HARRIS’ FIRST INTERVIEW / TRUMP AT ARLINGTON / TENNIS REPORTER SIDELINED

The panelists talk about Kamala Harris’ first sit down interview since becoming the Democratic nominee for President. They also weigh in on whether it’s alright to accept an interview with restrictions and conditions. The panel also talks about the kerfuffle between Donald Trump and the Army at Arlington National Cemetery where Trump was photographed honoring fallen soldiers. The trio discuss whether this was a calculated campaign stunt or a misunderstanding. The final topic deals with sports journalist Ben Rothenberg who is being sued by tennis superstar Alexander Zverev over a story Rothenberg wrote detailing the alleged abuse of Zverev’s ex-girlfriend. Is it OK for reporters to shy away from controversial subjects in exchange for access? This week’s panel includes Erick Trevino from the University of Southern California, Olivia Madera from California Lutheran University, and Cameron Hughes from Chapman University.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, it's Steve Gregory. Thank you for joining us for
this episode of Studio six forty on demand. This week's
panel on Studio six forty.

Speaker 2 (00:08):
My name is Eric Trovigno and I'm a graduate student
at University of Southern California.

Speaker 3 (00:12):
My name is Olivi Madera and I'm a senior at
California Luthan University.

Speaker 4 (00:16):
And I'm Cameron Hughes from Chapman University.

Speaker 1 (00:21):
The only program in Southern California that breaks down the
stories of today through the voices of tomorrow's journalists. The
students come from campuses large and small, public in private.
This is Studio six forty. I'm Steve Gregory. Thanks for

(00:43):
joining us. Our top story.

Speaker 3 (00:45):
The Vice President gives her first interview since moving to
the top of the Democratic ticket, and she had to
defend a shift in some of her past opinions.

Speaker 1 (00:53):
Doug la Zaider joins us from Washington to kind of
break this down. How did this go for Harrison Walls?
They did this interview to get there?

Speaker 5 (01:00):
How did she address these issues where she seemed to
flip flop from some of her statements in years past.

Speaker 6 (01:07):
Yeah, she's not the first politician to do so, but nevertheless,
I mean, there have been some significant changes that she
has made over the years, from you know, her approach
to the border wall and immigration, to electric vehicle mandates fracking,
which is a big issue in a critical swing state
of Pennsylvania. She said that her values haven't changed even

(01:28):
as these positions have, but she never really explained the
precise nature of these changes and what brought them about.
But there were no major gaffs during this interview, and
the stakes were so high because this is the only
one that she has done so far since becoming a
candidate in this election, and the Harris campaign can say

(01:48):
that they've done this, now that they've checked this box,
and this will take away pressure for a little while.
But at some point there's going to be a push,
no doubt, not just for an interview, but for an
actual press conference from Harris.

Speaker 1 (02:01):
Eric Travinho, welcome back to the show. So you heard
the audio package there. CNN's Dana Bash was the lucky
reporter to get to do the first interview. But one
of the things that she did not do and Harris
did not volunteer, is what took her so long? What
do you think?

Speaker 2 (02:19):
You know, I think maybe I'm just a little bit
unforgiving to politicians, but I think as a politician, you
always have to be prepared, and I do think she
took a little bit too long. I can kind of
see why after watching the interview, because the reporter or
Dana she was, you know, it kind of felt like
she was trying to get her to admit that she
did something wrong or that she did flip flop. It

(02:41):
felt a little bit like gotcha journalism. But at the
same time, I do see that this is her first
interview in a really long time, so I think she
asked the questions that she needed to ask.

Speaker 1 (02:51):
Olivia Madera, your first visit to Studio six, shorty, welcome,
It's good to have you here. And so I would
ask you the same question. Do you think that there
was a strategy to her waiting for so long? Do
you think she was not prepared for this? Do you
think she's afraid of being interviewed? What's your take?

Speaker 3 (03:07):
I genuinely think that she's just taking a smart pace
to all this. And you know, there's been a lot
going on in the campaign and just the news and accusations,
and I personally don't think she waited too long. I
think she just had to just figure out things with

(03:29):
just campaigns and you know, kind of get her voice
out there. You know. She like it was kind of
recently that he dropped out of the race like Biden,
you know, and I think like she just just trying
to get her feet back in and it's hard to
just jump into something like that, you know.

Speaker 1 (03:48):
And Cameron Hughes, welcome back to the show. By the way,
thanks for being here. Kind of touch on what Olivia said.
She has been vice president for a long you know,
for the last four years now. She is the front
runner for the Democratic Party. But she should already be
used to this, and she should already be conditioned for

(04:10):
the press, right.

Speaker 6 (04:12):
You know.

Speaker 4 (04:12):
I don't think she is as well conditioned as one
would hope from a former vice president. I think, at
least what I've been noticing, and I think what we're
going to start to realize as time progresses, is that
she isn't the best at thinking and talking on her feet.
I listened to this interview a couple times, and what
I realized is you can kind of hear where her

(04:33):
answers are prepared beforehand and where she gets kind of
caught off guard and is caught fumbling. She has to
the interviewer has to ask her a couple of these
questions twice because she kind of dances around the answer,
and that's not a fault.

Speaker 7 (04:47):
It's obvious that she has to tread very, very carefully.

Speaker 1 (04:51):
Right.

Speaker 4 (04:51):
She's the candidate for the presidency, and it was unexpected,
and as was the first thing mentioned in the interview,
she has less time than any candidate in history to
convince the public to vote for her.

Speaker 7 (05:03):
So I would hope sorry.

Speaker 1 (05:06):
No, no, no, I was going to wait you for
you to finish your thoughts. Go ahead, do that. I
would hope what.

Speaker 4 (05:11):
I say, I would hope that taking a month, you know,
after the announcement that Biden is dropping out to prepare
for this interview, would you know, have left her well
prepared enough to answer a question like what are you
going to do on your first day in office? And
unfortunately it seemed like she'd, you know, wasn't as prepared

(05:32):
for that as I think she maybe could have been.

Speaker 1 (05:34):
What I was going to say was that you're talking
about she's had the least amount of time of any candidate.
But one would say, or one could argue that, well,
she's had four years. She's had four years to prove
her worth in terms of being in the White House
as a vice president. And a lot of people came
out and said, you know, you're saying all the things
you're going to do now, why weren't you doing them then?

(05:55):
And I know that a vice president's powers is somewhat
limited and you stand in the shadow of the president,
but you still have the ability to make things happen,
and you still have the ability to speak on behalf
of the people. So Olivia, I would ask that do
you think that Harris did a good job in terms
of reaching across the aisle, because that is going to

(06:17):
be the big thing, is going after moderates. Do you
think that was enough to convince people that are on
the fence whether or not to vote for her or Trump.

Speaker 3 (06:25):
I don't think that was enough. Like Cameron was saying,
she did kind of fumble. She wasn't that prepared as
we thought she was going to be. And I would
love to see her do more to the people, like
talking and interviews, and you know, hopefully this is like
a gateway to that, you know, and maybe this was

(06:45):
the start of going to sit down and be with
other people and just like chat and talk more to
reach other audiences.

Speaker 1 (06:53):
Okay, we're going to have to pause right there to
take a break. But first I want to tell everyone
about Studio six forty and about how you can participate.
If you're a student out there that's enrolled in any
college or university in person classes only, or if there's
a hybrid of in person classes and online classes, that's fine,
but we need you to be involved with the school's paper,

(07:13):
radio station, television station, or their digital properties like a
podcast or something else along those lines. All you have
to do is go to kfi AM six forty dot
com slash studio and read through all of the criteria.
There's a place at the bottom where you can click
and it'll give you sort of a step by step
on how to submit materials to be considered as a
panelist for Studio six forty. Exactly what these three are

(07:36):
doing right now. So pass this along to anybody. You
might be the parents of a college student, you might
be the grandparents of a college student, or an uncle
or an aunt or a relative or just a friend.
Either way, get everyone over to KFIAM six forty dot com.
Slash Studio to learn more about how you can be
a panelist on kfi's newest show, Studio six forty. Welcome

(07:59):
back to Studio six forty. I'm Steve Gregory. Thanks for
joining us. And before the break, we had been talking
about the interview that Kamala Harris and her running mate
did with CNN's Dana Bash on Thursday night. We were
kind of talking a little bit about whether or not
her waiting this long, which I think is about a
month or so to do the interview, whether that was

(08:20):
by design, whether she's a little afraid, or whether this
is just a clever strategy. So, Eric, do you think
that I asked the same question of Olivia before the break?
Do you think she did a good enough job to
convince people that are on the fence maybe to go
one way or the other.

Speaker 2 (08:39):
I think it was a little bit tough for her,
especially given the reporter. The reporter was doing a really
good job, but I think she did what she had
to do. And on your point, Cameron, what you said,
I want to agree with you, But at the same time,
I think a month should have been enough to prepare,
and it still felt like maybe she wasn't fully prepared
by At the same time, I'm just gonna comparing her

(09:00):
to Biden, who is, like, you know, completely unprepared, and
compared to Trump, who he also feels a little bit
unprepared sometimes. So I do agree with that, But at
the same time, when I look at the broader landscape
on who the candidates are, I think she might have
been a little bit better than the other ones.

Speaker 4 (09:18):
That's definitely super nitpicky on my end, and I'm not
going to pretend like if I was in her position
trying to answer all those questions, that I would have
fared any better. But yeah, it's definitely interesting to see
how she handled such difficult questions. Ultimately, from the reporter,
I almost think, I don't want to jump the gun here,
but you know, sitting down with CNN, maybe she was

(09:40):
assuming that it would kind of be.

Speaker 7 (09:42):
A walk in the park.

Speaker 4 (09:43):
That's what I'd have these, you know, answer or answers
handed to her on a silver platter, and she got
hit with a couple of tough But I.

Speaker 1 (09:50):
Think CNN has gotten beaten up pretty good over the
last few years just because that reason, Cameron is. I
think CNN has always had the criticism that they been
in the pocket of the Democratic Party, just like Fox
is for the Republican Party. And I think I was
wondering the same thing as how how many softballs you
know Dana was we're gonna throw at her, or excuse

(10:12):
me that Dana was gonna throw at her? And you know,
Dana did the best job. It doesn't really matter how
good and how well prepared you are as a reporter interviewer.
In this case, you're going to get criticized by somebody
for not asking this question or that question, or not
going hard enough, you went too soft, or whatever the
case is. I think Dana actually did a pretty decent
job given the pressure that's on her, because remember she

(10:33):
was also part of the very first debate between Biden
and Trump, and her and her colleague got criticized relentlessly
over them being too soft on Biden and not hard
enough on Biden. So I just think it's a really
bad spot to be in so part of this too.

(10:53):
You touch on something interesting, Olivia. Do you think that
there was some agreement behind the scenes between CNN and Harris.

Speaker 3 (11:01):
I haven't even thought of that, but there could possibly be.
I'm not fully sure about that.

Speaker 1 (11:08):
Open question what do you guys think.

Speaker 2 (11:10):
I can't imagine a better news to be interviewing her,
to be honest.

Speaker 1 (11:14):
Well, do you think there might have been some arrangements
ahead of time? What do you think the conditions were.

Speaker 4 (11:18):
I can't imagine that there would have been. I mean,
just this way he was saying, is you have got it?
Sounded like a gotcha journalism interview at some points, you know,
where she was basically making Harris explain why she had
doubled back on her past, and you know, kind of
forced her into a corner. And I can't imagine if
you know, you're trying to make a make an agreement

(11:38):
with somebody to try to paint yourself in a better light,
that that would be the outcome of it.

Speaker 1 (11:43):
Well, and you know, and there's something that we're going
to talk about in one of our other topics later on,
and it's about the agreements that you might or might
not have with a news outlet or a reporter. How
far does that reporter or news outlet go to get
the interview? What does it you give up just to
have the interview? And I can't help but think there
were conditions behind the scenes, because this was the first

(12:06):
interview to sit down interview, and CNN is seen as
a friendly to the Democratic Party. I mean, it's not
a secret. They have a history of being a little
more lenient on the left. And that's fine because Fox
does it for the right. It's something that I think
it's widely known. But in this particular case, based on

(12:27):
Dana Bash's questions, I am curious what kind of conditions
there might have been behind the scenes, because you know
that those producers and those bookers behind there that you
know there's back and forth. The campaign wants something very strategic.
They want it to be done in a certain way
because they don't want their candidate looking like a fool.
So that's why I asked the question.

Speaker 2 (12:47):
I mean, if it was like predetermined, why would they
give a reporter who's very harsh and critical of Kama?

Speaker 1 (12:54):
You know, I feel like, but which was she really
harsh and critical or was she just asking decent or
was it just because remember, she's trying to put herself
in the position of the American people. I mean, that's
what we do, were trying to be the conduit from
the American people to that candidate. I don't know that
she was being critical I think she was just asking
hard questions.

Speaker 2 (13:13):
I think if it was pretty determined, I would have
the impression that maybe Kamada would have been a little
bit more prepared, because I do agree with what Kmara
was saying. It felt like it came and swept her
under the rug.

Speaker 1 (13:26):
You really so, you guys don't think she was that
well prepared.

Speaker 7 (13:30):
I don't really think so.

Speaker 4 (13:32):
I mean again, the first question that was asked, the
interviewer had to ask that question multiple times just to
get a straight answer. And even then, you know, at
least in my opinion, there wasn't really this straight answer given.

Speaker 2 (13:43):
And also the part where Kamada was like, well, Danna
and then like it just felt like calling her by
her first name. I got the impression like, oh, she
felt a little bit attacked, you know, I don't.

Speaker 1 (13:51):
Know, getting a little defensive yah yah. So it's interesting
because you were talking about that. But Olivia, I asked
you if just because she's not answering the question, does
do you think that does that mean she's not prepared
or she just doesn't want to answer it, that there
could be a bigger reason why she doesn't want to
go there.

Speaker 3 (14:10):
I think that's just because she I'm gonna partly agree
with my colleagues here that she wasn't that prepared and
maybe she does have an agenda and what she wanted
to talk about, but the reporter was, you know, asking
hard questions. People fumble under stress. And I have definitely

(14:30):
been the reporter to ask hard questions to my interviewees
and they beat around the bush or their mind goes blank.
And personally, I've been that person the interviewee doing the
same thing. And I don't think it's bad, like super
super bad that she was a little like fumbling and
wasn't seen as like as prepared. You know, I think

(14:52):
it's normal. But in my opinion, she did seem just
a tad unprepared. But I mean, you're on like national television.

Speaker 1 (15:00):
Well here's the thing. I think some people are just
as turned off with you being slick and absolutely to
the point prepared as opposed to being a little more human.
Welcome back to Studio six forty. I'm Steve Gregory. Thanks
for joining us. We've been talking about the interview that
CNN's Dana Bash did with Kamala Harris and her running
mate on Thursday night. We've been kicking around a lot

(15:22):
of different angles to this interview, But the one thing
I want to ask all three of you, do you
think Kamala Harris should sit down with a college journalist?
And if that college journalist was you, what would be
the first question you would ask? Olivia, I think.

Speaker 3 (15:40):
She should definitely sit down with college journalists. You know,
I think we've all been aware of Kamala HQ and
her new grab on just students, people our age, young adults.
There has been a huge turnover in voter registration because
since she entered the race, and I think it would

(16:02):
be very, very valuable and it would help her a
lot in her time towards like the election, to be
able to talk to college journalists and explain like what's
going on and address those issues if she based on
like her stances and everything. As for me as a

(16:23):
college journalist myself, I would kind of want to ask her,
like what makes that like if she were to be elected,
Like what makes her what would make her term different
than Biden's And how would she do that? Like clearly,
like I want it all laid out, and how is
she just not going to make it like another Democratic

(16:43):
party's like term if that makes sense.

Speaker 1 (16:47):
Yeah, how will she set herself apart from the party, Yes,
and make it hers her ideas.

Speaker 3 (16:52):
As first as the first women women president as well.

Speaker 7 (16:56):
It cam well obvious.

Speaker 4 (17:00):
I think that she should meet with collegiate journalists, I
would assume, having not done so previously. I think we
could give a new outlook on the situation. It's kind
of running through in my head, and I think all
the things I really want to know from Kamala, she
wouldn't be able to give me straight answers for I'd
probably ask, like, you know, what, what's every rule and
facet and in and out of this the game of politics?

(17:23):
Because I really want to know how much is optics
and how much is you know, legitimately how much of
what she says is legitimately spawned by her beliefs and
truth hooods that you know she's going to stand by,
and how much is just put out there to appease
the audience. Kind of a long winded version of saying that,
But I think that kind of ties back to the

(17:43):
what happened in the interview is maybe some of it
was a lack of preparedness, and maybe some of it
was stuff she just couldn't say, you know, because saying
the wrong thing is way worse than saying nothing, which
in some instances during that interview is kind of what
she did.

Speaker 1 (17:58):
Yeah, And one of the things I took away from
it is when she said that, you know, she kind
of flipped on policy, but she said, my values have
never changed. I thought that was an interesting one. Eric,
same question to you.

Speaker 2 (18:11):
I mean, of course, I'm still a college student, so
I would love it if she talked to us, especially
if she wants to get the young voter. I think
most people in my newsroom, in my college and newsroom
would still want to ask her a little bit more
about the Israel pastagn and what she intends to do,
But I think she would just give the same tired
answer she's been giving. So what I'm curious about, and
what I would want to ask her is how she

(18:31):
plans on getting these proposals passed, especially when a lot
of these proposal proposals are very similar to Biden's and
his weren't able to be passed. So I want it
similar to like what you had mentioned, like what makes
her so confident that she's going to be able to
do what her you know, President hasn't been able to do.

Speaker 1 (18:50):
So we'll wrap up that topic before we move on
to our next topic. This is the point of the
show where I want the audience to learn a bit
more about you. So, Olivia Madera, you are a first
time guest here for us. This is your first visit,
So tell us a little bit about yourself, about your
college career and what your goals are.

Speaker 3 (19:08):
So. I'm a senior at California and Lutheran University. I
am a communication major with an emphasis in journalism and
a minor in film and television. I've always been interested
in news and telling the truth. I used to watch
sixty Minutes every Sunday with my parents when I was
at home, and Leicester Holt one of my favorite news anchors.

(19:31):
I guess my goals are still up in the air.
I'm a senior. I get asked what do you want
to do after college? Like you know every day, But
I do want to be a traveling journalist or possibly
a news anchor for a local or nationwide news station.
And I would love to be an author at the
same time and write some fiction and non fiction books.

Speaker 1 (19:50):
Very good, Well, welcome again. It's good to have you here,
Eric Truvigno.

Speaker 2 (19:54):
Yeah, so this is my last semester at USC and
I must still be working in d MILO, which is
a Latin desk, and I'm excited to just be an
editor and help other students, you know, formulate stories and
what they want to do and how they want to
cover their community. And then I will also be on
the radio side of Edinburgh and also as an executive
producer and just helping like people find their passion for

(20:15):
radio and audio storytelling.

Speaker 1 (20:18):
So, will this be your first time doing radio to Annenberg.

Speaker 2 (20:21):
No, I've been a producer like for two semesters now,
but first time as an executive producer.

Speaker 1 (20:27):
Got it. What's the difference for you?

Speaker 2 (20:29):
You get to decide the theme of the show like stories.

Speaker 1 (20:33):
Yeah, I get to power.

Speaker 2 (20:34):
I get to tell them like, hey, you're going to
be on this assignment.

Speaker 1 (20:37):
Thanks.

Speaker 7 (20:38):
My name is Cameron Hughes.

Speaker 4 (20:39):
I'm coming from Chapman University where I study communication and economics,
and very closely tied with the School of Communication is
the radio station, which I've been involved with since the
first semester of my freshman year. I've hosted a show
where I talk about news, current events, interesting stories, true
facts and the like, and it's been really rewarding for me.

Speaker 1 (21:04):
Olivia, you said something that I want to ask you
about in the topic before. I'm just kind of curious.
You said that you've been the one that's asked the
hard questions before and gotten flip flop or gotten the
hymns and the haz What was that question and who
was it? Give me the context real quick.

Speaker 3 (21:21):
I don't recall a super specific time. If you're asking
me about.

Speaker 1 (21:26):
Well, you said that I've been the one that's asked
the hard questions before and gotten in and gotten the
you know, the blank stares. Just curious what that question
was and what was about?

Speaker 3 (21:35):
Recall, But I know that I am.

Speaker 1 (21:38):
But you you remember feeling that.

Speaker 3 (21:40):
I remember feeling that, And as a journalist, I take
all my questions to heart, and there are a lot.
I put a lot of thought and effort into them,
and you know, if someone it was actually I recall
now it was investigative journalism piece I was doing in
my advance Reporting and editing class, and it was about,

(22:00):
oh my gosh, it was about like college enrollments and
some type of something something with numbers, something with numbers,
and we were comparing California Lutheran universities with different smaller
private colleges in the area. And I was on the
phone with I think someone from Pepperdine and they were

(22:24):
just kind of avoiding my questions, and I explained I
was a student journalist and I would like to do
this for my class and do have permission. And we
were able to meet with her, but she just didn't
want to talk. And I don't know if it was
because she was from Pepperdine and I was from not
from her school or anything, But as a journalist, I

(22:45):
do enjoy just sticking true and to knowing that like
this is for my audience and I want to tell
the truth.

Speaker 1 (22:57):
This is Studio six forty. I'm Steve Gregory. Thank you
for joining us. Our next story.

Speaker 8 (23:01):
Former President Donald Trump is defending his trip to Arlington
National Cemetery. Critics claimed that he politicized hallow Ground by
going there to campaign well. The cemetery has also confirmed
reports of an altercation with Trump's team. What do we
know Well?

Speaker 5 (23:15):
An Army spokesperson is saying that an aide that Donald
Trump was abruptly pushed aside on Monday at Arlington National
cemetery when the former president attended that commemoration with family
members of US service members killed during the chaotic withdrawal
from Afghanistan. Two Defense Department officials also say that Trump
aide push the cemetery employee out of the way to
get passed to take photos in video. And now military

(23:38):
police wrote up an incident report, but the Army spokesperson
says this cemetery employee does not intend to press charges
and the Army now considers the matter closed. Still, the
spokesperson said this in a written statement. The spokesperson said
this incident was unfortunate and that it is also unfortunate
that the Arlington National Cemetery employee and her professionalism has

(23:58):
been unfairly at act a Trump campaign. Meanwhile, I was
calling that satan false, not even remotely true, and that
this person is a.

Speaker 1 (24:06):
Liar, a liar. Olivia Trump calls this Army employee a liar. So,
first of all, the story Arlington Cemetery, I think you
know why he was there. He was there to commemorate
the death of soldiers in Afghanistan. So do you think
that a do you think this was a story to

(24:27):
be covered like this because everyone was all over this thing.
It was just like it was like bees to honey,
And I just wondered to just you kind of characterize
it for me whether you think this is a good
story and if this is the.

Speaker 3 (24:40):
Way you would cover it, I think the real story
is here, like why is Trump campaigning at this cemetery?
And what are his goals? And like, you know, like
this is a private, sacred place, and I understand that
he's going to be like he was honoring the veterans
and stuff like that, but you know, I just think

(25:00):
it was kind of blown out of proportion. And if
I were really covering this story, I would go to
the army side, try to try and see who can
talk to me the AID, et cetera, and get a statement,
and then head over to see the Trump campaign and
what they have to say.

Speaker 1 (25:18):
Cam. Has it been verified that this was a campaign
event or was this just him showing his respects?

Speaker 4 (25:24):
Well, I don't believe it was advertised as being a
campaign event. But you know, part of this is people
are disputing whether or not because there was footage on
Trump's official social media accounts released of this, which you
know seems a bit self complimentary almost did he want

(25:45):
to do it for the photo op, and I think
that some of the conversation is centering around whether you
know that was allowed filming for the reasons that he
did in the cemetery, because yeah, the rule is, you know,
you're not allowed to have any political affiliation or campaigning
within that cemetery, and the dispute is whether he was

(26:06):
actually doing that. I would like to give him the
benefit of the doubt and say that he was visiting
this this.

Speaker 7 (26:15):
Grave site out of the kindness of his own heart.

Speaker 4 (26:18):
But yeah, you've received different accounts from families of the victims,
some saying that Trump is great and what he did
was great, and you know, this army dispute is farce,
and some saying that, you know, he really disrespected the
fallen on that day, and really it just boils down

(26:38):
to you have you have two sides to the story, right,
Trump's calling somebody a liar, and we'll see what comes
of it. But yeah, I think you might be onto
something with alleging that this story might just be blown
a little bit out of proportion.

Speaker 1 (26:51):
Eric.

Speaker 2 (26:54):
I think it wasn't much of a story in the beginning,
but after what happened, I think it really just reflects
on Trump's character. And I think Trump kind of shot
himself in the foot with this one, because honestly, he
could have used it to his advantage. You know, Trump
was there when Kamala and Biden weren't. That could have like,
he could have used that to his advantage. But after
what happened, I think it kind of looked bad on

(27:15):
his character. And it's difficult because it is a very
he said, she said situation. But I think you're at
a cemetery. You are a politician. Even if you weren't
trying to be political, everything you do becomes political, and
I think he should have just apologized.

Speaker 1 (27:30):
You know. I think Cam you just touched on something.
It was interesting when you said that it started out
as nothing and became something, and the reason it did
is because of us media. We made it something right,
and that's you know, sometimes that's that's our downfall, is
that we can make a mountain out of a mole hill,
you know. And I just wonder I would really like

(27:52):
to know what his true intentions were. I think obviously
the photo op is always going to be a given,
but you can do a photo op and still not
make it a big deal.

Speaker 4 (28:00):
Well, that's the thing is the dispute is technically you're
not supposed to.

Speaker 1 (28:03):
Do a photo.

Speaker 3 (28:03):
Lot.

Speaker 1 (28:04):
He claims they had permission.

Speaker 7 (28:06):
Yes, so that's right.

Speaker 4 (28:07):
The families of the deceased are saying they give him permission,
and the powers that be are saying, no, this isn't allowed.
So at the very least, you know, this is just
a misunderstanding. At the most, it's you know, a display
of arrogance and negligence, which I don't know. The cynic

(28:28):
in me wants to say that that's kind of seems
to be par for the course. But yeah, you're definitely
right that we've kind of made a mountain out of
a mole hill, especially with the headline talking about this altercation.
Do we know the nature of what actually happened?

Speaker 1 (28:43):
Well, I think if I understand this correctly, people were
taking photos and the army person was was to have
are the army person was trying to stop them from
taking photos, is the way I understand it, and that's
when they claim there was some sort of a physical
like pushing of a side of some thing because they
were trying to do But what I thought was interesting
is that the reporter I also said that the employees

(29:07):
decided not to press charges. So I thought that was
a little weird too. It's like, I don't think anyone
was going to fists over here. I think it was
like a push and a shove, but it got really
really weird like that. But Olivia, I want to ask
you that is it okay to do something like this?
You think as a campaign, as someone who's campaigning, what

(29:27):
would be the difference between this and then showing the
president of laying a wreath at any kind of a
national cemetery that's a photo op, And what's the difference
with that and a former president wanting to show respects.

Speaker 3 (29:40):
I think it's fine to show your respects and to
say like, hey, I'm for the army, I'm for the
veterans and military, etc. But we need to think about
like the rules of the cemetery and if even like
photos and videos were allowed, and how are you saying
like it kind of just became a miscommunication. But in

(30:03):
the way how Trump's campaign came back and called him
a liar and all these things in the statements that
was released, it didn't match what the statement of the
army released, And to me, that seems like it was
just all for glitzon glamour and does he really care
about the veterans.

Speaker 1 (30:23):
We'll continue the conversation. Welcome back. This is Studio six forty.
I'm Steve Gregory. We've been talking with Eric Trevino from
USC Olivia Madero from California, Lutheran University, Cameron Hughes with
Chapman University. And before the break, Olivia, you were talking
a little bit about whether or not you believe former

(30:45):
President Trump was just doing this photo op at Arlington
National Cemetery for the glitten glamour or was he genuinely
interested in showing his respects. Now, the one thing I
do know that has been pretty widely reported is that
he's a very big supporter of the military, that he
really does support law enforcement in military. So I suspect that,

(31:06):
based on what I've seen, he probably had a genuine
interest in showing his respects and paying his respects. But
that begs the question, would that be is that the
venue in which to do it while you're running for president,
and whether or not you should have just done it
in private.

Speaker 3 (31:23):
I think I agree with you, and I know that
he is a very big supporter of you know, the army,
military veterans and stuff, But to be doing it when
you're campaigning and when you know that the pressure is on,
the cameras are on you. I think he also went
to the cemetery with another point in mind, is like, hey,

(31:45):
like while I'm visiting, I can get a quick like
TikTok video and this is going to blow up because
you know, may I may have said some things before
that people do you know when you're running, like everyone's
going to criticize you. You know, for no matter what
you do, they're going to scrutinize you, even if you're
they're on your side or not. And I feel like
he was just he's just trying to like build up
stuff to keep in his cue, to like save him

(32:07):
if he like messes up or does something wrong or
doesn't do what other people like.

Speaker 1 (32:13):
So you think he was hoping for this uh controversy
or he or he didn't plan on the controversy.

Speaker 3 (32:20):
I don't think he planned on the controversy, but I
think he because of what happened, he was kind of like, oh,
like shoot, this kind of like spiraled into something that
I didn't want, So I need to save my butt Eric.

Speaker 1 (32:35):
Do you think the media has been treating Trump more
fairly this time around or about the same or with
a least amount of fairness.

Speaker 2 (32:45):
I can't speak for all media, because every.

Speaker 1 (32:47):
Media, he look a little bit, just look at a
global perspective, like global perspective.

Speaker 2 (32:51):
I think they were critical of him in this, in
this like altercation or whatever it ends up being, because
it's a very he said, he said, she's said. But
I think they were right to be a little bit
critical or at least skeptical.

Speaker 1 (33:04):
You know.

Speaker 2 (33:04):
I don't think it was wrong for Trump to be there,
because whether it's campaign season or not, like the people
are dead and you need to pay your respect. So
I think it wasn't wrong for him to be there,
But it is very like set in stone that you
can't use it for like political like motivation. And I
think the after it happened, he ended up sharing a
TikTok where he was at the cemetery, you know. So
I think like you have to you have to when

(33:28):
you're under like lens or like when you're being scrutinized.
I think you have to play it safe. And I
don't think he did it properly. I don't think he
handled the situation properly. I think media has been critical
of that, and I think they were right too. But
in terms of like were they more critical than usual
or like less critical?

Speaker 1 (33:46):
I would say, And the reason I'm asking is that
did the media take this proverbial mountain and make or
molehill make it a mountain? That is what I'm saying.
I mean. And then here's the other thing to consider too.
And no one's really talked about this, but base down
what I've seen and covered in the past is it's
very possible that this individual at the center of the controversy,

(34:07):
this Army employee, maybe that Army employee is not a
fan of Trump, and maybe that Army employee made a
bigger deal out of something that wasn't a big deal.
I do agree with you.

Speaker 2 (34:17):
I think in the beginning it wasn't as much of
a story, but I think following the responses, it became
a story that was necessary. That's my opinion.

Speaker 1 (34:24):
I think.

Speaker 2 (34:26):
I think in the beginning, I don't think you should
have gone in the attention that it did.

Speaker 1 (34:30):
And by the fact that we're talking about it, cam
it's gonna say.

Speaker 4 (34:33):
You want to know what I think happened if if
it's what I'm thinking is correct, at that grave site,
it is not permitted to take videos or photos.

Speaker 7 (34:42):
That's the rule.

Speaker 4 (34:43):
So what happened is these families of those who are fallen,
they gave Trump express permission to take videos and photos.
And maybe whoever was working the scene didn't know that
this had happened, so at the time they were just
doing their job, right, A total misunderstanding, at least from
at least f what I've seen, it really seems to
have just blown up into something. But to your point

(35:05):
though about whether the media has been covering Trump more
or less favorably this time around. You know, in his
I guess this is his third bit for presidency, But
I recall all the way back to twenty sixteen, and
it seemed like most of the media coverage was centering
on his personal life because Trump as a politician didn't exist.

(35:25):
You know, there was a lot about Stormy Daniels and
about his history and as a businessman. And now, you know,
because he's really in the running, there's a lot of
more focus, a lot more focus on what his policies
are and what's going to happen if he's back in office.
The main disparaging thing that I've seen is his ties
to Project twenty twenty five. And again, that's this the

(35:48):
massive political manifesto, as opposed to, you know, taking into
account all the personal things in his past that you
could argue whether or not he's fit for the presidency.
We're really focusing on it from a truly political standpoint.

Speaker 1 (36:03):
But he's denounced that Project twenty twenty five. People still
try to hang that on him, and he keeps denouncing it.

Speaker 7 (36:09):
That is true, he's denying it.

Speaker 4 (36:10):
A lot of his former staffers who he's maintained very
close ties with and who have vehemently backed him up,
their names are on the docket. Their names are on
the document. So you know, again, can we can take
him out as.

Speaker 1 (36:23):
Far or shouldn't say docket and Trump in the same sentence.

Speaker 7 (36:28):
Yeah, that's why I misspoke. As Tim Wall said, I.

Speaker 1 (36:32):
Have bad grammar. But yeah, but here's the thing, And
I think the most frustrating part about covering Trump, and
I know from personal experience, is that you never know.
He says one thing one day and it says another
another day. And I sometimes it was hard for me
to figure out where the truth was. You can tell

(36:53):
he's very passionate and emotional about it. But I tend
to agree, Cameron, with what you said that I'll bet
you this boiled down to just a simple misunderstanding between
an employee of the cemetery, the families of the fallen,
and the Trump people, and all three parties weren't on
the same page. But instead of just fixing it internally

(37:14):
and having a discussion about it, someone decided to make
it an issue, and then of course anything having to
do with Trump becomes front page news. Doesn't matter what
he's doing and what he's you know, whether it's good, bad,
or indifferent. Well I shouldn't say that, it's usually when
he's bad, they usually take off with it. But yeah,
it's it's been very interesting to watch the biases in

(37:37):
this coverage cycle of just seeing who's being very careful
and how they're covering Trump and how they're covering Harris.
Now it'd be very interesting to see what the final
analysis is on this. But I don't know if you
guys have any more thoughts on that. You don't want
to talk about bias, I think let's take a break

(38:00):
to learn how to become a student panelist. Go to
KFIAM six forty dot com slash studio. That's kf I
AM six forty dot com slash studio. Welcome back to
Studio six forty. I'm Steve Gregory. Thank you for joining us.
Our next story has to do with a writer. In

(38:21):
twenty twenty, after tennis player Olga Sharapova leveled allegations of
abuse against her then boyfriend Alexander Zevrev, a very prominent
tennis player, Ben Rothenberg, a well known member of the
tennis media commissioned by The New York Times to cover
Grand Slam turn Grand Slam tournaments between twenty eleven and
twenty twenty two, interviewed Charapova to reveal her side of

(38:42):
a story. In a two part series. She alleges, among
other things, that her boyfriend Zeverev had emotionally and physically
abused her, alleging that the German punched her, hit her
in the head, knocked her head in the wall, and
attempted to smother her with a pillow. When Rothenberg published
the story, first first in Racket magazine and then eventually

(39:04):
online with the publication Slate, well Zebra filed a lawsuit
against Rothenberg under the defamation law. So panel the question is,
and by the way, he filed the lawsuit the tennis
player did, and after only a few months in the

(39:27):
outlet that he was working for had been covering his
legal expenses, all of a sudden dropped him and said
you're on your own now because they were taken off
of the lawsuit. The company he was working for took
him off the lawsuit. So now that leaves him out
in the cold. He's a freelance writer and he was
being covered by the company's slender libel insurance policy defamation policies,

(39:51):
and the company said no more, you're on your own.
So now the guy had to do a go Fundme
page to raise money for his defense fund. So that's backstory.
First of all, I don't know if any of you
were actually aware of the story. It's kind of a
it's like a real ominous story. But it's interesting because
there's a lot of freelance writers out there today, and
that's one of the primary employers of journalists right now,

(40:15):
is companies looking for freelance writers. So let's talk a
little bit about whether or not you think it's okay
for a company to drop somebody like that out of
fear of being sued themselves, or should they always stick
behind their people.

Speaker 2 (40:30):
I think, okay, if I was an editor, right, and
even if it's like a freelance a freelance journalist. I know,
like money is tight and everything, But if I gave
someone an assignment or someone came to me with a story,
and I'd be all giddy thinking I was going to
get a scoop, I was going to get a good story.
It gets a lot of traction, and then all of
a sudden they're suing the journalists and I just leave

(40:50):
them on their own. I think that's a really bad
play on the editor's part, or like the organization's part
of the news organization, and I just feel like they
should have at least helped him.

Speaker 4 (41:00):
At Ice was something I read the GoFundMe that was
posted which kind of details the whole situation. And according
to Ben ro Rothenberg and his lawyer, this type of
thing like is doesn't ever happen, like very uncommon, and
it was him getting dropped was due to issues entirely
outside of his control. There was internal issues with like

(41:24):
the ownership of the company, and then the publisher who
was basically stuck working with him had a personal vendetta
and ended up dropping him because of that. So just
a really crappy situation. And I don't know, I love
this story because I think it is so interesting. When
I first saw the headline, you know, journalist putting on
GoFundMe to stop being sued, I was like another, you know, like,

(41:50):
I guess I shouldn't say what I want to say,
but one of these guys trying to avoid being quote
unquote canceled. And you know, crowdsourcing using a platform that
you know should usually be used for more serious life
or death situations in my opinion, but this, like this
is crazy.

Speaker 7 (42:06):
That's all brings into ethics.

Speaker 1 (42:08):
And yeah, and what was interesting to me is that
you're right because I think memory serves. The first part
of his story was published by Racket magazine and the
second part of his story was done by Slate, so
you did have the two companies involved. But what was
also at play because I was talking about this with
another colleague of mind and like, well, first Amendment. It's

(42:29):
like Germany doesn't have the First Amendment like we do.
And I didn't realize how easy it was to sue
a journalist in Germany, and all of a sudden and
in fact, it got so complicated that they had to
was the term geofans or geostop I can't remember what
it is, where they have to literally go in now

(42:51):
to the internet site and they have to geo loocke
Germany out of the story. So any part of the
story now can not appear in Germany. Wow, it can
only appear in the rest of the part of the world.
That's how complicated and weird it got. And if any
part of that story is published anywhere in Germany, Ben

(43:13):
Rothenberg is subject to imprisonment. Oh my goodness, that's how
bad it's getting. So that's why I wanted to bring
this story up because Eric, you talked a little bit
about being an editor. Being an editor is great, and
you can sit there and stand behind your writer all
you want. If you're Olivia is a writer or assignment editor. Great, Olivia,
go out and do your story, Go ask your hard questions,

(43:34):
go out and do your thing. But you're not the
owner and the publisher. Yeah, and you're not the one
signing the payroll.

Speaker 2 (43:39):
Checks, and especially now money is tight. Yeah, So I
can fight for my journalists all I want, especially, you know,
I feel like that is kind of my responsibility, but
it doesn't ultimately fall on my hands. I think one
of the questions I had, I did have to take
a course during my US like the time at USC
on like defamation and like what you can and can't say.

(44:00):
And I thought it was interesting because the way I
saw it is, wasn't the journalists just reporting on what
his ex girlfriend had said the right, But like you said,
it's in Germany, it's very different there. So I think
that's something I would want to look into, and I
would kind of like try to see, like why is
it that the journalist is at fault and not the

(44:20):
ex girlfriend or anything like that.

Speaker 1 (44:22):
Well, because the journalist has to vet the information. The
journalists just can't really nearly write stuff about people without
you know, being kind of in the line of fire.
You better be willing to back that up. But you're
talking about an alleged domestic violence situation, and in that case,
there is always a it could be a he said,
he said, he said, she said, they said, whatever the

(44:43):
case is, but there's always two sides to this story.
And somewhere in the middle of the truth. So it
is incumbent upon the journalist to vet and verify, right,
That's how you do it. And then you go to
your editor and say, hey, here are my sources, here's everything.
You decide whether we're going ahead or not with this.

Speaker 2 (45:02):
I think my question would be, Okay, let's say you
got one perspective and you think it's a good story,
but you were not able to get the German tennis
player because obviously he doesn't want to talk. Should you
just not cover this story? I think that'd be something
I'd be curious, like, how do you.

Speaker 1 (45:16):
Deal with a And that was the question that I'm
going to get into. But we're going to take a
quick break. I'm going to that's thank you for going there,
but we'll pick that up. But first let's take this
quick break. Welcome back to Studio six forty. I'm Steve Gregory.
Thank you for joining us. We've been talking about Ben Rothenberg.
He's a tennis writer who wrote about Alexander Zebrev's alleged

(45:36):
abuse of his girlfriend at that time, Olga Sharapova. He's
raised more than twenty thousand dollars on a go Fundme
site that's Rothenberg because the outlet that he had been
writing this controversial series on had dropped him, and that
took also took away his protection from their liability insurance.

(45:57):
And before the break we were about to go there
about how you would approach this when you talk about
a domestic violence case like this and alleged a domestic
violence case, who do you interview before you publish the story?
How far do you go?

Speaker 2 (46:14):
You know, obviously you want to get the other side
and the German tennis player. You want to see if
they like, if they respond to crest for comment, right.
I think one of the things you have to be
careful with, and one of my coworkers had mentioned this
is like if you go straight to the source when
you're trying to do something a little bit more investigative,
you can get stopped along the way and maybe the

(46:34):
ex girlfriend doesn't want to talk anymore, you know, because
the German tennis player now said something to her or something.
I don't know how how I would do with it,
to be honest, I think it's a very tricky thing
that I've never been in this situation of having to
do I don't know.

Speaker 1 (46:50):
Well, the interesting thing about this is that Rothenberg not
only interviewed Sharapova and she was very willing and open
to do it, but he also interviewed some of Schripova's
select and they use the words select family and friends,
so you know, odds are that family and friends are
going to take her side. I'm sure it's not really

(47:13):
clear whether or not. I mean, Zevyev's people have vietnamely
denied all the allegations, and that's about the best you
can do. But Olivia, how far do you go when
you report on the especially these alleged abuse claims, if
you're an editor or a reporter, what are the relevant
points to the story?

Speaker 3 (47:34):
I think in these type of like alleged abuse claims
and stories and you're going to start making the story
about that, I think the first instinct is to go
to who was the victim, and in a lot of
these cases it's mostly women. As an editor, I if
my reporter came back and was like, hey, I got

(47:56):
the girls interview, I would be like, well, can we
talk to you know, a friend of hers or you know.
But then that then there's the thing where it's like
close family and friends are going to believe her? And stuff,
And I would want to go further, like Eric was saying,
you know, and talk to the abuser and you know,

(48:17):
maybe anyone else who knew that person as well.

Speaker 1 (48:22):
But yes, Well, if you're talking to someone who claims
to be the victim of any kind of abuse, how
much of that abuse do you detail in the story?
Is it important? Is it salacious? Is it I mean,
when you get into the detail of this, like apparently
they did in this story, talking about emotional and physical

(48:43):
abuse that he got, she got punched by him, hit
her in the head, hit her head in the wall,
attempted to smother with a pillow. Are those relevant points
to make in the story? And not knowing whether or
not the story is.

Speaker 3 (48:57):
True, granted, because we don't know if whether like whether
or not the story is true, I would say we
can just generalize it to say, like emotional and physical abuse.
And I think that would be a better way to
kind of avoid like the abuser or whoever coming back
and saying like, hey, I actually didn't do that. She

(49:19):
blew it out of proportion, or she wasn't in the
right headspace to really explain what actually happened.

Speaker 1 (49:26):
A lot of times, cam you know, I can think
back of a few stories where there have been some
really serious allegations about abuse or you know, I'm even
thinking about, oh gosh that the actual case details escaped me,
but the allegations against them. What was it some college?

(49:47):
Was it hockey or lacrosse? What was it the college
lacrosse team? Someone had claimed they were mutually abused at
a party and apparently then the young woman had the
whole thing up.

Speaker 2 (50:01):
Are you talking about a rape on campus by the
rolling Stone? That was another one?

Speaker 1 (50:04):
Yeah, that was the one. Yeah, that was I.

Speaker 4 (50:06):
Knew that there's a pretty famous case of a college
football player who had experienced that I believe maybe ten
twenty years ago now. But such cases are and I
don't want to get this twist at all. Such cases
are far less common than actual abuse that does really happen, granted,

(50:28):
and in this case, it's really important to note that
another one of Zebreev's ex girlfriends has also come forward and.

Speaker 7 (50:37):
Detailed this abuse.

Speaker 4 (50:41):
I I'm pretty certain that Ben Rothberg Rothenberg, excuse me,
wasn't the first one to be covering this, because I
know I heard about this, even as far removed I
as I am from the world of tennis. I had
heard about these allegations, and you know how Alexander was
responding and denying them, and it kind of just became

(51:04):
a he said, she said, And I think it's rough
that Rothenberg got caught in the crossfire. But he did
his due diligence. I think he did everything right. I mean,
when this is as high profile of the case as
it is, and you have, you know, witness statements from
two witnesses, the family extended family of one of these

(51:25):
and when apparently when Rothenberger sat down for the interview,
he says, excuse me, I'm trying to yeah, taking She
had to take breaks to collect her emotions during this
interview as she described a pattern of emotional and physical
abuse that had ultimately driven her to attempt suicide. Now,
if this emotional and physical abuse never happened, obviously that's

(51:49):
something you have to consider. But it's something like that
is too significant to just brush.

Speaker 1 (51:55):
Under the rug. And you know, the thing is with journalists,
you have to sort of be you have to have
a certain radar, you have to kind of detect whether
or not you're BNBS or not. And because to the
point of the rolling Stone article and others. Your reputation's
on the line, and especially with something as sensitive as this,

(52:16):
if you're not doing your due diligence, if you're not
doing everything you can to work this out or verify this,
then you're you're really putting yourself out there and you
are subjecting yourself to lawsuits and harassment and losing your
job in the whole nine yards. So, but when we

(52:37):
come back, I do want to wrap up a little
bit of this because there's a couple other points I
want to make regarding this and regarding the ethics part
of it. Because an interesting fallout from this, or you
can say fallout there was no fallout, is that it
didn't really impact Zehyrev's career. None of this has impacted

(52:59):
him in the ten Association hasn't taken any action against him.
To learn how to become a student panelist, go to
kfi AM six forty dot com slash studio. That's k
f I AM six forty dot com slash studio. Welcome
back to the Studio six forty. I'm Steve Gregory, thank

(53:20):
you for joining us. Before the break, we've been talking
about tennis writer Ben Rothenberg. He wrote about Alexander Zevrev's
alleged abuse of his then girlfriend Olga Sharapova, and Sharapova
claimed with graphic detail of her abuse both physically and emotionally.
So Rothenberg wrote about it for Racket magazine and then

(53:40):
for Slate magazine, but Rackett and Slate now both dropped
him and he has no defense on a lawsuit That'zevrev
filed against him in German court alleging basically slanders rather defamation,
and so now Rothenberg's out in the cold having to
defend himself raise his own money. He's using GoFundMe. He's

(54:03):
raised more than twenty thousand dollars. So now the question
is whether or not an outlet has an obligation, an
ethical obligation, or just a journalistic duty to protect their
own In this particular case, he is a freelance writer,
which makes it a little more complicated. But what I

(54:23):
wanted to ask the panel was where do you draw
the line with how far you go? Because one of
the things about Rothenberg that as I was reading about it,
because I'm not a tennis person, so I don't really
follow a lot of his stuff for any sports writing,
but apparently he sort of went against the grain. He
doesn't play the game. He got interviews on his own.

(54:44):
He was not afraid to report on controversial issues. But
some sports writers, a lot of sports writers, they air
on the side of playing the game, meaning they do
favorable reporting so that they get access. Access is the
catnip for any journalist, right, So where do you draw

(55:04):
the line on what you would and would not do
eric to get a story.

Speaker 2 (55:10):
I like to think that I would, you know, kind
of be a little bit more like Rothenburg. But the
truth is, you can't report on anything if you don't
have access. And it's a good thing that he was
doing it from the very beginning. I think maybe now
like you can get away with reporting on you know,
sports and without having access, and then like over time,

(55:32):
you know, you build credibility and then you get more
access in that way. But I think you should always
be very critical if you if you have something to say.
I'd like to think that'd be me.

Speaker 1 (55:40):
I'd like to think you'd like to think, yeah, you
don't know that that you.

Speaker 2 (55:45):
I mean giving the spot, Like, would I write one
favorable review to get access?

Speaker 1 (55:50):
I don't think I would to Olivia the same question.
Do you understand the question because we're talking about the
ethics here in the allegation here not the allegation, but
the assertion is that, you know, some sports writers a
lot of times will not take on the controversial topics
because they're afraid of losing their access. And one of
the things that Rothenberg is well known for is not

(56:12):
playing that game, and he still manages to do his stories.
So I the you know, I'm giving the example is
like if you had an opportunity to sit down with
Kamala Harris or Biden or Trump or anybody, and they said,
here's what the only stuff you can think, the only
things you can talk about, and you all these other
things are off limits. What do you do?

Speaker 3 (56:33):
I would want to take it, and I would say yes,
but I want to read those questions before I get
and sit in front of that person, you know, and
hopefully they'll be able to like, let me look it over.

Speaker 1 (56:47):
Well, yeah, I mean you get to read them all,
but they're there questions, not your questions.

Speaker 3 (56:52):
Yes, but I mean I'm still a journalist and I
still have to inform the public, you know, and I
I think I'm also complicating it too. But I would
think that.

Speaker 1 (57:04):
I think, and then I'm gonna ask Cameron it's the
same question to you. I don't have to repeat this
to way now, Okay, so say it only what you're thinking.

Speaker 4 (57:11):
I feel like I don't have anything to gain by
dropping the interview, and I don't have anything to lose
by doing it. Honestly, Comparing the question hypothetical to what
the situation is, I don't think is quite a fair comparison.
I would say a better hypothetical would be, let's say
I had to report Tom Brady deflating footballs. But if

(57:33):
I did that, I would lose my access, I would
lose my career.

Speaker 1 (57:36):
That's fine. Then substitute tom Brady for Harris.

Speaker 4 (57:40):
It depends on the scope of the event, for sure,
But in that case, I would do it in a heartbeat,
because it it would be very self centered to think that,
you know, I'm God's great journalistic gift to Earth, and
if I don't report that story, nobody else is gonna
do it, right, I think it's important to get that
out there.

Speaker 1 (57:58):
You know, it will get one out there though their questions,
or you'll no, no.

Speaker 4 (58:01):
No, that Tom Brady is you know, deflating footballs. If
I have that information and I don't do anything with it,
then the that's that's on me.

Speaker 1 (58:10):
Okay. So where I was headed and I was really
curious about there was here's the here's the thing, folks.
You know, I'm not I'm putting you on the spot
a little bit, but there's no right or wrong here.
It's what you ultimately feel like. And You've all given
very interesting answers. But what I'm getting at is like,
do you become an extension of their playbook, of their

(58:31):
messaging by sitting down and only doing the questions they
want you to do, because you basically are becoming their mouthpiece.

Speaker 2 (58:40):
Yeah, Like you're a journalist, not a not their pr right.
So and I think, okay, so the Tom Brady thing
is a very different situation because I would do it too,
because that's like for the greater good of the people, right,
I think that as a generalisty, the.

Speaker 1 (58:52):
Story is already out there? What story the well, let's
say Tom Brady, this is the deflating thing, but you
get the first interview with Tom Brady. The story is
already out there, So what's the gain?

Speaker 4 (59:03):
I was speaking in the hypothetical of I would be
the one to break the story, because this is this
is the situation of Ben Rothenberger is choosing whether or
not to report the hard stuff, whether or not to
play the game, and he's taken the back route and
getting into the nitty gritty, and it's become this big story.
And you know, a lot of people are praising him
for taking this action. And even even if he loses,

(59:25):
you know, all credibility and credential as a journalist, never
gets to attend another tennis event again, in the end,
he did the right thing. And you know, he's going
to end up with twenty thousand dollars to cover his
legal fees as well as another couple ten thousand dollars
to go to this charity that he was right.

Speaker 1 (59:42):
I think I suspect you'll also end up with a
pretty good book deal too, I would say so. And folks,
we're gonna have to leave it there. Go ahead, you guys.
It'll be interesting to see you guys ten, fifteen, twenty
years down the line where you're at in your crismy Great,
but that's all the time we end on this are
this is the time. This is all the time we
got for this episode. Thank you all for being here.
It's all good stuff. Thanks a lot, Thank you. Studio

(01:00:06):
six forties a production of the KFI News Department for iHeartMedia,
Los Angeles. The show's executive producers are Steve Gregory and
Jacob Gonzalez. The line producer is Richie Kintero. The opinions
expressed on this program are those of the guests and
do not necessarily reflect the views of KFI, iHeartMedia, or
its affiliates.