We all know the internet has significantly impacted media's business model over the past three decades, and the conventional wisdom is that AI will do the same. Many believe it will replace reporters, lead to computer-generated news stories, increase misinformation, produce more fake news, and generally make a struggling industry even worse. But what if the opposite is true? What if AI can free up reporters' time to do the kind of deep reporting they used to do? What if AI can lead to more, not less, human creativity in journalism and beyond? What if AI tools could be used to reduce bias and filter out untrustworthy sources? What if AI actually is the technology that saves journalism?
Okay, I might be pushing it with that last point. But these other questions are definitely worth discussing. In fact, we had that very discussion with Fred Vogelstein of CrazyStupidTech and Michael Nuñez of VentureBeat for this special third-anniversary episode of Pressing Matters from Big Valley Marketing—the podcast that features conversations with top media figures and influencers in B2B Tech.
I'm Dave Reddy, Head of Big Valley Marketing's Media and Influencers Practice, and your host. Through research and good old-fashioned relationship building, we've identified B2B Tech's Top 200 Media and Influencers, including Michael and Fred. Here's our conversation with Michael and Fred. Enjoy.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Dave Reddy (00:00):
We all know the internet has done a number on
media's business model in thepast three decades.
And the conventional wisdom isthat AI will do the same.
It'll replace reporters, leadto computer-generated news
stories, more misinformation,more fake news, and generally
make a struggling industry evenworse.
But what if the opposite istrue?
What if AI can open upreporters' time to do the kind
(00:23):
of deep reporting they used todo?
What if AI can lead to more,not less, human magic in
journalism and in general?
What if AI tools can be used todecrease bias and winnow out
untrustworthy sources?
What if AI actually is thetechnology that saves
journalism?
Okay, I'm pushing it on thatlast one.
(00:46):
But the other questions,they're worth discussing.
And in fact, I had thatdiscussion with Fred Vogelstein
of Crazy Stupid Tech and MichaelNunez of VentureBeat for this
special third anniversaryepisode of Pressing Matters from
Big Valley Marketing, thepodcast that brings you
conversations with the top mediaand influencers in B2B tech.
I'm Dave Reddy, head of BigValley Marketing's media and
(01:08):
influencers practice, and I'myour host.
Through research and goodold-fashioned relationship
building, we We've identifiedB2B Tech's top 200 media and
influencers, including Michaeland Fred.
Here's our chat with Michaeland Fred.
Enjoy.
Fred, Michael, thanks so muchfor coming back to join us for
(01:35):
our third anniversary.
It's amazing.
It's been three years andreally appreciate the two of you
rejoining us for this specialepisode.
G
Michael Nuñez (01:42):
Great to be here.
Thanks for having us.
Dave Reddy (01:43):
So we're looking at human magic.
Will AI destroy it, both interms of journalism and just
generally?
The reason I asked both of youto come back is you both have
really distinct viewpoints aboutAI.
You're both using AI.
You've both been inventive withAI in your different ways.
And I'm just curious, thatfundamental question, is AI ever
(02:08):
going to destroy the humanmagic?
And Michael, start with you.
What do you think?
Michael Nuñez (02:15):
Yeah, I think it's a great starting point.
You know, the reality is thatAI will not destroy the human
magic.
I think it will only enhance,you know, kind of what makes
journalists great, you know,great humans and great, you
know, kind of empaths.
conducting interviews, buildingsources, finding the story
(02:36):
behind the facts, you know,providing that critical analysis
that readers crave.
I think those are things thatyou'll still need a sharp kind
of embedded reporter to do.
But I do think AI isundoubtedly going to have an
impact on the, and a huge impacton the entire industry.
You know, I think that twoyears ago, or, you know, when
(02:59):
ChatGPT launched in November of2022, You know, there was a lot
of debate around whether AIbelonged in journalism.
I think that debate is over.
I think that, you know, AI isabsolutely going to impact
journalism.
It already has started.
And I see this as something,you know, it's less of a tool
(03:20):
like a tape recorder and a CMS.
And I think AI is more of afoundational shift, like the
printing press or the internet,something that we just can't
ignore.
You know, I've said in thepast, I think this will be
bigger than Google.
in terms of its impact on eachindividual reporter.
And right now, we're seeingnewsrooms wrestle with how to
(03:41):
integrate this technology intotheir newsroom.
But I would argue that mostplaces at this point aren't
ignoring AI.
It's just too big of anopportunity to ignore.
And I think the bestjournalists are the ones that
are integrating this into theirworkflow and letting the AI take
over the drudgery oftranscription And, you know,
(04:03):
reading a 100 page report, youknow, on a specific industry or
going through a two hourinterview to find good quotes.
I think, you know, they'reemploying AI in some of those
instances to just speed up theirwork process.
And, you know, in the best casescenario, they're producing
more high quality work at afaster clip.
(04:24):
So, you know, that's definitelywhat we see at VentureMeet.
And that's something that wereally pride ourselves on in
terms of just sort of trying tolead the pack in terms of this.
embrace of AI.
Dave Reddy (04:34):
I like your reference to Google because, you
know, Google certainly has nottaken away the AI magic and it's
become, you know, an essentialtool.
Can you imagine, and I can, butcan you imagine life without
Google?
That was a long time ago, thankGod.
Fred, what's your thought?
Is human magic an endangeredspecies?
Fred Vogelstein (04:51):
No, not at all.
I mean, I actually, I don'twant to agree with Michael too
much because we need time for meto call him an ignorant slut,
but...
Dave Reddy (05:02):
I didn't
Michael Nuñez (05:07):
realize there were no rules on this podcast.
Okay.
But
Fred Vogelstein (05:12):
no, no, no.
But I think that it makes, Iuse it, I use it all the time
and it makes me smarter.
And, you know, it makes thefront of my brain bigger.
It makes my ability to seestory ideas happen faster to put
those stories together quickerto just be what I am quicker,
(05:41):
faster, better in a way that Ijust don't think is going away.
I mean, I've almost completelystopped using Google.
Really?
Yeah.
I mean, it's like Google andeven the founders of Google will
tell you this in their privatemoments.
(06:01):
I mean, 20 years years ago, thefounders of Google talked about
what they were creating as kindof an intermediate step to
where we are now.
You know, they thought thatsearch was an intermediate step
on the way to an answer machine.
Well, that's what we have now.
(06:22):
I mean, there's some ironylurking in the fact that Google
is playing catch up there sincethey were thinking about this
before anybody else was.
But, you know, search is anintermediate step on the way to
an answer machine.
And that's the way I useChatGPT and all the other
(06:44):
chatbots out there.
And they do a really, reallygood job of it.
I mean, it's a little bit likehaving something create bespoke
Wikipedia pages for you.
If I have a question aboutanything, whether or not it's
related to work or whether ornot it's just related to my
life, I pull up ChatGBT, I askit, and I get an answer.
(07:05):
I understand that that answerisn't going to be always
perfect, and I certainlyunderstand that, like, if I was
going to use that information ina published story, I would need
to kind of go back and checkit.
But again, just like aWikipedia page is a great place
to kind of start a reportingproject because you can look at
(07:25):
the bottom and look at all thefootnotes that are there and
then that tells you all thearticles that you can read to
kind of bone up on theparticular topic, which then
gives you a whole list of peopleto kind of reach out to.
That's what ChatGPT does for mein what I do every day.
(07:47):
I mean, you know, so I use it.
I use Notebook LM totranscribe, to kind of digest
and transcribe interview notes.
I use something calledAlice.ai, which is an AI
transcription tool designed forjournalists that I like because
it's designed for journalists.
But the basic point is, and Idon't know whether or not we're
(08:12):
there yet, but I think I couldprobably do this if I took the
time.
What we're really all after iscreating the LLM of us so what I
really want and what I thinkevery journalist would want and
what I think every newsroomcould at some point supply them
(08:35):
is the LLM of them is like Iwould love to be able to take
all my emails all my interviewnotes all my story drafts all my
various musings and upload theminto some...
some AI platform and have itessentially train just on
(09:03):
everything I've done over thecourse of the past 30 years.
Then it might actually likehelp me remember story ideas and
things that I thought of thatI'd long forgotten.
So
Dave Reddy (09:14):
That's how you're using it too.
And so you've anticipated mynext question.
Thank you.
So Michael, you know, we had achance to see each other at your
Transform event, which wasfantastic.
I heard a lot of things aboutAI from both AI folks and from
reporters.
You guys are at the vanguard, Ithink, of AI.
You could probably spend 45minutes telling me how you're
(09:35):
using it, but in a nutshell, howdo you folks use it at
VentureBeat and how do you useit personally?
Michael Nuñez (09:40):
Well, I think an important thing to kind of add
here is that we just, I think atthe most basic level, we don't
see this as a replacement tool.
This is not, I think thequestion around will AI replace
people is kind of the wrongframing.
It's often the question thatgets asked because that's where
(10:01):
people's fear is most apparent,I guess.
People are worried about theirjobs, about the uncertainty of
the economy, I guess, right now.
And so there's all this fearthat AI is just going to gain
super intelligence and take abunch of people's jobs.
But I think AI will not replacejournalists.
(10:23):
It's just replacing the tasks.
that were mistakenly believedto define journalism.
So, you know, the drudgery oftranscribing the, you know,
summarizing 200 page courtdocuments, you know, even, you
know, these, I think it willalso get rid of this sort of
press release rewrites, youknow, that that you see kind of
(10:45):
polluting the internet.
So, you know, the part that'sreally important is that you
still need really good judgmentfor all this stuff.
So AI is great at kind ofaccelerating your workflow, but
you know, it doesn't buildrelationships of trust with a
source that's kind of riskingtheir career to expose
wrongdoing.
It doesn't have taste.
It doesn't have uniqueperspective.
So those are the things that Ithink editors still and
(11:08):
reporters still need to employkind of when they're embracing
this stuff.
And, you know, AI won't replacegreat journalists, but I think
journalists that are using AIwill replace those that are not
using AI.
So I see this very similar tothe social media boom.
You discouraged from embracingsocial media and blogging was
(11:30):
kind of this dirty word when Igraduated in 2009.
And they would tell us often atthe University of Missouri
Journalism School that we werereporters, we weren't bloggers.
Well, by the time I entered thejournalism industry in 2009,
blogging was like the best jobyou could probably have.
(11:51):
And it was because those peoplehad no attachment to the
traditions of the industry.
They were inserting themselvesinto the story.
The articles were filled withperspective.
You know, it was kind of thenew journalism of our era, you
know, like the Norman Mailer andTom Wolfe and, you know, some
of the guys from the 60s, HunterS.
Thompson, you know, those guysall broke the rules back then
(12:13):
and were kind of addingthemselves to the story.
And they were characters inmany of their best stories.
And I think you saw somethingvery similar during the social
media boom.
I think with AI, you know, Idon't know that people will be
inserting themselves into thestories, but I think those that
are kind of running toward thistechnology are going to have a
leg up over those that don't.
And in terms of just theguidance that we provide for our
(12:35):
writers, I think that I kind ofsee this as us moving from
basically being producers tobeing directors.
I think that the best peoplethat are using these tools are
kind of directing thesedifferent AI tools to do
different tasks for them intheir workflow.
(12:55):
And again, I think it frees upthe journalist to do what only a
journalist can do, which isconducting a great interview,
building sources, finding thatstory that's behind the facts.
I think AI is great atdiscovering facts, but I think
to tell a great story, you stillneed that human perspective,
that critical analysis thatreaders crave.
(13:17):
So yeah, hopefully that answersyour question.
But I think for us, we're nottrying to automate the news.
I think that's something that alot of people get wrong.
And we're also not trying toreplace writers with AI.
We're trying to find reallygood writers that are using
these new tools to move fasterand to write better stories.
Fred Vogelstein (13:56):
one of the bigger journalism in Silicon
Valley by 2015.
You know, I think they'redefinitely connected.
Obviously, Michael Arringtonwas a blogger who created
TechCrunch.
The activity is very, verysimilar.
And to kind of draw adistinction is, I think...
(14:19):
I think silly.
I think the basic, I think thebasic point is, you know, what's
important is to, I sometimes,I've started thinking about
journalism in a bottoms uprather than a top down kind of
way.
You know, what's important forreaders?
What's important for readers isto get information that is
(14:41):
credible, trustworthy, anduseful to them.
Where writer and editors areare completely transparent about
their biases and theirconflicts of interest.
After that, as long as you'recompletely transparent about
(15:01):
what you're doing and why you'redoing it, I'm not sure I
understand what the differenceis between that and what the New
York Times does, other than theultimate budget, other than
their...
sort of ability to get peopleto call them back and therefore
(15:25):
the impact of the stories thatthey have.
You know, I think thateverything else, all the various
rules and frameworks and thingsthat...
end up signing, you know,documents that we end up signing
when we join newsorganizations, whether or not
it's the New York Times, theWall Street Journal, like, you
(15:47):
can't own stocks, like, youknow, you must not, like, take,
you must not get gifts, youknow, blah, blah, blah.
I mean, all of those aren'tnecessarily rules for the sake
of rules.
They're just simply rules toprotect the brand that you are
working for, which, you know, isvaluable for a simple reason
(16:11):
that like lots and lots and lotsof time and energy have gone
into kind of making it credible.
But if you have your own brandand people trust it, and you can
use whatever rules your readersare prepared to tolerate, and
if you can figure out a way tomake money doing that, more
(16:31):
power to you.
I think that's the beauty oflike what's going on right now.
I mean, the thing that wasdifficult about blog was that,
you know, in the early days, youknow, you both had to sell
advertising and then had toactually create content.
And I think that created sortof a structure that was just
back-breaking for a lot of theearly bloggers who turned
(16:51):
businesses into, turned theirblogs into businesses.
But the thing that's greatabout what's going on now and
the subscription model thatexists today and the various,
like, new ways of kind ofgetting stuff distributed is
that there's actually now adirect link between the quality
of your content and the numberof subscriptions that you have.
(17:15):
And so in a weird way, I mean,I sometimes talk about Substack
and now all the other companiesand whatnot, they're launching
with a better business model.
And so, you know.
Michael Nuñez (17:29):
But this stuff is, this is all really apparent
now.
I think when you, you know, ifyou can think back to 2009,
like, this was the beginning ofkind of the golden era of
blogging, which we can now seebecause we're on the downswing,
you know, but I think when thisstuff was first coming out, you
know, I think, you know, andright now I see it with AI as
(17:51):
well.
Like academic institutions arereally struggling because, you
know, I think a lot ofprofessors are experts in a
world that is kind of quicklyvanishing.
And so their expertise, theirtenure, their entire careers
were built on this set of skillsthat are quickly becoming
augmented or automated.
And at least with the socialmedia boom before it, I think
(18:14):
we're now living in thispost-truth world, right?
Or basically the misinformationage.
So I think seeing news withbias and with opinion and with
personality is...
basically the status quo atthis point.
You know, the biggest newsdistribution platform
personalities are like Joe Roganand, you know, comedians and
(18:37):
podcasters.
And, you know, people get theirnews from Instagram and TikTok
and just random people on theinternet.
That wasn't always the case.
You know, this was still, Ithink we were still kind of in
the monoculture era where therewas this expectation that the
New York Times was unbiased.
The Wall Street Journal was,you know, these institutions
were perceived as unbiased andso the reporters were expected
(18:58):
to write or like the way thatthe institutions were teaching
it like the J schools were thatyou know saying that you had to
be sort of this voice of God,fly on the wall and represent
the facts without opinion andwithout bringing any of your own
personal biases to thatprocess.
I think now there's been, evenwithin those really strict
(19:22):
institutions like the New YorkTimes and the Journal and et
cetera, I think they've loosenedsome of those rules.
Now, you would never find theword I in a story prior, in the
early 2000s, it'd really hard tofind.
You know, I went to this eventand I did X, Y, Z.
Now you can see that on the NewYork Times every day,
(19:42):
basically.
I think that there areexamples.
Maybe it's not super prominent,but I think they're more open
to that style of reporting whereit's, you know, first person
and someone's setting the scene,you know, in an event that
they're at or whatever.
And frankly, they're justpromoting their personalities a
lot more than they used to.
I think, you know, now you justsee that across the board and
it's part of the culture.
(20:03):
Like you said, Substack hasbecome kind of has become kind
of this de facto platform forwriters that are either unhappy
at their existing workplace orwant more freedom or just want
to own the the the entireprocess but um but i think it's
hard to see past the fog i guesswhen you're in it and you know,
(20:25):
I think professors, you know, Ihear about this in different
industries.
So it's not just journalism, Ithink in law and in healthcare
and in finance.
And, you know, there are manyindustries where people are
worried about like, what they'resupposed to be teaching college
students right now, because youdon't want to entirely avoid
(20:46):
the technology like we'retalking about, you know, I think
that would be a disservice tothe student.
But at the same time, you don'twant to teach bad habits,
right?
You know, so I think there isstill value in the traditions of
journalism in the traditions oflaw and some of those you know
the things that you have juniorassociates do that drudgery
(21:06):
helps shape I think some ofthese young writers and lawyers
and and financiers or whateverand so and bankers I guess and
so you know like I'm a betterjournalist because I wrote
obituaries for you know many ofthe early days in my career and
I've I learned to writefeatures.
Nowadays, I just don't thinkstudents are, they don't, I
(21:32):
don't know that that's theprocess that they're, that
they're going through.
And I think that's okay, too,because, you know, I've, I've
witnessed a lot of change, youknow, when I graduated, there
was sort of this expectationthat there would be some
mentorship that the people atthese kind of larger
institutions would take care ofand nurture and sort of mentor
the younger journalists who, youknow, start on the lowest rung,
(21:53):
but then eventually become sosenior reporters, and then
senior editors and kind of climbthe masthead.
I think, you know, basicallyfrom the 2010s and on, you had
an environment where journalistsare really just like, many of
them are just trying to surviveand basically just find the high
ground as the floor falls outfrom beneath them.
And so we're all switching jobsevery couple of years.
(22:16):
And even people with reallygood jobs, you know, you can be
the editor in chief of WiredMagazine, and you're still
switching your job one or twoyears later.
And, you know, it's, it's It'sjust, we just live in such a,
there's just been so muchchange, I think, in media in
particular and news media inparticular that I actually think
we're best equipped to handlethis transition to AI because
(22:36):
many of us have already livedthrough some pretty big shifts
in the marketplace.
And I think when I look atother industries, when I listen
to people in other industries,it's kind of funny to me because
it's the same types ofconversations that people were
having around social media.
And, you know, I was 20 yearsold at the time and I I just
didn't have the perspective toknow that, you know, it was okay
(22:59):
to kind of follow my instinctson some of this stuff.
And it was okay to, to justdisregard, frankly, what, what a
little bit of what I was beingtaught in school and, or at
least challenge that more, moreopenly.
And I think now that I see, youknow, this, this AI wave coming
or, or basically, you know, thefact that that's here already,
it just feels like, you know,like the tsunami is coming and
(23:24):
you can't, Yeah, absolutely.
It's more like use your masteryof the English language and
(23:59):
your clarity of thought toleverage this tool to make your
writing better.
You should arrive atVentureBeat with good ideas and
good instincts and goodintuition on what makes a good
headline, what makes a goodlead, what makes a good nut
graph.
The AI can make that evenbetter and can help you move
even faster if you're reallygood at it.
So that's kind of my view onsort of how we with this new
(24:27):
technology and how we try ourbest to embrace it in our
newsroom.
Dave Reddy (24:32):
So here's a crazy question.
Let's turn the question that Ioriginally had asked on its
head.
Journalism, as Michael said, weall know this, struggling big
time, the money, themonetization has changed largely
because of technology.
Is it possible that the properuse of AI, and I think not to
put words in your mouth,Michael, but I think this is
(24:52):
part of what you were trying toget across, Is it possible that
the proper use of AI as anaugmentation to journalism could
actually be part of, if not thesolution, to journalism's
people problem right now?
Fred.
What do you mean by peopleproblem?
The notion that there justaren't as many people out there,
that they can't afford to havethe big giant masthead that they
used to.
So can AI be the augmenter?
(25:15):
Can it be the researcher?
Can it be the news aid, if youwill?
Fred Vogelstein (25:20):
Sure.
I mean, I think that what Ithink is is going to happen
is...
I mean, if you start from thepremise that AI makes you
smarter, and if you start fromthe premise that you now live in
a world where...
If you have something to say,it's easier to build an audience
(25:44):
around what you're writing andgenerate income around that than
ever before.
If you take those two thingsand put them together, that
essentially says thatindependent media, that
essentially is like throwinggasoline on the independent
(26:04):
media revolution.
You're essentially saying to...
journalists not just me who hasbeen doing it a long time but
young journalists you know gowork for go work for like a big
place for a little bit developsome contacts and some and some
skills and then like afteryou've done it at like a big
(26:28):
place for you know and a bigplace by I mean just any place
that like has a has a mastheadafter you've done it for a few
years go out on your own andlike build you know take the
beat that like you've tried tokind of like build and expand it
and use and leverage AI to kindof build something that doesn't
(26:50):
previously exist I mean like welived in a world you know when
I when I first started as ajournalist like you know you
actually needed people think ofjournalism now as like being
about content right it's likehow fast can you how fast can
you actually write and reportstories and get them out to your
(27:13):
readers.
That's what journalism is.
How fast can you get yourreaders stories that are new and
fresh and interesting thatnobody else is telling them?
Journalism, when I started, wasconsidered a heavy
manufacturing business.
It wasn't considered content.
It was about taking giant rollsof paper and You know.
(27:43):
And as a result of that, thatmeant that very few people could
do it because, you know, thatold phrase, like, you don't get
(28:08):
into an argument with somebodywho can buy ink by the barrel.
It used to be the drivingphrase about, like, what life in
American media was about andthe rules of engagement that
politicians had to observe.
Well, that doesn't exist.
anymore everybody everybody canink doesn't cost anything and
(28:33):
distribution doesn't costanything so everybody can do it
and so I think that like theword story just at the beginning
one of the things that hasn'tyet happened that I'm really
interested to see is I actuallythink that some of the next set
of I guess you can't call themnewspapers but I guess the next
(28:55):
set of news outlets are that yousort of think of as media
companies will essentially comefrom, like, roll-ups of
substacks, you know, where somesmart businessman and marketer
says, I'm going to pick, like,the 10 top substacks or
(29:20):
newsletters on these varioustopics with this amount of
audience, and i'm going to putthem together under this
umbrella and um create my ownpublication and it's like you
could figure out a way to liketell the various owners and
(29:41):
producers of each of thosenewsletters hey this you'll be
able to produce more and getpaid more and work less in that
kind of a setup they would sayabsolutely i'm all over it so i
kind of think we're i kind And Ithink it actually, and AI has
the capability of reducing thecosts of doing all that.
(30:06):
You know, so like one of thethings- And the time.
Right.
One of the great things that,one of the great things, for
example, that's happened inSilicon Valley since I've been
involved in it is the wholecloud computing revolution.
And the reason I say that isbecause when I first started
writing about Silicon Valleylike 25 years ago- If you wanted
(30:27):
to start a company, you neededoffice space, you needed
computers, you needed servers,you needed monitors, you needed
chairs, you needed all kinds ofinfrastructure to kind of get
off the ground.
One of the things that wasamazing about when the App Store
(30:48):
first started showing up duringthe mobile revolution, which
kind of coincided with thedevelopment of cloud computing,
especially at AWS, was that youhad all these like app companies
that were showing up out ofnowhere that were basically like
two guys and a credit card thatwere basically like, you know,
starting out of their basement.
You know, when you lower thecost of entry, when you lower
(31:09):
the costs of getting into anyparticular industry, you improve
creativity.
You improve the kinds of thingsthat people will create because
more people can try.
You know, So for example, Ithink that, you know, one of the
(31:30):
things people talk about AIright now is it's going to put
everybody out of work.
You know, so for example, AndyJassy just said, talked about
all the people that like AI wasgoing to force like Amazon to
fire.
Except at the same time, peopleare talking about like vibe
coding.
People, you know, like myfriend Dan Roth, who at LinkedIn
talked about like this wholecoding project that he came up
(31:53):
with on his own, that he wasactually able to kind of just
whole software that he wasactually able to produce because
he had this idea and he didn'thave to learn how to code so all
of a sudden we're in this spotwhere suddenly software because
of ai has the possibility ofbecoming like a middle-class job
(32:13):
i mean it used to be that youhad to go to mit you know and
get like five degrees in orderto get like a good software job
well now if like anybody with anidea for like how they want to
kind of make their workflow workbetter can like vibe code it
you know can run it through anAI program and come out with
(32:34):
like something that like thatwould have taken like you know
10 like MIT PhDs to produce like15 years ago that's really
great
Dave Reddy (32:43):
okay so let's finish with this you've both been very
bullish about AI and what itcan do for for journalism for
the world I don't completelydisagree but for the sake of
perhaps being a bit of a devil'sadvocate it.
You hear a lot of folks talkingabout either the need for
regulation or self-regulation inthe journalism industry and
(33:05):
other industries, obviously,when it comes to AI.
I just saw, I think this wasJames Cameron, but this actually
sort of proves my point.
Who knows if it was reallyJames Cameron?
He did a post with Terminator,I warned you 41 years ago about
all this.
I don't know if that's true ornot, if it was him or not,
(33:26):
because that's part of theproblem with AI.
I guess the point I'm askingis, am I being snooty?
And are others who havejournalism degrees or somewhat
being snooty when we say, wait aminute, it used to be back in
the 1800s that anybody could bea journalist.
Was that necessarily a goodthing?
And then all of a sudden, inthe 1900s, it became a college
(33:46):
track.
And to your point, Michael,professors taught it and so
forth.
If we go back to everybodybeing able to be a journalist,
is that part of the problemwe're facing right now with a
sorts of fake news and thingslike that?
Or is that a good thing?
Do we need to regulate that?
Does the government need toregulate that?
Michael?
Michael Nuñez (34:04):
Jeez, you know, huge question to end on.
I think that, I think that looklike AI will lead to more
misinformation.
It's just, it's just, that'sthe short answer.
I think that it's easy, youknow, and getting to kind of
what Fred was just talkingabout.
It's easier than ever to, toprop up a news site, whether
it's good or bad.
And so, you know, so a lot ofpeople are taking some Some of
(34:27):
them don't even live in thiscountry.
Some of them are nation stateactors and basically just trying
to sow discord among UScitizens.
So I think we will see anincrease in misinformation in
bad news in fake news.
You know, you know, I've oftensaid that I feel like we went
from the information age when Igraduated in 2009.
(34:48):
And basically, from high schoolthrough college, I was deeply
embedded in the information ageand Napster and, and just the
you know, the kind of early daysof Google and then the early
days of social media.
And it was all so exciting.
And then I think for a lot ofmillennials, our kind of
fascination with the internetand kind of the excitement and
(35:09):
fun and newness of this entirekind of high speed internet era,
you know, I think the pendulumjust swung the other way.
And we're now in themisinformation age.
And so actually, we've gonefrom having all of this
information available at yourfingertips to all of this bad
information is now available atyour fingertips.
(35:29):
And I think, you know, I'vethought a lot about this, I
guess, over the years.
And, you know, I think thatit's probably been true through
most of American history thatgood information has always cost
money.
And so bad information is freeand it's always been free.
And, you know, there was kindof the yellow journalism era
when the printing press firstcame around that were, you know,
(35:52):
a lot of people were tellingsensational news and they kind
of were dealing with their ownfake news crisis at the time or
basically just biasedinformation being kind of
distributed widely.
But this scale is definitely afirst.
I think, you know, we basicallyhave this global scale
available very cheaply now.
So yeah, so there will be moremisinformation.
(36:15):
It's easier to create deepfakes and some fake videos, fake
images, just prop up anentirely fake news website.
That stuff is increasing.
in terms of frequency and justcapability i i think that
there's no way around thathowever you know i do think that
like ai is not a life raftthat's going to save the
(36:39):
journalism industry but but isee it as kind of a weapon that
can be used to fix a brokenindustry and of course it can be
used to destroy things and kindof wreak havoc on society as
well and it will don't get mewrong but i do think that people
will also use this weapon forgood i think that you know and
and And I think that peoplewon't, you know, the commodified
(37:01):
news, like, you know, Applereleases new iPhone or whatever,
X company releases Y product.
I think, you know, that will, Ithink there was an era, like
when I graduated in 2009, Applereleases iPhone 5 was probably
the biggest story of the year,one of them, you know?
And so whoever wrote that storyat any one of the big tech
(37:22):
publications was getting a tonof clicks, a ton of attention
and being kind of, Heralded islike a great reporter, I think.
And, you know, I just thinkthat stuff's going to be harder
and harder to leverage.
It'll be completelycommodified.
And a lot of that stuff's goingto get automated, I think, at
least most of that process.
And so what's really going tomatter is just human insights,
(37:42):
the human work.
People are going to want to payfor premium products and
indispensable insight.
And so, you know, I think likewe've moved, I guess my view on
what's happened is we've movedfrom the monoculture of TV,
newspapers, and magazines tokind of the, you know, like I
(38:04):
guess omniculture, like, youknow, where things are becoming
more and more niche.
So when I look across culturebroadly, I think everything's
becoming more niche.
You know, it's harder to get abig movie made because people
aren't going to the theaters andpeople are just kind of
interested in the narrow sliceof life that they are living And
(38:27):
very few are actually likelooking beyond that narrow path
to see new perspectives andconsume different types of
media.
So I think fashion is becomingmore niche.
Music is becoming more niche.
News media is becoming moreniche.
And I think that willaccelerate with artificial
(38:47):
intelligence.
We're going to be filtered intothese narrow little views of
the world.
And you'll have personalizedfeeds.
You already do in many caseshave personalized feeds.
I think that will only increasewith AI because, of course,
we'll be able to profile peoplebetter and, you know, create
these psychographic profiles.
So, so, yeah, you know, I don'tthink it's as bleak as it
(39:12):
probably sounds.
I do think that, you know,that, like, like, I still have a
lot of faith in humanity.
And I do think someone will,you know, use this for good.
Like, for example, I think thatAI could be used to combat, you
know, some of the echo chamberproblems and the kind of
extremism online.
I think right now, most newsthat is distributed has an
(39:35):
inherent bias.
And I think someone willpackage a news product as
something that is less biased,get your news free from bias.
And they'll use the automationas a selling point.
It's like rather than havinghumans tell you what the big
news is, our AI will actuallysort through the big news of the
(39:55):
day and tell you, without bias,what Trump's hundred first days
were like, or whatever the bignews story is.
So rather than having to go toFox or ABC or NBC or the New
York Times or the Wall StreetJournal, you'll refer to this AI
product that will be, quoteunquote, free from bias.
Now, of course, every algorithminherently has bias and these
(40:17):
AI platforms, all these AImodels are inherently biased.
But I would bet money thatsomeone will create a very
successful news product claimingthat it's unbiased and really
relying on the AI to tell thatstory.
And I think there is thishunger among readers to escape
from the echo chambers.
(40:38):
I think people are just tired.
You know, we're in thispost-truth era.
There's so much noise.
I think even MAGA is a littlebit exhausted by the just the
constant beat of this drum thatyou're supposed to be afraid.
And and, you know, it's likelike I think content creators,
whether they're news orentertainment or infotainment,
(40:59):
they're sort of incentivized toget an emotional reaction out of
readers in order to stop themfrom doom scrolling.
People are just kind ofmindlessly doom scrolling in
their off time.
The thing that gets you to stopor click through or say like,
what's going on here is usuallysome deeply emotional appeal,
whether it's like fear or shockor whatever.
(41:20):
And so I think that system hasbeen running for a decade,
probably more than a decade atthis point.
And I think readers are justlike, I talk to so many people
in SF that proudly say, I don'tread any news.
And I'm like, what?
How is that?
How do you live?
How can you be an adult and notread the news?
(41:41):
But I think they see it assomething that they take a lot
of pride in because it's likethey're free from the mania that
is really kind of dominating alot of these conversations
around current events.
And you have to pick a side andIt's just such a toxic
information ecosystem at thispoint.
And so I think there is likepeople are really hungry for and
(42:06):
looking for a news product or anews source or something that
they can gravitate to that isnot a social media feed.
I think the news feed fatigueis like at an all time high.
And I think within the verynear future, within the next one
to two years, someone willlaunch, a news product that's
(42:29):
going to be extremely successfulbecause they're going to be
kind of, you know, telling astory in contrast to the
newsfeed.
So rather than having youfiltered into this little narrow
sliver of perspectives or ofbiases or whatever, your
personalized newsfeed, I thinksomeone will just simplify that
(42:50):
and say, you know, get your newsfree from bias.
We'll do it with AI.
Let the machine decide sort ofwhat the facts are and at least
help you navigate through someof these nuanced topics.
And, you know, I don't know ifit'll have a chat function or if
it'll be spoken or whatever,but I do think that, you know,
(43:10):
again, you know, journalistswith AI will replace the
journalists without AI.
And so, you know, I don't thinkAI is going to save the entire
journalism industry, but I dothink that it will create new
solutions for kind of a, youknow, not even a dying industry,
but just a really toxic...
I feel like we're at sort of alow point in terms of the...
(43:33):
just the quality of life andthe quality of the conversation,
I think, in news media rightnow.
You know, we're reallystruggling to, there's so many
important things happening rightnow and not enough people are
talking about those big newsevents.
And, you know, it worries me alittle bit, but I do just, I'm a
(43:55):
techno-optimist at heart and Ido believe that, you know, we'll
find a solution to all of this.
And I assume that AI is goingto be this foundational shift
Again, it's more like theprinting press or the internet.
I think that it's kind of thisutility that everyone will have
to use.
And so hopefully we have someinnovative minds thinking about
(44:16):
how to use it for good ratherthan how to use it for evil.
Dave Reddy (44:21):
Fred, where do you stand?
You've already said that youlike the democratization to
journalism that AI will bring,but is there any credence to the
doomsayers who think, allright, This is it.
We're letting the robots takeover, both in journalism and in
general.
Fred Vogelstein (44:38):
No.
First of all, like, when youtalk about, like, robots taking
over, if you go back in time, wehave talking robots and
computers putting every one ofus out of work for as long as
there have been robots.
And...
every time everybody, verysmart people, say this time is
(45:00):
different.
And every time the explosion ofnew technology certainly alters
jobs and puts some people outof work, but in the end it
ultimately ends up creating morenew jobs than the old jobs that
it blew up.
So maybe AI is the firsttechnology that humans have ever
(45:25):
created that will put all of usout of work.
But if it is, that'll be thefirst time in human history that
that's ever happened.
And it's hard for me to see it.
I also think that, like, interms of the impact on news and
on its impact on news andmisinformation, you know,
(45:50):
there's a cycle here, right?
If you go back 100 years ago,120 years ago...
or even 140 years ago.
Like, you know, Pulitzer andHearst and built newspaper
empires based on, you know, whatenabled them to build newspaper
(46:10):
empires?
Well, essentially, it was atechnology shift, right?
So, what happened in the middleof the 19th century was that we
invented the rural press.
I mean, the presses that, like,used to, like, exist in all the
movies.
We figured out a way to, in asuper fast way, produce like
(46:31):
hundreds of thousands of copiesof the same newspaper.
And at the same time, becausewe invented the automobile, we
developed sort of a way todistribute that newspaper far
and wide.
And so that led to like beingable to, these newspaper empires
(46:52):
that exploded in profitabilityand allowed Hearst Pulitzer and
the rest of them to buildbuildings and become some
ambitious entrepreneurs on theplanet, essentially the modern
day like tech billionaires.
And what did they do?
They printed newspapers thatsold, that people wanted to
read.
So that led to like anexplosion of yellow journals.
(47:13):
And, you know, that startedwars that didn't need to be
started.
I mean, it was pretty ugly.
What caused that to change?
Well, suddenly it became moreprofitable to sell newspapers
that weren't doing that.
(47:34):
Suddenly, in order to kind oflike distinguish them, you know,
newspapers, the whole idea oflike newspapers being sort of
the word of God and the wholeidea of like journalism being
like more of a profession ratherthan a trade and the whole idea
of presenting sort of bothsides of a story.
didn't grow out of like somekind of altruistic thing it grew
(48:01):
because like a bunch of peoplethought like this is the best
way to make money and And I sortof think that, like, we're in a
similar situation now.
You know, this is the truism oftechnology is that, like, you
know, it gives and it takes.
I mean, everybody sort ofthinks that, like, everybody
thought, for example, and I wasone of the guilty ones, that,
(48:23):
like, the Internet was the mostincredible new invention that
mankind ever created and that itwas going to democratize the
world and reduce poverty andimprove democracy and make the
world a better place.
And, you know, I was part of,like, the cool wire that, like,
was writing stories about that.
And, you know, that was, like,one of the most naive things
(48:47):
that, like, I've ever thought inmy entire life.
Now, like, I actually thinkthat, like, I have a lot of good
company because, like, youknow, a lot of really, really
smart people around the world inSilicon Valley and all the
publications I worked forthought the same thing.
But, like, what were wethinking?
I mean, it's like, when weinvented the automobile, like,
That turned out to be like themost incredible invention of
(49:09):
like the 20th century.
But we also like had, we alsolike suddenly like had people
dying like by the droves inautomobile crashers.
So we figured out a way to kindof use the existing technology
at the time to like figure out away to kind of like solve that
problem.
We like invented anti-lockbrakes and we invented like
trunk driving laws and weinvented seatbelt laws and we
invented airbags and we did abunch of things.
(49:32):
And lo and behold, if you likelook at the statistics, like,
you know, fatalities like fellby half you know we're sort of
at that like point right nowwhere like okay the internet has
come along and it was like thisgreat thing for like the first
like 15 years and then itsuddenly social media came along
and mobile came along andsuddenly everybody was able to
(49:53):
kind of say whatever they wantedand we now live in this we now
live in this world where in aweird way like you know we're
now having arguments that about,like, science versus religion
that, like, you know, were thekinds of things that we read in
history books, like, thathappened in, like, the 16th
(50:15):
century, like, where, like,okay, so-and-so has this new
idea, let's, like, kill himbecause, like, he doesn't
believe in God.
And so, you know, it's kind ofastonishing that, like, we can,
like, go up into space and,like, actually look at, like,
the poles melting and, like,we're still having a
conversation about climatechange.
I mean, at least the people,like, five hundred years ago
(50:37):
couldn't actually see the globefrom like space and actually see
it with their own eyes but likewe're in the same spot now with
news and information likepeople will figure out a way to
use ai to create filters thatlike say like this is real this
is not real and and people willfigure out a way to come up with
(51:02):
you know newspapers and newspublications and that are more
transparent about biases andmake people feel more connected
to, like, the reporting process.
I mean, like, you sort of thinkabout, like, Time and Newsweek.
Like, you know, Time andNewsweek got created a hundred
(51:22):
years ago as sort of a digest,right?
Because in those days, like,everybody had, everybody, like,
they were, you know, every cityhad two newspapers and many of
them had, like, you know, a fewof them had, like, a dozen.
And nobody could So there wasinformation overload.
And so Time Newsweek werecreated as almost a digest so
(51:44):
that people didn't have to readfive newspapers to kind of see
what was going on.
They could actually read onemagazine at the end of the week
to kind of see what was goingon.
It also happened to beimmensely profitable because it
was one of the first ways tokind of do high-resolution color
advertising.
So you kind of combine thosetwo technologies and you wind up
(52:07):
with something that wasincredibly powerful.
We're in the same spot rightnow with AI.
People are going to use it tokind of create new publications
that are more trustworthy,have...
that are more credible andfigure out a way to filter as
(52:27):
well as to also figure out a wayto filter out all the kind of
stuff that people are spoutingoff.
In a weird way, people aren'tsaying anything online right now
that they haven't thought foras long as humanity.
The only difference is that youcan actually hear it.
(52:50):
Well, okay, so now we'refiguring...
you know, for thousands ofyears, like there was no way to
actually hear the kind of crazystuff that like people are kind
of saying, but everybody's hadconspiracy theories.
So now, so what will happennow?
We'll actually come up withlike technologies to figure out
a way not to hear all that stuffagain.
I don't know what it's going tolook like because obviously if
(53:12):
I knew what it was going to looklike, I would do it myself, but
I don't think we're in a badplace.
Dave Reddy (53:18):
I look forward to the day when AI mutes conspiracy
theories, Fred, and I On thatnote, the three of us could talk
for probably about another fourhours, but they only give me an
hour.
So gentlemen, thanks so much.
This has been a reallyfascinating conversation, very
thought-provoking, and Iappreciate your optimism.
I wish I shared it completely,but I shared enough.
(53:40):
You've given me a lot to thinkabout, and I'm sure our
listeners too.
So thanks again for joining usfor our third anniversary show,
and Michael, Fred, appreciateit.
Thank you.
Fred Vogelstein (53:50):
Thank you for having us.
Dave Reddy (53:52):
I'd like to thank you all for listening today.
And once again, a big thank youto our guests, Michael Nunez of
VentureBeat and Fred Vogelsteinof Crazy Stupid Tech for this
special third anniversaryepisode of Pressing Matters.
I'd also like to take a momentbefore signing off today to
thank the folks who makePressing Matters happen, from
our fantastic guests to ourproducer engineer, Aileen
(54:13):
Fernandez de Soto.
If you only knew how much moreintolerable I'd be as a host
without Aileen's help.
Now, if you let me brag onbehalf of the team for just
another moment.
I'm also pleased to announcethat we've been nominated for a
Reagan Communications ZenithAward for Best Podcast.
Winners will be announced inNovember.
Bravo crew, win or show.
(54:35):
So here's to three years and onto season four, which debuts
next month with yet anothermember of the B2B Tech Top 200.
In the meantime, if you've gotfeedback on today's podcast, or
if you'd like to learn moreabout Big Valley Marketing and
how we identified the B2B TechTop 200, be sure to drop me an
email Thanks for listening.
(55:03):
And as always, think big.
We all know the internet has done a number on
media's business model in thepast three decades.
And the conventional wisdom isthat AI will do the same.
It'll replace reporters, leadto computer-generated news
stories, more misinformation,more fake news, and generally
make a struggling industry evenworse.
But what if the opposite istrue?
What if AI can open upreporters' time to do the kind
(00:23):
of deep reporting they used todo?
What if AI can lead to more,not less, human magic in
journalism and in general?
What if AI tools can be used todecrease bias and winnow out
untrustworthy sources?
What if AI actually is thetechnology that saves
journalism?
Okay, I'm pushing it on thatlast one.
(00:46):
But the other questions,they're worth discussing.
And in fact, I had thatdiscussion with Fred Vogelstein
of Crazy Stupid Tech and MichaelNunez of VentureBeat for this
special third anniversaryepisode of Pressing Matters from
Big Valley Marketing, thepodcast that brings you
conversations with the top mediaand influencers in B2B tech.
I'm Dave Reddy, head of BigValley Marketing's media and
(01:08):
influencers practice, and I'myour host.
Through research and goodold-fashioned relationship
building, we We've identifiedB2B Tech's top 200 media and
influencers, including Michaeland Fred.
Here's our chat with Michaeland Fred.
Enjoy.
Fred, Michael, thanks so muchfor coming back to join us for
(01:35):
our third anniversary.
It's amazing.
It's been three years andreally appreciate the two of you
rejoining us for this specialepisode.
G
Michael Nuñez (01:42):
Great to be here.
Thanks for having us.
Dave Reddy (01:43):
So we're looking at human magic.
Will AI destroy it, both interms of journalism and just
generally?
The reason I asked both of youto come back is you both have
really distinct viewpoints aboutAI.
You're both using AI.
You've both been inventive withAI in your different ways.
And I'm just curious, thatfundamental question, is AI ever
(02:08):
going to destroy the humanmagic?
And Michael, start with you.
What do you think?
Michael Nuñez (02:15):
Yeah, I think it's a great starting point.
You know, the reality is thatAI will not destroy the human
magic.
I think it will only enhance,you know, kind of what makes
journalists great, you know,great humans and great, you
know, kind of empaths.
conducting interviews, buildingsources, finding the story
(02:36):
behind the facts, you know,providing that critical analysis
that readers crave.
I think those are things thatyou'll still need a sharp kind
of embedded reporter to do.
But I do think AI isundoubtedly going to have an
impact on the, and a huge impacton the entire industry.
You know, I think that twoyears ago, or, you know, when
(02:59):
ChatGPT launched in November of2022, You know, there was a lot
of debate around whether AIbelonged in journalism.
I think that debate is over.
I think that, you know, AI isabsolutely going to impact
journalism.
It already has started.
And I see this as something,you know, it's less of a tool
(03:20):
like a tape recorder and a CMS.
And I think AI is more of afoundational shift, like the
printing press or the internet,something that we just can't
ignore.
You know, I've said in thepast, I think this will be
bigger than Google.
in terms of its impact on eachindividual reporter.
And right now, we're seeingnewsrooms wrestle with how to
(03:41):
integrate this technology intotheir newsroom.
But I would argue that mostplaces at this point aren't
ignoring AI.
It's just too big of anopportunity to ignore.
And I think the bestjournalists are the ones that
are integrating this into theirworkflow and letting the AI take
over the drudgery oftranscription And, you know,
(04:03):
reading a 100 page report, youknow, on a specific industry or
going through a two hourinterview to find good quotes.
I think, you know, they'reemploying AI in some of those
instances to just speed up theirwork process.
And, you know, in the best casescenario, they're producing
more high quality work at afaster clip.
(04:24):
So, you know, that's definitelywhat we see at VentureMeet.
And that's something that wereally pride ourselves on in
terms of just sort of trying tolead the pack in terms of this.
embrace of AI.
Dave Reddy (04:34):
I like your reference to Google because, you
know, Google certainly has nottaken away the AI magic and it's
become, you know, an essentialtool.
Can you imagine, and I can, butcan you imagine life without
Google?
That was a long time ago, thankGod.
Fred, what's your thought?
Is human magic an endangeredspecies?
Fred Vogelstein (04:51):
No, not at all.
I mean, I actually, I don'twant to agree with Michael too
much because we need time for meto call him an ignorant slut,
but...
Dave Reddy (05:02):
I didn't
Michael Nuñez (05:07):
realize there were no rules on this podcast.
Okay.
But
Fred Vogelstein (05:12):
no, no, no.
But I think that it makes, Iuse it, I use it all the time
and it makes me smarter.
And, you know, it makes thefront of my brain bigger.
It makes my ability to seestory ideas happen faster to put
those stories together quickerto just be what I am quicker,
(05:41):
faster, better in a way that Ijust don't think is going away.
I mean, I've almost completelystopped using Google.
Really?
Yeah.
I mean, it's like Google andeven the founders of Google will
tell you this in their privatemoments.
(06:01):
I mean, 20 years years ago, thefounders of Google talked about
what they were creating as kindof an intermediate step to
where we are now.
You know, they thought thatsearch was an intermediate step
on the way to an answer machine.
Well, that's what we have now.
(06:22):
I mean, there's some ironylurking in the fact that Google
is playing catch up there sincethey were thinking about this
before anybody else was.
But, you know, search is anintermediate step on the way to
an answer machine.
And that's the way I useChatGPT and all the other
(06:44):
chatbots out there.
And they do a really, reallygood job of it.
I mean, it's a little bit likehaving something create bespoke
Wikipedia pages for you.
If I have a question aboutanything, whether or not it's
related to work or whether ornot it's just related to my
life, I pull up ChatGBT, I askit, and I get an answer.
(07:05):
I understand that that answerisn't going to be always
perfect, and I certainlyunderstand that, like, if I was
going to use that information ina published story, I would need
to kind of go back and checkit.
But again, just like aWikipedia page is a great place
to kind of start a reportingproject because you can look at
(07:25):
the bottom and look at all thefootnotes that are there and
then that tells you all thearticles that you can read to
kind of bone up on theparticular topic, which then
gives you a whole list of peopleto kind of reach out to.
That's what ChatGPT does for mein what I do every day.
(07:47):
I mean, you know, so I use it.
I use Notebook LM totranscribe, to kind of digest
and transcribe interview notes.
I use something calledAlice.ai, which is an AI
transcription tool designed forjournalists that I like because
it's designed for journalists.
But the basic point is, and Idon't know whether or not we're
(08:12):
there yet, but I think I couldprobably do this if I took the
time.
What we're really all after iscreating the LLM of us so what I
really want and what I thinkevery journalist would want and
what I think every newsroomcould at some point supply them
(08:35):
is the LLM of them is like Iwould love to be able to take
all my emails all my interviewnotes all my story drafts all my
various musings and upload theminto some...
some AI platform and have itessentially train just on
(09:03):
everything I've done over thecourse of the past 30 years.
Then it might actually likehelp me remember story ideas and
things that I thought of thatI'd long forgotten.
So
Dave Reddy (09:14):
That's how you're using it too.
And so you've anticipated mynext question.
Thank you.
So Michael, you know, we had achance to see each other at your
Transform event, which wasfantastic.
I heard a lot of things aboutAI from both AI folks and from
reporters.
You guys are at the vanguard, Ithink, of AI.
You could probably spend 45minutes telling me how you're
(09:35):
using it, but in a nutshell, howdo you folks use it at
VentureBeat and how do you useit personally?
Michael Nuñez (09:40):
Well, I think an important thing to kind of add
here is that we just, I think atthe most basic level, we don't
see this as a replacement tool.
This is not, I think thequestion around will AI replace
people is kind of the wrongframing.
It's often the question thatgets asked because that's where
(10:01):
people's fear is most apparent,I guess.
People are worried about theirjobs, about the uncertainty of
the economy, I guess, right now.
And so there's all this fearthat AI is just going to gain
super intelligence and take abunch of people's jobs.
But I think AI will not replacejournalists.
(10:23):
It's just replacing the tasks.
that were mistakenly believedto define journalism.
So, you know, the drudgery oftranscribing the, you know,
summarizing 200 page courtdocuments, you know, even, you
know, these, I think it willalso get rid of this sort of
press release rewrites, youknow, that that you see kind of
(10:45):
polluting the internet.
So, you know, the part that'sreally important is that you
still need really good judgmentfor all this stuff.
So AI is great at kind ofaccelerating your workflow, but
you know, it doesn't buildrelationships of trust with a
source that's kind of riskingtheir career to expose
wrongdoing.
It doesn't have taste.
It doesn't have uniqueperspective.
So those are the things that Ithink editors still and
(11:08):
reporters still need to employkind of when they're embracing
this stuff.
And, you know, AI won't replacegreat journalists, but I think
journalists that are using AIwill replace those that are not
using AI.
So I see this very similar tothe social media boom.
You discouraged from embracingsocial media and blogging was
(11:30):
kind of this dirty word when Igraduated in 2009.
And they would tell us often atthe University of Missouri
Journalism School that we werereporters, we weren't bloggers.
Well, by the time I entered thejournalism industry in 2009,
blogging was like the best jobyou could probably have.
(11:51):
And it was because those peoplehad no attachment to the
traditions of the industry.
They were inserting themselvesinto the story.
The articles were filled withperspective.
You know, it was kind of thenew journalism of our era, you
know, like the Norman Mailer andTom Wolfe and, you know, some
of the guys from the 60s, HunterS.
Thompson, you know, those guysall broke the rules back then
(12:13):
and were kind of addingthemselves to the story.
And they were characters inmany of their best stories.
And I think you saw somethingvery similar during the social
media boom.
I think with AI, you know, Idon't know that people will be
inserting themselves into thestories, but I think those that
are kind of running toward thistechnology are going to have a
leg up over those that don't.
And in terms of just theguidance that we provide for our
(12:35):
writers, I think that I kind ofsee this as us moving from
basically being producers tobeing directors.
I think that the best peoplethat are using these tools are
kind of directing thesedifferent AI tools to do
different tasks for them intheir workflow.
(12:55):
And again, I think it frees upthe journalist to do what only a
journalist can do, which isconducting a great interview,
building sources, finding thatstory that's behind the facts.
I think AI is great atdiscovering facts, but I think
to tell a great story, you stillneed that human perspective,
that critical analysis thatreaders crave.
(13:17):
So yeah, hopefully that answersyour question.
But I think for us, we're nottrying to automate the news.
I think that's something that alot of people get wrong.
And we're also not trying toreplace writers with AI.
We're trying to find reallygood writers that are using
these new tools to move fasterand to write better stories.
Fred Vogelstein (13:56):
one of the bigger journalism in Silicon
Valley by 2015.
You know, I think they'redefinitely connected.
Obviously, Michael Arringtonwas a blogger who created
TechCrunch.
The activity is very, verysimilar.
And to kind of draw adistinction is, I think...
(14:19):
I think silly.
I think the basic, I think thebasic point is, you know, what's
important is to, I sometimes,I've started thinking about
journalism in a bottoms uprather than a top down kind of
way.
You know, what's important forreaders?
What's important for readers isto get information that is
(14:41):
credible, trustworthy, anduseful to them.
Where writer and editors areare completely transparent about
their biases and theirconflicts of interest.
After that, as long as you'recompletely transparent about
(15:01):
what you're doing and why you'redoing it, I'm not sure I
understand what the differenceis between that and what the New
York Times does, other than theultimate budget, other than
their...
sort of ability to get peopleto call them back and therefore
(15:25):
the impact of the stories thatthey have.
You know, I think thateverything else, all the various
rules and frameworks and thingsthat...
end up signing, you know,documents that we end up signing
when we join newsorganizations, whether or not
it's the New York Times, theWall Street Journal, like, you
(15:47):
can't own stocks, like, youknow, you must not, like, take,
you must not get gifts, youknow, blah, blah, blah.
I mean, all of those aren'tnecessarily rules for the sake
of rules.
They're just simply rules toprotect the brand that you are
working for, which, you know, isvaluable for a simple reason
(16:11):
that like lots and lots and lotsof time and energy have gone
into kind of making it credible.
But if you have your own brandand people trust it, and you can
use whatever rules your readersare prepared to tolerate, and
if you can figure out a way tomake money doing that, more
(16:31):
power to you.
I think that's the beauty oflike what's going on right now.
I mean, the thing that wasdifficult about blog was that,
you know, in the early days, youknow, you both had to sell
advertising and then had toactually create content.
And I think that created sortof a structure that was just
back-breaking for a lot of theearly bloggers who turned
(16:51):
businesses into, turned theirblogs into businesses.
But the thing that's greatabout what's going on now and
the subscription model thatexists today and the various,
like, new ways of kind ofgetting stuff distributed is
that there's actually now adirect link between the quality
of your content and the numberof subscriptions that you have.
(17:15):
And so in a weird way, I mean,I sometimes talk about Substack
and now all the other companiesand whatnot, they're launching
with a better business model.
And so, you know.
Michael Nuñez (17:29):
But this stuff is, this is all really apparent
now.
I think when you, you know, ifyou can think back to 2009,
like, this was the beginning ofkind of the golden era of
blogging, which we can now seebecause we're on the downswing,
you know, but I think when thisstuff was first coming out, you
know, I think, you know, andright now I see it with AI as
(17:51):
well.
Like academic institutions arereally struggling because, you
know, I think a lot ofprofessors are experts in a
world that is kind of quicklyvanishing.
And so their expertise, theirtenure, their entire careers
were built on this set of skillsthat are quickly becoming
augmented or automated.
And at least with the socialmedia boom before it, I think
(18:14):
we're now living in thispost-truth world, right?
Or basically the misinformationage.
So I think seeing news withbias and with opinion and with
personality is...
basically the status quo atthis point.
You know, the biggest newsdistribution platform
personalities are like Joe Roganand, you know, comedians and
(18:37):
podcasters.
And, you know, people get theirnews from Instagram and TikTok
and just random people on theinternet.
That wasn't always the case.
You know, this was still, Ithink we were still kind of in
the monoculture era where therewas this expectation that the
New York Times was unbiased.
The Wall Street Journal was,you know, these institutions
were perceived as unbiased andso the reporters were expected
(18:58):
to write or like the way thatthe institutions were teaching
it like the J schools were thatyou know saying that you had to
be sort of this voice of God,fly on the wall and represent
the facts without opinion andwithout bringing any of your own
personal biases to thatprocess.
I think now there's been, evenwithin those really strict
(19:22):
institutions like the New YorkTimes and the Journal and et
cetera, I think they've loosenedsome of those rules.
Now, you would never find theword I in a story prior, in the
early 2000s, it'd really hard tofind.
You know, I went to this eventand I did X, Y, Z.
Now you can see that on the NewYork Times every day,
(19:42):
basically.
I think that there areexamples.
Maybe it's not super prominent,but I think they're more open
to that style of reporting whereit's, you know, first person
and someone's setting the scene,you know, in an event that
they're at or whatever.
And frankly, they're justpromoting their personalities a
lot more than they used to.
I think, you know, now you justsee that across the board and
it's part of the culture.
(20:03):
Like you said, Substack hasbecome kind of has become kind
of this de facto platform forwriters that are either unhappy
at their existing workplace orwant more freedom or just want
to own the the the entireprocess but um but i think it's
hard to see past the fog i guesswhen you're in it and you know,
(20:25):
I think professors, you know, Ihear about this in different
industries.
So it's not just journalism, Ithink in law and in healthcare
and in finance.
And, you know, there are manyindustries where people are
worried about like, what they'resupposed to be teaching college
students right now, because youdon't want to entirely avoid
(20:46):
the technology like we'retalking about, you know, I think
that would be a disservice tothe student.
But at the same time, you don'twant to teach bad habits,
right?
You know, so I think there isstill value in the traditions of
journalism in the traditions oflaw and some of those you know
the things that you have juniorassociates do that drudgery
(21:06):
helps shape I think some ofthese young writers and lawyers
and and financiers or whateverand so and bankers I guess and
so you know like I'm a betterjournalist because I wrote
obituaries for you know many ofthe early days in my career and
I've I learned to writefeatures.
Nowadays, I just don't thinkstudents are, they don't, I
(21:32):
don't know that that's theprocess that they're, that
they're going through.
And I think that's okay, too,because, you know, I've, I've
witnessed a lot of change, youknow, when I graduated, there
was sort of this expectationthat there would be some
mentorship that the people atthese kind of larger
institutions would take care ofand nurture and sort of mentor
the younger journalists who, youknow, start on the lowest rung,
(21:53):
but then eventually become sosenior reporters, and then
senior editors and kind of climbthe masthead.
I think, you know, basicallyfrom the 2010s and on, you had
an environment where journalistsare really just like, many of
them are just trying to surviveand basically just find the high
ground as the floor falls outfrom beneath them.
And so we're all switching jobsevery couple of years.
(22:16):
And even people with reallygood jobs, you know, you can be
the editor in chief of WiredMagazine, and you're still
switching your job one or twoyears later.
And, you know, it's, it's It'sjust, we just live in such a,
there's just been so muchchange, I think, in media in
particular and news media inparticular that I actually think
we're best equipped to handlethis transition to AI because
(22:36):
many of us have already livedthrough some pretty big shifts
in the marketplace.
And I think when I look atother industries, when I listen
to people in other industries,it's kind of funny to me because
it's the same types ofconversations that people were
having around social media.
And, you know, I was 20 yearsold at the time and I I just
didn't have the perspective toknow that, you know, it was okay
(22:59):
to kind of follow my instinctson some of this stuff.
And it was okay to, to justdisregard, frankly, what, what a
little bit of what I was beingtaught in school and, or at
least challenge that more, moreopenly.
And I think now that I see, youknow, this, this AI wave coming
or, or basically, you know, thefact that that's here already,
it just feels like, you know,like the tsunami is coming and
(23:24):
you can't, Yeah, absolutely.
It's more like use your masteryof the English language and
(23:59):
your clarity of thought toleverage this tool to make your
writing better.
You should arrive atVentureBeat with good ideas and
good instincts and goodintuition on what makes a good
headline, what makes a goodlead, what makes a good nut
graph.
The AI can make that evenbetter and can help you move
even faster if you're reallygood at it.
So that's kind of my view onsort of how we with this new
(24:27):
technology and how we try ourbest to embrace it in our
newsroom.
Dave Reddy (24:32):
So here's a crazy question.
Let's turn the question that Ioriginally had asked on its
head.
Journalism, as Michael said, weall know this, struggling big
time, the money, themonetization has changed largely
because of technology.
Is it possible that the properuse of AI, and I think not to
put words in your mouth,Michael, but I think this is
(24:52):
part of what you were trying toget across, Is it possible that
the proper use of AI as anaugmentation to journalism could
actually be part of, if not thesolution, to journalism's
people problem right now?
Fred.
What do you mean by peopleproblem?
The notion that there justaren't as many people out there,
that they can't afford to havethe big giant masthead that they
used to.
So can AI be the augmenter?
(25:15):
Can it be the researcher?
Can it be the news aid, if youwill?
Fred Vogelstein (25:20):
Sure.
I mean, I think that what Ithink is is going to happen
is...
I mean, if you start from thepremise that AI makes you
smarter, and if you start fromthe premise that you now live in
a world where...
If you have something to say,it's easier to build an audience
(25:44):
around what you're writing andgenerate income around that than
ever before.
If you take those two thingsand put them together, that
essentially says thatindependent media, that
essentially is like throwinggasoline on the independent
(26:04):
media revolution.
You're essentially saying to...
journalists not just me who hasbeen doing it a long time but
young journalists you know gowork for go work for like a big
place for a little bit developsome contacts and some and some
skills and then like afteryou've done it at like a big
(26:28):
place for you know and a bigplace by I mean just any place
that like has a has a mastheadafter you've done it for a few
years go out on your own andlike build you know take the
beat that like you've tried tokind of like build and expand it
and use and leverage AI to kindof build something that doesn't
(26:50):
previously exist I mean like welived in a world you know when
I when I first started as ajournalist like you know you
actually needed people think ofjournalism now as like being
about content right it's likehow fast can you how fast can
you actually write and reportstories and get them out to your
(27:13):
readers.
That's what journalism is.
How fast can you get yourreaders stories that are new and
fresh and interesting thatnobody else is telling them?
Journalism, when I started, wasconsidered a heavy
manufacturing business.
It wasn't considered content.
It was about taking giant rollsof paper and You know.
(27:43):
And as a result of that, thatmeant that very few people could
do it because, you know, thatold phrase, like, you don't get
(28:08):
into an argument with somebodywho can buy ink by the barrel.
It used to be the drivingphrase about, like, what life in
American media was about andthe rules of engagement that
politicians had to observe.
Well, that doesn't exist.
anymore everybody everybody canink doesn't cost anything and
(28:33):
distribution doesn't costanything so everybody can do it
and so I think that like theword story just at the beginning
one of the things that hasn'tyet happened that I'm really
interested to see is I actuallythink that some of the next set
of I guess you can't call themnewspapers but I guess the next
(28:55):
set of news outlets are that yousort of think of as media
companies will essentially comefrom, like, roll-ups of
substacks, you know, where somesmart businessman and marketer
says, I'm going to pick, like,the 10 top substacks or
(29:20):
newsletters on these varioustopics with this amount of
audience, and i'm going to putthem together under this
umbrella and um create my ownpublication and it's like you
could figure out a way to liketell the various owners and
(29:41):
producers of each of thosenewsletters hey this you'll be
able to produce more and getpaid more and work less in that
kind of a setup they would sayabsolutely i'm all over it so i
kind of think we're i kind And Ithink it actually, and AI has
the capability of reducing thecosts of doing all that.
(30:06):
You know, so like one of thethings- And the time.
Right.
One of the great things that,one of the great things, for
example, that's happened inSilicon Valley since I've been
involved in it is the wholecloud computing revolution.
And the reason I say that isbecause when I first started
writing about Silicon Valleylike 25 years ago- If you wanted
(30:27):
to start a company, you neededoffice space, you needed
computers, you needed servers,you needed monitors, you needed
chairs, you needed all kinds ofinfrastructure to kind of get
off the ground.
One of the things that wasamazing about when the App Store
(30:48):
first started showing up duringthe mobile revolution, which
kind of coincided with thedevelopment of cloud computing,
especially at AWS, was that youhad all these like app companies
that were showing up out ofnowhere that were basically like
two guys and a credit card thatwere basically like, you know,
starting out of their basement.
You know, when you lower thecost of entry, when you lower
(31:09):
the costs of getting into anyparticular industry, you improve
creativity.
You improve the kinds of thingsthat people will create because
more people can try.
You know, So for example, Ithink that, you know, one of the
(31:30):
things people talk about AIright now is it's going to put
everybody out of work.
You know, so for example, AndyJassy just said, talked about
all the people that like AI wasgoing to force like Amazon to
fire.
Except at the same time, peopleare talking about like vibe
coding.
People, you know, like myfriend Dan Roth, who at LinkedIn
talked about like this wholecoding project that he came up
(31:53):
with on his own, that he wasactually able to kind of just
whole software that he wasactually able to produce because
he had this idea and he didn'thave to learn how to code so all
of a sudden we're in this spotwhere suddenly software because
of ai has the possibility ofbecoming like a middle-class job
(32:13):
i mean it used to be that youhad to go to mit you know and
get like five degrees in orderto get like a good software job
well now if like anybody with anidea for like how they want to
kind of make their workflow workbetter can like vibe code it
you know can run it through anAI program and come out with
(32:34):
like something that like thatwould have taken like you know
10 like MIT PhDs to produce like15 years ago that's really
great
Dave Reddy (32:43):
okay so let's finish with this you've both been very
bullish about AI and what itcan do for for journalism for
the world I don't completelydisagree but for the sake of
perhaps being a bit of a devil'sadvocate it.
You hear a lot of folks talkingabout either the need for
regulation or self-regulation inthe journalism industry and
(33:05):
other industries, obviously,when it comes to AI.
I just saw, I think this wasJames Cameron, but this actually
sort of proves my point.
Who knows if it was reallyJames Cameron?
He did a post with Terminator,I warned you 41 years ago about
all this.
I don't know if that's true ornot, if it was him or not,
(33:26):
because that's part of theproblem with AI.
I guess the point I'm askingis, am I being snooty?
And are others who havejournalism degrees or somewhat
being snooty when we say, wait aminute, it used to be back in
the 1800s that anybody could bea journalist.
Was that necessarily a goodthing?
And then all of a sudden, inthe 1900s, it became a college
(33:46):
track.
And to your point, Michael,professors taught it and so
forth.
If we go back to everybodybeing able to be a journalist,
is that part of the problemwe're facing right now with a
sorts of fake news and thingslike that?
Or is that a good thing?
Do we need to regulate that?
Does the government need toregulate that?
Michael?
Michael Nuñez (34:04):
Jeez, you know, huge question to end on.
I think that, I think that looklike AI will lead to more
misinformation.
It's just, it's just, that'sthe short answer.
I think that it's easy, youknow, and getting to kind of
what Fred was just talkingabout.
It's easier than ever to, toprop up a news site, whether
it's good or bad.
And so, you know, so a lot ofpeople are taking some Some of
(34:27):
them don't even live in thiscountry.
Some of them are nation stateactors and basically just trying
to sow discord among UScitizens.
So I think we will see anincrease in misinformation in
bad news in fake news.
You know, you know, I've oftensaid that I feel like we went
from the information age when Igraduated in 2009.
(34:48):
And basically, from high schoolthrough college, I was deeply
embedded in the information ageand Napster and, and just the
you know, the kind of early daysof Google and then the early
days of social media.
And it was all so exciting.
And then I think for a lot ofmillennials, our kind of
fascination with the internetand kind of the excitement and
(35:09):
fun and newness of this entirekind of high speed internet era,
you know, I think the pendulumjust swung the other way.
And we're now in themisinformation age.
And so actually, we've gonefrom having all of this
information available at yourfingertips to all of this bad
information is now available atyour fingertips.
(35:29):
And I think, you know, I'vethought a lot about this, I
guess, over the years.
And, you know, I think thatit's probably been true through
most of American history thatgood information has always cost
money.
And so bad information is freeand it's always been free.
And, you know, there was kindof the yellow journalism era
when the printing press firstcame around that were, you know,
(35:52):
a lot of people were tellingsensational news and they kind
of were dealing with their ownfake news crisis at the time or
basically just biasedinformation being kind of
distributed widely.
But this scale is definitely afirst.
I think, you know, we basicallyhave this global scale
available very cheaply now.
So yeah, so there will be moremisinformation.
(36:15):
It's easier to create deepfakes and some fake videos, fake
images, just prop up anentirely fake news website.
That stuff is increasing.
in terms of frequency and justcapability i i think that
there's no way around thathowever you know i do think that
like ai is not a life raftthat's going to save the
(36:39):
journalism industry but but isee it as kind of a weapon that
can be used to fix a brokenindustry and of course it can be
used to destroy things and kindof wreak havoc on society as
well and it will don't get mewrong but i do think that people
will also use this weapon forgood i think that you know and
and And I think that peoplewon't, you know, the commodified
(37:01):
news, like, you know, Applereleases new iPhone or whatever,
X company releases Y product.
I think, you know, that will, Ithink there was an era, like
when I graduated in 2009, Applereleases iPhone 5 was probably
the biggest story of the year,one of them, you know?
And so whoever wrote that storyat any one of the big tech
(37:22):
publications was getting a tonof clicks, a ton of attention
and being kind of, Heralded islike a great reporter, I think.
And, you know, I just thinkthat stuff's going to be harder
and harder to leverage.
It'll be completelycommodified.
And a lot of that stuff's goingto get automated, I think, at
least most of that process.
And so what's really going tomatter is just human insights,
(37:42):
the human work.
People are going to want to payfor premium products and
indispensable insight.
And so, you know, I think likewe've moved, I guess my view on
what's happened is we've movedfrom the monoculture of TV,
newspapers, and magazines tokind of the, you know, like I
(38:04):
guess omniculture, like, youknow, where things are becoming
more and more niche.
So when I look across culturebroadly, I think everything's
becoming more niche.
You know, it's harder to get abig movie made because people
aren't going to the theaters andpeople are just kind of
interested in the narrow sliceof life that they are living And
(38:27):
very few are actually likelooking beyond that narrow path
to see new perspectives andconsume different types of
media.
So I think fashion is becomingmore niche.
Music is becoming more niche.
News media is becoming moreniche.
And I think that willaccelerate with artificial
(38:47):
intelligence.
We're going to be filtered intothese narrow little views of
the world.
And you'll have personalizedfeeds.
You already do in many caseshave personalized feeds.
I think that will only increasewith AI because, of course,
we'll be able to profile peoplebetter and, you know, create
these psychographic profiles.
So, so, yeah, you know, I don'tthink it's as bleak as it
(39:12):
probably sounds.
I do think that, you know,that, like, like, I still have a
lot of faith in humanity.
And I do think someone will,you know, use this for good.
Like, for example, I think thatAI could be used to combat, you
know, some of the echo chamberproblems and the kind of
extremism online.
I think right now, most newsthat is distributed has an
(39:35):
inherent bias.
And I think someone willpackage a news product as
something that is less biased,get your news free from bias.
And they'll use the automationas a selling point.
It's like rather than havinghumans tell you what the big
news is, our AI will actuallysort through the big news of the
(39:55):
day and tell you, without bias,what Trump's hundred first days
were like, or whatever the bignews story is.
So rather than having to go toFox or ABC or NBC or the New
York Times or the Wall StreetJournal, you'll refer to this AI
product that will be, quoteunquote, free from bias.
Now, of course, every algorithminherently has bias and these
(40:17):
AI platforms, all these AImodels are inherently biased.
But I would bet money thatsomeone will create a very
successful news product claimingthat it's unbiased and really
relying on the AI to tell thatstory.
And I think there is thishunger among readers to escape
from the echo chambers.
(40:38):
I think people are just tired.
You know, we're in thispost-truth era.
There's so much noise.
I think even MAGA is a littlebit exhausted by the just the
constant beat of this drum thatyou're supposed to be afraid.
And and, you know, it's likelike I think content creators,
whether they're news orentertainment or infotainment,
(40:59):
they're sort of incentivized toget an emotional reaction out of
readers in order to stop themfrom doom scrolling.
People are just kind ofmindlessly doom scrolling in
their off time.
The thing that gets you to stopor click through or say like,
what's going on here is usuallysome deeply emotional appeal,
whether it's like fear or shockor whatever.
(41:20):
And so I think that system hasbeen running for a decade,
probably more than a decade atthis point.
And I think readers are justlike, I talk to so many people
in SF that proudly say, I don'tread any news.
And I'm like, what?
How is that?
How do you live?
How can you be an adult and notread the news?
(41:41):
But I think they see it assomething that they take a lot
of pride in because it's likethey're free from the mania that
is really kind of dominating alot of these conversations
around current events.
And you have to pick a side andIt's just such a toxic
information ecosystem at thispoint.
And so I think there is likepeople are really hungry for and
(42:06):
looking for a news product or anews source or something that
they can gravitate to that isnot a social media feed.
I think the news feed fatigueis like at an all time high.
And I think within the verynear future, within the next one
to two years, someone willlaunch, a news product that's
(42:29):
going to be extremely successfulbecause they're going to be
kind of, you know, telling astory in contrast to the
newsfeed.
So rather than having youfiltered into this little narrow
sliver of perspectives or ofbiases or whatever, your
personalized newsfeed, I thinksomeone will just simplify that
(42:50):
and say, you know, get your newsfree from bias.
We'll do it with AI.
Let the machine decide sort ofwhat the facts are and at least
help you navigate through someof these nuanced topics.
And, you know, I don't know ifit'll have a chat function or if
it'll be spoken or whatever,but I do think that, you know,
(43:10):
again, you know, journalistswith AI will replace the
journalists without AI.
And so, you know, I don't thinkAI is going to save the entire
journalism industry, but I dothink that it will create new
solutions for kind of a, youknow, not even a dying industry,
but just a really toxic...
I feel like we're at sort of alow point in terms of the...
(43:33):
just the quality of life andthe quality of the conversation,
I think, in news media rightnow.
You know, we're reallystruggling to, there's so many
important things happening rightnow and not enough people are
talking about those big newsevents.
And, you know, it worries me alittle bit, but I do just, I'm a
(43:55):
techno-optimist at heart and Ido believe that, you know, we'll
find a solution to all of this.
And I assume that AI is goingto be this foundational shift
Again, it's more like theprinting press or the internet.
I think that it's kind of thisutility that everyone will have
to use.
And so hopefully we have someinnovative minds thinking about
(44:16):
how to use it for good ratherthan how to use it for evil.
Dave Reddy (44:21):
Fred, where do you stand?
You've already said that youlike the democratization to
journalism that AI will bring,but is there any credence to the
doomsayers who think, allright, This is it.
We're letting the robots takeover, both in journalism and in
general.
Fred Vogelstein (44:38):
No.
First of all, like, when youtalk about, like, robots taking
over, if you go back in time, wehave talking robots and
computers putting every one ofus out of work for as long as
there have been robots.
And...
every time everybody, verysmart people, say this time is
(45:00):
different.
And every time the explosion ofnew technology certainly alters
jobs and puts some people outof work, but in the end it
ultimately ends up creating morenew jobs than the old jobs that
it blew up.
So maybe AI is the firsttechnology that humans have ever
(45:25):
created that will put all of usout of work.
But if it is, that'll be thefirst time in human history that
that's ever happened.
And it's hard for me to see it.
I also think that, like, interms of the impact on news and
on its impact on news andmisinformation, you know,
(45:50):
there's a cycle here, right?
If you go back 100 years ago,120 years ago...
or even 140 years ago.
Like, you know, Pulitzer andHearst and built newspaper
empires based on, you know, whatenabled them to build newspaper
(46:10):
empires?
Well, essentially, it was atechnology shift, right?
So, what happened in the middleof the 19th century was that we
invented the rural press.
I mean, the presses that, like,used to, like, exist in all the
movies.
We figured out a way to, in asuper fast way, produce like
(46:31):
hundreds of thousands of copiesof the same newspaper.
And at the same time, becausewe invented the automobile, we
developed sort of a way todistribute that newspaper far
and wide.
And so that led to like beingable to, these newspaper empires
(46:52):
that exploded in profitabilityand allowed Hearst Pulitzer and
the rest of them to buildbuildings and become some
ambitious entrepreneurs on theplanet, essentially the modern
day like tech billionaires.
And what did they do?
They printed newspapers thatsold, that people wanted to
read.
So that led to like anexplosion of yellow journals.
(47:13):
And, you know, that startedwars that didn't need to be
started.
I mean, it was pretty ugly.
What caused that to change?
Well, suddenly it became moreprofitable to sell newspapers
that weren't doing that.
(47:34):
Suddenly, in order to kind oflike distinguish them, you know,
newspapers, the whole idea oflike newspapers being sort of
the word of God and the wholeidea of like journalism being
like more of a profession ratherthan a trade and the whole idea
of presenting sort of bothsides of a story.
didn't grow out of like somekind of altruistic thing it grew
(48:01):
because like a bunch of peoplethought like this is the best
way to make money and And I sortof think that, like, we're in a
similar situation now.
You know, this is the truism oftechnology is that, like, you
know, it gives and it takes.
I mean, everybody sort ofthinks that, like, everybody
thought, for example, and I wasone of the guilty ones, that,
(48:23):
like, the Internet was the mostincredible new invention that
mankind ever created and that itwas going to democratize the
world and reduce poverty andimprove democracy and make the
world a better place.
And, you know, I was part of,like, the cool wire that, like,
was writing stories about that.
And, you know, that was, like,one of the most naive things
(48:47):
that, like, I've ever thought inmy entire life.
Now, like, I actually thinkthat, like, I have a lot of good
company because, like, youknow, a lot of really, really
smart people around the world inSilicon Valley and all the
publications I worked forthought the same thing.
But, like, what were wethinking?
I mean, it's like, when weinvented the automobile, like,
That turned out to be like themost incredible invention of
(49:09):
like the 20th century.
But we also like had, we alsolike suddenly like had people
dying like by the droves inautomobile crashers.
So we figured out a way to kindof use the existing technology
at the time to like figure out away to kind of like solve that
problem.
We like invented anti-lockbrakes and we invented like
trunk driving laws and weinvented seatbelt laws and we
invented airbags and we did abunch of things.
(49:32):
And lo and behold, if you likelook at the statistics, like,
you know, fatalities like fellby half you know we're sort of
at that like point right nowwhere like okay the internet has
come along and it was like thisgreat thing for like the first
like 15 years and then itsuddenly social media came along
and mobile came along andsuddenly everybody was able to
(49:53):
kind of say whatever they wantedand we now live in this we now
live in this world where in aweird way like you know we're
now having arguments that about,like, science versus religion
that, like, you know, were thekinds of things that we read in
history books, like, thathappened in, like, the 16th
(50:15):
century, like, where, like,okay, so-and-so has this new
idea, let's, like, kill himbecause, like, he doesn't
believe in God.
And so, you know, it's kind ofastonishing that, like, we can,
like, go up into space and,like, actually look at, like,
the poles melting and, like,we're still having a
conversation about climatechange.
I mean, at least the people,like, five hundred years ago
(50:37):
couldn't actually see the globefrom like space and actually see
it with their own eyes but likewe're in the same spot now with
news and information likepeople will figure out a way to
use ai to create filters thatlike say like this is real this
is not real and and people willfigure out a way to come up with
(51:02):
you know newspapers and newspublications and that are more
transparent about biases andmake people feel more connected
to, like, the reporting process.
I mean, like, you sort of thinkabout, like, Time and Newsweek.
Like, you know, Time andNewsweek got created a hundred
(51:22):
years ago as sort of a digest,right?
Because in those days, like,everybody had, everybody, like,
they were, you know, every cityhad two newspapers and many of
them had, like, you know, a fewof them had, like, a dozen.
And nobody could So there wasinformation overload.
And so Time Newsweek werecreated as almost a digest so
(51:44):
that people didn't have to readfive newspapers to kind of see
what was going on.
They could actually read onemagazine at the end of the week
to kind of see what was goingon.
It also happened to beimmensely profitable because it
was one of the first ways tokind of do high-resolution color
advertising.
So you kind of combine thosetwo technologies and you wind up
(52:07):
with something that wasincredibly powerful.
We're in the same spot rightnow with AI.
People are going to use it tokind of create new publications
that are more trustworthy,have...
that are more credible andfigure out a way to filter as
(52:27):
well as to also figure out a wayto filter out all the kind of
stuff that people are spoutingoff.
In a weird way, people aren'tsaying anything online right now
that they haven't thought foras long as humanity.
The only difference is that youcan actually hear it.
(52:50):
Well, okay, so now we'refiguring...
you know, for thousands ofyears, like there was no way to
actually hear the kind of crazystuff that like people are kind
of saying, but everybody's hadconspiracy theories.
So now, so what will happennow?
We'll actually come up withlike technologies to figure out
a way not to hear all that stuffagain.
I don't know what it's going tolook like because obviously if
(53:12):
I knew what it was going to looklike, I would do it myself, but
I don't think we're in a badplace.
Dave Reddy (53:18):
I look forward to the day when AI mutes conspiracy
theories, Fred, and I On thatnote, the three of us could talk
for probably about another fourhours, but they only give me an
hour.
So gentlemen, thanks so much.
This has been a reallyfascinating conversation, very
thought-provoking, and Iappreciate your optimism.
I wish I shared it completely,but I shared enough.
(53:40):
You've given me a lot to thinkabout, and I'm sure our
listeners too.
So thanks again for joining usfor our third anniversary show,
and Michael, Fred, appreciateit.
Thank you.
Fred Vogelstein (53:50):
Thank you for having us.
Dave Reddy (53:52):
I'd like to thank you all for listening today.
And once again, a big thank youto our guests, Michael Nunez of
VentureBeat and Fred Vogelsteinof Crazy Stupid Tech for this
special third anniversaryepisode of Pressing Matters.
I'd also like to take a momentbefore signing off today to
thank the folks who makePressing Matters happen, from
our fantastic guests to ourproducer engineer, Aileen
(54:13):
Fernandez de Soto.
If you only knew how much moreintolerable I'd be as a host
without Aileen's help.
Now, if you let me brag onbehalf of the team for just
another moment.
I'm also pleased to announcethat we've been nominated for a
Reagan Communications ZenithAward for Best Podcast.
Winners will be announced inNovember.
Bravo crew, win or show.
(54:35):
So here's to three years and onto season four, which debuts
next month with yet anothermember of the B2B Tech Top 200.
In the meantime, if you've gotfeedback on today's podcast, or
if you'd like to learn moreabout Big Valley Marketing and
how we identified the B2B TechTop 200, be sure to drop me an
email Thanks for listening.
(55:03):
And as always, think big.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!