getour act together.
I was assigned my team okay,you're going to produce 6 pm to
midnight, and we had access toour reporters around the world.
So there we were, withreporters in all of the affected
(15:58):
cities, but also in Afghanistan, and it was like nothing else I
could have ever imagined.
Our staff was emotional.
They didn't know if they knewpeople in the World Trade Center
or at the Pentagon, or we hadNew York staff and Washington
staff and they did their jobincredibly professionally.
I've never been more proud ofanything I've been a part of
than 9-11.
So that, to me, was the day Iwill never forget.
(16:19):
But I produced election nights,whether it was the night that
Barack Obama won or the nightthat Donald Trump won 2008 and
2016.
Extraordinary evenings,incredibly important for the
country.
The course of history on bothof those nights changed
significantly, alsounforgettable also interviewed a
(16:42):
lot of prominent leaders,American presidents, prime
ministers.
Speaker 1 (16:44):
What lessons do you have for, say, young people
about how to approachinterviewing someone like a
Donald Trump or a Barack Obamaor Mikhail Gorbachev?
Speaker 2 (16:51):
Every interview is different and different
interviews whether someone's inoffice or out of office makes a
big difference.
The interview that I wasinvolved in that strikes me as
maybe the most important was aninterview that we did for the
Evans and Novak program ofYitzhak Rabin, right before he
died I think it was 1994.
It was his last interview donein English before he was
(17:12):
assassinated and it was the mosthopeful interview because it
felt like Israel and thePalestinians and the Arab world
may be on the cusp of somethingunimaginable.
And you think about that moment.
He was in Washington, visiting,I think, with President Clinton
and others, and met with YasserArafat and it felt like
something big was changing andof course that's why he was
(17:33):
assassinated, because he wasassassinated by someone who
didn't want that to happen.
But then you fast forward now,30-something years since then,
and the mess that is theIsraeli-Palestinian I mean what
happened on October 7th andwhat's happened since October
7th in Gaza and you realize howthings can change.
This hopeful moment In terms ofadvice for young journalists it
(17:53):
doesn't matter whether you'reinterviewing a school board
member, a member of Congress, itdoesn't matter who it is
Prepare, prepare, prepare and,most importantly, every good
interview.
You listen, you may have yourlist of 15 questions that you
have time to get to.
You assume that they're goingto take a minute or two to
answer each question.
There may be a follow-up inthat question or you may be able
(18:14):
to have a little bit of aconversation.
But it only works if you listento their answers.
And so many interviewers Iwould say most of them are not
great interviewers.
They don't listen.
They go to their questions andget the news out and if they
just listen, they'll probablylearn something that nobody
expected.
I would say that's true for anyinterviewer, and it doesn't
(18:34):
matter whether that person is ahead of state or a local
official.
Speaker 1 (18:38):
I've had the opportunity twice to meet
Margaret Thatcher.
What was the context in whichyou interviewed her?
Speaker 2 (18:44):
She had just become a former prime minister of the
United Kingdom and she had comeout with her book.
But she was just this legendaryfigure Among women of the world
.
There was no one who toweredhigher than Margaret Thatcher.
She was incredibly gracious.
Towered higher than MargaretThatcher.
She was incredibly gracious,even though she was not an
(19:05):
officeholder.
It felt so important.
I remember she stood upstraight and sat perfectly, and
it's not that she didn't smile,but she was very much on I guess
that's who she was the auraaround her.
Usually former officeholders,you don't feel that quite the
same way, but that wasn't truewith Margaret Thatcher.
For me, it was an extraordinarymoment.
Speaker 1 (19:25):
I remember, recall when I met her at Westminster at
a reception and she said to medo you know what a woman and a
teabag have in common?
I said no, you never know howstrong they are until they get
into hot water and I thoughtthat kind of captured her.
Speaker 2 (19:45):
Well, she exuded that strength Certainly even after
she left office.
You felt like this was a verystrong leader, woman, human
being.
Speaker 1 (19:49):
Do you think C-SPAN in addition to the ceasefire
which you've announced, whichsounds like a fascinating
program I look forward to seeingwill do other types of original
programming like that?
Speaker 2 (19:59):
Yeah, we definitely will, and we'll have some more
that may start even this fall.
However, our core mission is,if Congress is in session, if
the president is speaking, ifthere's a national event, is to
make sure that people haveaccess to that.
So what I don't want to do isdevelop so much original
programming at C-SPAN that inany way it competes with the
(20:19):
events which are bread andbutter, because nobody else is
doing that.
So I want to make sure that ourpriority are these public
affairs events giving Americansthe ability to see their
government in action.
Our programming beyond that isintended to help put that into
perspective.
So what did you mean,congressman, when you said that?
On the House floor we have amorning program, which is a good
(20:40):
time because there's not muchhappening in official Washington
at 7 am.
We're the only national TVprogram where we hear from the
American people.
Every day we take calls equalnumbers from Republicans and
Democrats and independents.
We do that every morning.
Someone before I got to C-SPANsaid the only way you really
know who's going to win anelection, listen to the calls on
C-SPAN Polls only tell you whothe person says they think they
(21:02):
might vote for.
The callers give you the amountof passion that each side feels
for their candidate or how muchangst they have for the other
candidate, and you can reallyget a sense of it.
And if you just watch andlisten to these calls, you'll
realize who's active right now,who's motivated, you can get a
sense of who's likely to voteand who's likely to do
(21:24):
everything they can to make surethis person wins or loses.
And you don't get that frompolls.
Speaker 1 (21:28):
Explain to me how C-SPAN operates.
It's a nonprofit corporation.
Your money come fromappropriation from Congress.
We do not.
Speaker 2 (21:36):
Zero dollars in government funding.
We have never asked for norreceived a dollar from any
government entity, from theUnited States government or any
taxpayer.
We are privately funded and byprivately funded we are funded
almost entirely by thetelevision distributors.
If you get your television froma cable company like Comcast,
Xfinity or Charter Spectrum orVerizon Fios, a tiny fraction of
(21:59):
your cable fee, your monthlyfee, goes to C-SPAN Seven and a
quarter cents a month, Same forsatellite or streaming services.
So if you have a TV bundle thatyou pay for, a tiny fraction
goes to C-SPAN and that'sbasically what funds us.
We have some small dollarcontributions and we invite
people.
If they want to support C-SPAN,please support C-SPAN, go on
(22:19):
our website.
You're welcome to donate.
But we do not get governmentfunding.
Nor do we want governmentfunding because we cover
Congress.
We do not want to be caught upin the appropriation process and
have it affect us.
That's almost by definition forus a bit of a conflict of
interest.
So we've never asked for, norsought, nor received government
funding.
So thank you televisiondistributors for a tiny little
(22:42):
bit and thank you to everybodywho pays that seven cents a
month to us, which by comparisonmost television networks is a
dollar or $2 a month.
Some of the sports networks canbe $10 a month.
So, or $2 a month.
Some of the sports networks canbe $10 a month, so we're just a
tiny little fraction of yourcable bill, but for that you get
three channels and nocommercials.
Speaker 1 (22:57):
Yeah, and good content.
I think that's a wise way oforganizing yourself and it's
working.
So you've been healthy andhopefully we'll continue to grow
.
Speaker 2 (23:05):
Well, and if you have a television service that
doesn't have C-SPAN, please justreach out and say why don't you
have C-SPAN?
It's the least expensivetelevision service you can have.
Speaker 1 (23:12):
Yeah, I know that's been a controversy.
Some of the streaming serviceshave been a little slow on the
uptink.
Speaker 2 (23:18):
We don't run ads.
I completely understand that wedon't want to run ads.
We want to try to keepourselves out of the political
fray.
But some of the streamingservices have come along and
those that haven't.
Well, hopefully they'll jointhe party.
Speaker 1 (23:44):
Yeah or lose customers.
Correct Absolutely Vote yeah orlose customers.
Graduates from our summerprograms here in Washington and
trying to prepare them to becourageous leaders of honorable
leaders, do you have some adviceyou could offer young people?
Speaker 2 (23:58):
Yes, the most important piece of advice is do
not get your news via scrolling.
When you do, somebody else hasedited the content for you and
taken the decision away from youof what's important.
Check your sources.
Reliable sources of informationhave never been more important
and, even if you think one mightlean in one direction or
(24:19):
another, I would prefer for youto get your news from CNN and
Fox News than a source thatyou're not familiar with.
Cnn and Fox News are bigcompanies, which means they're
subject to lawsuit if they saysomething defamatory.
They may not agree with eachother on everything.
They can be reliable sources.
Read newspapers or try to getaccess if you can, and if you're
(24:39):
in school, you frequently canget free subscriptions to the
Wall Street Journal and the NewYork Times.
Those are two outstandingpublications where their news
pages are important.
Their editorial pages come fromdifferent perspectives.
If you read the Wall StreetJournal and the New York Times
editorial page and the, if youread the Wall Street Journal and
the New York Times editorialpage and the New York Times and
the Wall Street Journal newspages, and add in the Washington
Post, you're a prettywell-informed American.
(25:00):
There may be things in therethat you disagree with, and
that's okay.
Feel free to have anintellectual argument with it,
but you'll be informed If youget your news from scrolling.
That could easily have beenmanipulated by AI no-transcript.
Speaker 1 (25:36):
All our students in our next program cycle and
before we close, you mentionedBob Novak.
Before we sponsor the RobertNovak Journalism Fellowships.
Any other stories You've spokenat our dinners in the past?
We've moved that dinner to NewYork but we'll have to get you
up there.
But any other Bob Novak storiesyou want to share?
Speaker 2 (25:53):
Bob Novak, you know, was a legendary political
columnist as I was growing upand from 1980 to, I would say,
2005, was maybe one of the mostfrequent television commentators
.
Pundits, crossfire, capitalGang, meet the Press, the Evans
and Novak program A conservativepundit is the way most people
thought of him.
I thought of him as one of thebest reporters alive.
His columns, which were themost distributed syndicated
(26:16):
columns in the country, werenews columns.
He had a rule Every column hehad to break some news and I
really appreciated that.
He was an incredible reporter,so much so, and he worked at the
Wall Street Journal and theAssociated Press before becoming
a columnist.
I have bought hundreds andhundreds of copies of his book
the Prince of Darkness, whichwas his autobiography, his
(26:37):
memoir.
I give it to young reportersnot people who want to be
conservative or liberal or anyother kind of reporter, but just
want to be a reporter Becausein it it's a masterclass on how
to be a terrific reporter, howto break news, how to develop
sources.
It also gives you 50 years ofpolitical history, so the 60s,
70s, 80s, 90s that a youngreporter may not have the
context for.
I've definitely bought many ofthose books, handed them out
(27:00):
still do.
I think it's a great memoir.
He's a great guy.
People refer to him as thePrince of Darkness because there
was always gruff and grumpyseeming and he had a heart of
gold.
He was a wonderful human beingand I miss him terribly.
Speaker 1 (27:14):
That is a great book.
It's a history of Americanpolitics from 1960 or so to when
it was published and what alife he had.
We give it to all therecipients of the fellowships
every year to read.
I'm told that the submittedmanuscript is twice as long as
the published book.
I'd love to get the other halfand the published book, roger.
Speaker 2 (27:29):
it's a couple inches thick.
I'd love to read the other half.
I would too.
It's such a great book.
You can find it.
It's still out there inpaperback.
It's a really great memoir froma guy who had a perspective
that was completely unique inAmerican political journalism.
Speaker 1 (27:42):
Well, thank you so much for joining me, Sam,
Congratulations on this positionat C-SPAN.
It's a great network and I lookforward to continued success
under your leadership.
Thanks, very much Thanks forhaving me today and I look
forward to covering some more ofyour events.
Good, appreciate it.
Thank you for listening to theLiberty and Leadership podcast.
If you have a comment orquestion, please drop us an
(28:05):
email at podcast at tfasorg, andbe sure to subscribe to the
show on your favorite podcastapp and leave a five-star review
.
Liberty and Leadership isproduced at Podville Media.
I'm your host, roger Ream, anduntil next time, show courage in
things, large and small.
Welcome to the Liberty and Leadership Podcast,
a conversation with TFAS alumni,faculty and friends who are
making an impact.
Today I'm your host, roger Ream.
It's a pleasure to welcome SamFeist to today's show.
Sam is the CEO of C-SPAN, atelevision network that every
(00:22):
American has at least passingfamiliarity with and many of us
watch regularly.
Prior to C-SPAN, sam held aseries of leadership roles at
CNN, including serving asWashington bureau chief and
senior vice president.
He produced many of CNN'snewscasts and programs,
including Crossfire, insidePolitics, the Capital Gang,
(00:43):
evans Novak Late Edition andWolf Blitzer Reports.
Sam has interviewed many worldleaders, including all five of
our past presidents, primeministers such as Margaret
Thatcher and Mikhail Gorbachev,and Itzhak Rabin, and many, many
others.
He's the recipient of fiveEmmys and one Peabody Award for
his reporting coverage.
(01:04):
Sam's active in manyorganizations too many for me to
name, but I'll name a fewanyway the Washington Economic
Club, the Bar of the DistrictColumbia, the National Press
Club, journalism Institute.
I'm delighted to have him joinour Liberty and Leadership
podcast today.
Welcome, sam.
Thanks so much, roger.
Well, let me dive into somequestions about C-SPAN.
(01:25):
To begin, it's known has thisgreat reputation for unfiltered,
nonpartisan access togovernment proceedings,
including both houses ofCongress.
We've had Brian Lamb at one ofour awards dinners, honored him
for his leadership of C-SPAN,and now you're there.
Why do you think thetransparency that C-SPAN offers
is so vital to the health of ourdemocracy?
Speaker 2 (01:46):
Unfortunately, in our country in recent years we've
really sorted ourselves in waysthat I don't think are good for
the country Blue neighborhoods,red neighborhoods, red media,
blue media, red colleges, bluecolleges.
Americans who might live neareach other are watching
different things, hearingdifferent things, hearing
different perspectives,sometimes hearing different
(02:07):
versions of the truth.
I think that's unfortunate andthat's just how we've sorted
ourselves.
C-span is a little different.
We've worked really hard tostay above the partisan fray.
We've worked really hard tomake sure that everyone knows
our mission is to give you theraw material of American
politics, the events unfiltered,whether it's in Congress or the
(02:29):
president or a cabinetsecretary hearing or an event.
We work to be as balanced as wecan in what events we cover and
what we put on our air, and theresult of that is that our
audience is the most balancedaudience in American television.
Our audience is 30% Republican,30% Democrat, 36% Independent
and 4% Other.
(02:50):
Unfortunately, I think for thecountry, nobody else in media of
any flavor can say that Part ofthe result of us working so
hard to stay balanced make surethat we don't put our thumb on
the scale is that we've beenrewarded with an audience that
actually represents America.
So we work hard to do thatevery day.
If a Republican is president,there'll be more Republicans on,
(03:11):
because the president and hisor her cabinet are on TV more.
If a Democrat's president, sure, there'll be more Democrats on.
But otherwise, I think if youwatch C-SPAN and you watch the
events that we cover and thechoices that we make about what
we cover, I think, regardless ofyour political or ideological
background, you will believe ohyeah, c-span's been fair to us
and I think that's the answer.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
Well, let me go back a little to first ask you what
drew you into journalism.
Like me, you went to Vanderbiltas an undergrad.
You got a law degree, yet youended up in journalism.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
So when I was at Vanderbilt I had done what a lot
of student journalists do aneditor of the student newspaper
and reporter and wanted to gointo journalism but thought
about going to law school rightafter college, was given great
advice by a gentleman who alsowent to Vanderbilt named Fred
Graham and you may know him asat the time he was the chief
Supreme Court correspondent forCBS News.
But he later went on to foundand anchor Court TV, which
(04:05):
everybody knows, and his advicewas if you want to be a
journalist, go be a journalist.
You can always get a law degreelater.
So I took his advice.
So I left college, went tobecome a journalist, went to
work for CNN, got lucky and gotan entry-level job and got a law
degree part time at night whileI was working at CNN.
So never really wanted to be alawyer, just thought it'd be a
(04:25):
helpful degree.
But I was always interested injournalism, really never fancied
myself as very ideological atall, never could see myself as a
Democrat or as a Republican,but I love politics.
For me, political journalismmight be a way to have a front
row seat to politics withoutactually picking one side or
another, which never really feltcomfortable for me.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
We run a journalism program at TFAS and I've heard
from our professor of thejournalism course that
increasingly he saw studentscoming to the program who were
going into journalism becausethey had an agenda they wanted
to push and he thought that wasdisappointing to him because he
went to journalism school andbecame a journalist for USA
Today actually to go tell thestory, report the news, what he
(05:08):
sees, and he thought it wasunfortunate.
More students are driven by apolitical agenda and ideology in
that field.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
I actually agree with that gentleman.
Our job is to be the eyes andears for the public in places
where they can't be the eyes andears.
Tell them what's happening, goto places they can't go.
Go into the room where an eventis happening, describe it, tell
the public what happened andthen let the public make up
their own mind, becauseeverybody can't be everywhere at
once, so you need somebody tobe there for you.
(05:36):
My view of journalism is thatthis notion that we are
reporters, reporters' job is totell an audience what you see,
what you hear, what happenedSometimes, explain why, if you
can also do that without gettinginto an ideological perspective
, and sometimes you explain how.
None of those, in my opinion,should have an ideological
(05:57):
leaning bias.
I don't believe it's ajournalist's job to tell you who
to vote for, who should win oreven who would do a better job.
I think we tell you everythingthat you can learn about a
candidate or a party or a policyor a platform, and then you
make up your own mind.
The moment we begin to tell youwhose policy is better, who's a
better human being, who will doa better job, then we don't
(06:20):
have the credibility the nexttime because the audience will
think I've already picked sides.
My whole career I've tried tosubscribe to this notion that
it's not up to me.
I don't get to decide who winsor loses, and I shouldn't be
telling you who to vote for.
Speaker 1 (06:35):
I know it's hard to maintain that kind of
perspective in a town where welive that's so political, where
you run into the politicalpeople at dinner parties and
wherever you go.
But it takes a strongcommitment to that and I admire
that.
Let me ask you what attractedyou to C-SPAN when you accepted
the job there.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
So I grew up watching C-SPAN.
When I was in middle school wemoved from Tennessee to a small
town in Connecticut a little bitof culture shock.
But in that small town and alot of places around the country
before cable TV, if you werenot near a major city you could
barely get the broadcastnetworks.
So you might have those bigaerials on your house.
(07:13):
In our case we could get alittle bit of New York
television and maybe oneHartford station, but none of
them very well.
The early days of cable TV inmany cases grew to solve for
that problem.
In our case we got cable TVmostly so that we could have TV
and it came with C-SPAN becauseit was just after C-SPAN
launched.
So I grew up watching C-SPAN athome.
I was even a high school bit ofa political junkie.
(07:33):
Fast forward to last year I'dbeen at CNN for a long time.
I've got to call it Brian Lamb,the founder, and Susan Swain
and Rob Kennedy the then CEOs,were going to retire last year,
in 2024.
And was I interested?
And I did something you shouldprobably never do if a recruiter
calls you and that'simmediately say, yes, I want
that job.
But that's what I did becausethat was my first reaction,
(07:55):
because it's an incrediblyimportant place.
It's a nonprofit, it has amission, it does something that
no other news or televisionoutlet in America does covers
our government unfiltered and Ithought it would be a great fit
for me and that I can make adifference.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
Well, you've been there about a year.
You've no doubt identifiedopportunities and challenges,
but you did make an announcementrecently of a new program
that's going to air this fallcalled Ceasefire.
Ceasefire A little bit of atake maybe, on when you were
producing Crossfire at CNN, buttell us about the motivation and
kind of what that show's allabout.
Speaker 2 (08:29):
Off and on during my CNN career, I produced Crossfire
, which was this raucous debateprogram, intended to be a
raucous debate program, withhosts on the right and the left,
including Bob Novak.
Including Bob Novak, who I mayowe my career to Bob Novak
because I saw him come.
Everything goes back toVanderbilt for you and me, roger
.
He spoke at Vanderbilt when Iwas a student and I went on to
(08:50):
apply for an internship with hisprogram, the Evans and Novak
program, and I ended up comingto Washington for summer.
But unexpectedly, I also workedon the Crossfire program.
So that was my first entry intonational journalism.
But throughout my career at CNNI worked on the program.
I was the executive producer ofthe program and I really
enjoyed it.
I thought there was a realpurpose of laying out what did
(09:11):
the left say, what did the rightsay, what did the Republicans
say, what did the Democrats say,and have a debate.
But you know one of the hostsof Crossfire, legendary
progressive columnist namedMichael Kinsley.
When he left Crossfire to goand run Slate Magazine, we had
lunch and he pulled me aside andhe said you know, sam, one day
you should think about thisprogram, maybe a different
program, a program that maybeyou'd call it Ceasefire where
(09:34):
the goal of the program is tolook for compromise and common
ground and see if you can have acivil conversation.
He said I love Crossfire,there's a purpose for Crossfire,
but something to think about.
And I maybe nodded and said,okay, yeah, maybe, but I've had
that voice in my head for 20years and I got to C-SPAN and
that's a place you could reallydo this.
So we're launching a programthis fall, not too long from now
(09:55):
, where the goal of the programis to have that constructive
conversation, have a Democratand a Republican on with the
purpose of figuring out where dowe agree.
We all know the areas whereRepublicans and Democrats
disagree.
We never talk about where weagree, and I'm one of those
people that believes that almostevery case, there's more that
Republicans, Democrats,americans of all political
(10:17):
stripes agree on than wedisagree, but we never talk
about that.
So that's what this show isgoing to do.
Is there room for compromise onan issue right now?
Is there room for common ground?
Even if you can't get yourentire policy, can you get some
of it?
Ronald Reagan always used tosay if I get 80% of my policy, I
win, but now, in 2025,.
I don't think that belief isshared by people in either party
(10:39):
, so we're going to see if wecan find some common ground.
Speaker 1 (10:42):
We've made some attempts at that in our student
programming.
I know a few years ago we hadSenator Ron Wyden, a liberal
Democrat, and Senator Rand Paul,kind of a libertarian
Republican, together on aprogram talking about things
they agreed about.
Did they find a few things?
We've done some, oh yeah, yeahthey do.
Maybe I'll have them onceasefire and they'd be good on
(11:03):
some of the issues related tothe intelligence bills that want
to monitor American activities.
And also we've done some BraverAngels debates.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
What makes this interesting for me is there's no
other program on televisionthat's doing this.
People talk about it.
We need more civility in ourpolitics.
People talk about trying toreach across the aisle, but
perhaps because of the fracturedmedia environment or the
economics of cable news, I don'tknow it's just not happening.
I think C-SPAN's a good placeto do it, to host it.
(11:29):
What will make it special isnobody else is doing it.
So it's a place that, if you'rea little tired of the noise,
come check out C-SPAN.
Speaker 1 (11:37):
One of the things that C-SPAN offers that I think
it's one of my favorites, atleast personally, is the book,
tv and the treatment you have of.
Well, there's still a lot ofmaterial to cover the president
or committee hearings.
Speaker 2 (12:04):
But on the weekends, official Washington is a little
more quiet.
We dedicate 24 hours ofcoverage to history TV and 24
hours to book TV.
That is something that we'regoing to continue, I would say,
over the course of the next yearand a quarter, as we go through
the rest of 2025 and into 2026,as America celebrates our 250th
(12:24):
birthday.
We'll probably do more book TVauthors and American history or
the American Revolution, some ofour founding fathers but, yes,
book TV is very popular.
The same C-SPAN viewers whomight watch a committee hearing
or the president during the weekwould be interested in a
biography about Ben Franklin orThomas Jefferson and in book TV.
Even if we're doing a historybook, we'll apply.
(12:46):
What have we seen?
What does that subject of thatbook say about America today?
Happy, not so happy.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
We do a lot with young people who are interested
in careers in journalism.
What would be your advice to ayoung person?
Is it still a career worthpursuing?
Absolutely, roger.
100%.
It's incredibly rewarding.
It's incredibly.
What would be your advice to ayoung person?
Is it still a career worthpursuing with the media?
Absolutely, roger, like it istoday 100%.
Speaker 2 (13:04):
It's incredibly rewarding.
It's incredibly important.
Now, as I said earlier, I fancymyself not an ideological
journalist, and I know that someof your viewers say that's not
possible Everybody has theiropinions but I actually think it
is.
I actually have spent my entirecareer recognizing that my job
is to give you information andit's your job to have the
opinions, the perspectives, tomake a voting decision.
(13:26):
There are ideologicaljournalists and publications and
there's room for people who areconservatives, who want to work
for a conservative publication.
But I think there's a bigopportunity and I think there's
a yearning for journalism toreturn to its roots and just
report the facts, just reportwhat's happening and let people
decide.
Pendulum swing in politics andmedia.
(13:48):
I feel like it has swung oneway to this sorting of media
outlets and I hope it swingsanother way so that we're a
little less sorted.
What I hope for, and I thinkwe're missing right now, is that
we're not all reading the samething and watching the same
thing, and I think that'svaluable for the country,
because let's agree on a set offacts what happened yesterday
(14:10):
and then we'll talk about whatshould happen and what should
the political implication be.
But when we disagree on whathappened is where it gets tricky
.
I think there's an opportunityfor journalists down the middle,
journalists and yes, folks withperspectives.
There are more outlets thanever.
We are on a video podcast right.
15 years ago there was no suchthing.
There are video podcasts withenormous audiences, medium
(14:32):
audiences, targeted programs,big programs, small programs.
The country needs journalists.
Speaker 1 (14:37):
We need them especially in our communities.
Local news, television stations, local news, what we used to
(14:58):
call papers are frequently nowdigital outlets.
The country needs them, and soI'd be dating myself here.
But let me ask you, lookingback at your time in journalism,
were there certain moments thatbig events occurred, that kind
of stick with you, or they wereprofound moments in your career?
Speaker 2 (15:15):
Sure, I mean every journalist working on 9-11, no
matter at what level and whatcommunity.
We'll never forget that daybecause every community in
America was affected.
It just so happened that I wasat CNN.
You know, cnn was the dominantnews channel in the United
States and, to be honest, aroundthe world in 2001.
We believe more people watchedour coverage of 9-11 than any
(15:36):
other place in the world and itwas an extraordinary moment,
extraordinary day and incrediblydifficult day, because I
produced six hours of ourcoverage that day.
You know, cnn scrambled to getour act together.
I was assigned my team okay,you're going to produce 6 pm to
midnight, and we had access toour reporters around the world.
So there we were, withreporters in all of the affected
(15:58):
cities, but also in Afghanistan, and it was like nothing else I
could have ever imagined.
Our staff was emotional.
They didn't know if they knewpeople in the World Trade Center
or at the Pentagon, or we hadNew York staff and Washington
staff and they did their jobincredibly professionally.
I've never been more proud ofanything I've been a part of
than 9-11.
So that, to me, was the day Iwill never forget.
(16:19):
But I produced election nights,whether it was the night that
Barack Obama won or the nightthat Donald Trump won 2008 and
2016.
Extraordinary evenings,incredibly important for the
country.
The course of history on bothof those nights changed
significantly, alsounforgettable also interviewed a
(16:42):
lot of prominent leaders,American presidents, prime
ministers.
Speaker 1 (16:44):
What lessons do you have for, say, young people
about how to approachinterviewing someone like a
Donald Trump or a Barack Obamaor Mikhail Gorbachev?
Speaker 2 (16:51):
Every interview is different and different
interviews whether someone's inoffice or out of office makes a
big difference.
The interview that I wasinvolved in that strikes me as
maybe the most important was aninterview that we did for the
Evans and Novak program ofYitzhak Rabin, right before he
died I think it was 1994.
It was his last interview donein English before he was
(17:12):
assassinated and it was the mosthopeful interview because it
felt like Israel and thePalestinians and the Arab world
may be on the cusp of somethingunimaginable.
And you think about that moment.
He was in Washington, visiting,I think, with President Clinton
and others, and met with YasserArafat and it felt like
something big was changing andof course that's why he was
(17:33):
assassinated, because he wasassassinated by someone who
didn't want that to happen.
But then you fast forward now,30-something years since then,
and the mess that is theIsraeli-Palestinian I mean what
happened on October 7th andwhat's happened since October
7th in Gaza and you realize howthings can change.
This hopeful moment In terms ofadvice for young journalists it
(17:53):
doesn't matter whether you'reinterviewing a school board
member, a member of Congress, itdoesn't matter who it is
Prepare, prepare, prepare and,most importantly, every good
interview.
You listen, you may have yourlist of 15 questions that you
have time to get to.
You assume that they're goingto take a minute or two to
answer each question.
There may be a follow-up inthat question or you may be able
(18:14):
to have a little bit of aconversation.
But it only works if you listento their answers.
And so many interviewers Iwould say most of them are not
great interviewers.
They don't listen.
They go to their questions andget the news out and if they
just listen, they'll probablylearn something that nobody
expected.
I would say that's true for anyinterviewer, and it doesn't
(18:34):
matter whether that person is ahead of state or a local
official.
Speaker 1 (18:38):
I've had the opportunity twice to meet
Margaret Thatcher.
What was the context in whichyou interviewed her?
Speaker 2 (18:44):
She had just become a former prime minister of the
United Kingdom and she had comeout with her book.
But she was just this legendaryfigure Among women of the world
.
There was no one who toweredhigher than Margaret Thatcher.
She was incredibly gracious.
Towered higher than MargaretThatcher.
She was incredibly gracious,even though she was not an
(19:05):
officeholder.
It felt so important.
I remember she stood upstraight and sat perfectly, and
it's not that she didn't smile,but she was very much on I guess
that's who she was the auraaround her.
Usually former officeholders,you don't feel that quite the
same way, but that wasn't truewith Margaret Thatcher.
For me, it was an extraordinarymoment.
Speaker 1 (19:25):
I remember, recall when I met her at Westminster at
a reception and she said to medo you know what a woman and a
teabag have in common?
I said no, you never know howstrong they are until they get
into hot water and I thoughtthat kind of captured her.
Speaker 2 (19:45):
Well, she exuded that strength Certainly even after
she left office.
You felt like this was a verystrong leader, woman, human
being.
Speaker 1 (19:49):
Do you think C-SPAN in addition to the ceasefire
which you've announced, whichsounds like a fascinating
program I look forward to seeingwill do other types of original
programming like that?
Speaker 2 (19:59):
Yeah, we definitely will, and we'll have some more
that may start even this fall.
However, our core mission is,if Congress is in session, if
the president is speaking, ifthere's a national event, is to
make sure that people haveaccess to that.
So what I don't want to do isdevelop so much original
programming at C-SPAN that inany way it competes with the
(20:19):
events which are bread andbutter, because nobody else is
doing that.
So I want to make sure that ourpriority are these public
affairs events giving Americansthe ability to see their
government in action.
Our programming beyond that isintended to help put that into
perspective.
So what did you mean,congressman, when you said that?
On the House floor we have amorning program, which is a good
(20:40):
time because there's not muchhappening in official Washington
at 7 am.
We're the only national TVprogram where we hear from the
American people.
Every day we take calls equalnumbers from Republicans and
Democrats and independents.
We do that every morning.
Someone before I got to C-SPANsaid the only way you really
know who's going to win anelection, listen to the calls on
C-SPAN Polls only tell you whothe person says they think they
(21:02):
might vote for.
The callers give you the amountof passion that each side feels
for their candidate or how muchangst they have for the other
candidate, and you can reallyget a sense of it.
And if you just watch andlisten to these calls, you'll
realize who's active right now,who's motivated, you can get a
sense of who's likely to voteand who's likely to do
(21:24):
everything they can to make surethis person wins or loses.
And you don't get that frompolls.
Speaker 1 (21:28):
Explain to me how C-SPAN operates.
It's a nonprofit corporation.
Your money come fromappropriation from Congress.
We do not.
Speaker 2 (21:36):
Zero dollars in government funding.
We have never asked for norreceived a dollar from any
government entity, from theUnited States government or any
taxpayer.
We are privately funded and byprivately funded we are funded
almost entirely by thetelevision distributors.
If you get your television froma cable company like Comcast,
Xfinity or Charter Spectrum orVerizon Fios, a tiny fraction of
(21:59):
your cable fee, your monthlyfee, goes to C-SPAN Seven and a
quarter cents a month, Same forsatellite or streaming services.
So if you have a TV bundle thatyou pay for, a tiny fraction
goes to C-SPAN and that'sbasically what funds us.
We have some small dollarcontributions and we invite
people.
If they want to support C-SPAN,please support C-SPAN, go on
(22:19):
our website.
You're welcome to donate.
But we do not get governmentfunding.
Nor do we want governmentfunding because we cover
Congress.
We do not want to be caught upin the appropriation process and
have it affect us.
That's almost by definition forus a bit of a conflict of
interest.
So we've never asked for, norsought, nor received government
funding.
So thank you televisiondistributors for a tiny little
(22:42):
bit and thank you to everybodywho pays that seven cents a
month to us, which by comparisonmost television networks is a
dollar or $2 a month.
Some of the sports networks canbe $10 a month.
So, or $2 a month.
Some of the sports networks canbe $10 a month, so we're just a
tiny little fraction of yourcable bill, but for that you get
three channels and nocommercials.
Speaker 1 (22:57):
Yeah, and good content.
I think that's a wise way oforganizing yourself and it's
working.
So you've been healthy andhopefully we'll continue to grow
.
Speaker 2 (23:05):
Well, and if you have a television service that
doesn't have C-SPAN, please justreach out and say why don't you
have C-SPAN?
It's the least expensivetelevision service you can have.
Speaker 1 (23:12):
Yeah, I know that's been a controversy.
Some of the streaming serviceshave been a little slow on the
uptink.
Speaker 2 (23:18):
We don't run ads.
I completely understand that wedon't want to run ads.
We want to try to keepourselves out of the political
fray.
But some of the streamingservices have come along and
those that haven't.
Well, hopefully they'll jointhe party.
Speaker 1 (23:44):
Yeah or lose customers.
Correct Absolutely Vote yeah orlose customers.
Graduates from our summerprograms here in Washington and
trying to prepare them to becourageous leaders of honorable
leaders, do you have some adviceyou could offer young people?
Speaker 2 (23:58):
Yes, the most important piece of advice is do
not get your news via scrolling.
When you do, somebody else hasedited the content for you and
taken the decision away from youof what's important.
Check your sources.
Reliable sources of informationhave never been more important
and, even if you think one mightlean in one direction or
(24:19):
another, I would prefer for youto get your news from CNN and
Fox News than a source thatyou're not familiar with.
Cnn and Fox News are bigcompanies, which means they're
subject to lawsuit if they saysomething defamatory.
They may not agree with eachother on everything.
They can be reliable sources.
Read newspapers or try to getaccess if you can, and if you're
(24:39):
in school, you frequently canget free subscriptions to the
Wall Street Journal and the NewYork Times.
Those are two outstandingpublications where their news
pages are important.
Their editorial pages come fromdifferent perspectives.
If you read the Wall StreetJournal and the New York Times
editorial page and the, if youread the Wall Street Journal and
the New York Times editorialpage and the New York Times and
the Wall Street Journal newspages, and add in the Washington
Post, you're a prettywell-informed American.
(25:00):
There may be things in therethat you disagree with, and
that's okay.
Feel free to have anintellectual argument with it,
but you'll be informed If youget your news from scrolling.
That could easily have beenmanipulated by AI no-transcript.
Speaker 1 (25:36):
All our students in our next program cycle and
before we close, you mentionedBob Novak.
Before we sponsor the RobertNovak Journalism Fellowships.
Any other stories You've spokenat our dinners in the past?
We've moved that dinner to NewYork but we'll have to get you
up there.
But any other Bob Novak storiesyou want to share?
Speaker 2 (25:53):
Bob Novak, you know, was a legendary political
columnist as I was growing upand from 1980 to, I would say,
2005, was maybe one of the mostfrequent television commentators
.
Pundits, crossfire, capitalGang, meet the Press, the Evans
and Novak program A conservativepundit is the way most people
thought of him.
I thought of him as one of thebest reporters alive.
His columns, which were themost distributed syndicated
(26:16):
columns in the country, werenews columns.
He had a rule Every column hehad to break some news and I
really appreciated that.
He was an incredible reporter,so much so, and he worked at the
Wall Street Journal and theAssociated Press before becoming
a columnist.
I have bought hundreds andhundreds of copies of his book
the Prince of Darkness, whichwas his autobiography, his
(26:37):
memoir.
I give it to young reportersnot people who want to be
conservative or liberal or anyother kind of reporter, but just
want to be a reporter Becausein it it's a masterclass on how
to be a terrific reporter, howto break news, how to develop
sources.
It also gives you 50 years ofpolitical history, so the 60s,
70s, 80s, 90s that a youngreporter may not have the
context for.
I've definitely bought many ofthose books, handed them out
(27:00):
still do.
I think it's a great memoir.
He's a great guy.
People refer to him as thePrince of Darkness because there
was always gruff and grumpyseeming and he had a heart of
gold.
He was a wonderful human beingand I miss him terribly.
Speaker 1 (27:14):
That is a great book.
It's a history of Americanpolitics from 1960 or so to when
it was published and what alife he had.
We give it to all therecipients of the fellowships
every year to read.
I'm told that the submittedmanuscript is twice as long as
the published book.
I'd love to get the other halfand the published book, roger.
Speaker 2 (27:29):
it's a couple inches thick.
I'd love to read the other half.
I would too.
It's such a great book.
You can find it.
It's still out there inpaperback.
It's a really great memoir froma guy who had a perspective
that was completely unique inAmerican political journalism.
Speaker 1 (27:42):
Well, thank you so much for joining me, Sam,
Congratulations on this positionat C-SPAN.
It's a great network and I lookforward to continued success
under your leadership.
Thanks, very much Thanks forhaving me today and I look
forward to covering some more ofyour events.
Good, appreciate it.
Thank you for listening to theLiberty and Leadership podcast.
If you have a comment orquestion, please drop us an
(28:05):
email at podcast at tfasorg, andbe sure to subscribe to the
show on your favorite podcastapp and leave a five-star review
.
Liberty and Leadership isproduced at Podville Media.
I'm your host, roger Ream, anduntil next time, show courage in
things, large and small.
Popular Podcasts
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.
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.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.