HARRIS-TRUMP DEBATE / A-I AND THE ELECTION / TAYLOR SWIFT ENDORSEMENT

The panel discusses the much-anticipated debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. Each panelist reveals the questions they would ask if they were the debate moderators – they also rate the moderator’s performance. Next up, Artificial Intelligence and the election – how will AI impact the credibility of campaigns and messaging? The panel actually uses AI during the discussion to test the limits of different AI platforms and what they say about the candidates and the election – this was an eye opener! Finally, the trio discusses Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Kamala Harris and whether celebrities have any business swaying public opinion. This week’s panel includes Kemdi Nwosu from California State University at Fullerton, Nico Sapphire from California Lutheran University, and Cameron Hughes from Chapman University. To apply as a panelist, click here.

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 (00:09):
I am Kem dy Rossu from California State University, Forwardson.

Speaker 3 (00:12):
I'm Nico Sapphire from California Lutheran University.

Speaker 4 (00:15):
And I'm Cameron Hughes from Chapman University.

Speaker 1 (00:19):
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 and private.
This is Studio six forty. I'm Steve Gregory. Thanks for

(00:42):
joining us. Our top story.

Speaker 5 (00:44):
Donald Trump has been in numerous presidential debates, but this
is the first presidential debate that Kamala Harris has been in,
and I think millions of Americans were watching to see
how she would perform without a teleprompter, without notes, without
aids by her side.

Speaker 1 (00:56):
Early on in the debate.

Speaker 5 (00:57):
Vice President Harris set a trap for Donald when she
brought up out of thin air this idea that people
were leaving his rallies early because they were so bored
with the things he was saying.

Speaker 6 (01:07):
You will see during the course of his rallies, he
talks about fictional characters like Hannibal Lecter, he will talk
about win Mills cause cancer. And what you will also
notice is that people start leaving his rallies early out
of exhaustion and boredom.

Speaker 1 (01:20):
This wasn't in response to a question.

Speaker 5 (01:22):
It was just something that she kind of planted there
because she knows that Donald Trump cannot take any allegation
about his crowd sizes and move on.

Speaker 1 (01:29):
People don't leave my rallies.

Speaker 7 (01:31):
We have the biggest rallies, the most incredible rallies in
the history of politics.

Speaker 5 (01:34):
He was a little bit more all over the place,
and it prevented him from attacking her on a range
of issues where he might have had the upper hand,
from immigration to the economy. Donald Trump probably had his
most effective attack lines of the night when he was
talking about the positions that Harris has changed over the
course of her political career.

Speaker 1 (01:53):
Tracking.

Speaker 4 (01:54):
She's been against it for twelve years.

Speaker 8 (01:57):
Defund the police, she's been against that for She gave
all that stuff up.

Speaker 9 (02:03):
Very wrongly, very horribly, and everybody's laughing at it.

Speaker 5 (02:06):
The fracking issue is a huge one in Pennsylvania, where
this debate was held, and so he was pretty effective
in going right at her and saying that these are
positions she's changed in the past, and how do we
know that she's not going to change her position again?

Speaker 1 (02:18):
Kim d Woshu from Kelsey Fullers and welcome back to
the show. Initial thoughts on the debate.

Speaker 2 (02:25):
I thought it was a lot less let's say, showy,
I guess, than the one with Biden and Trump. I
thought it was more less of just like one person
attacking the other like the previous one. It was more
like a bit balanced, though it was more of like
a sixty forty seventy thirty split in a way I

(02:48):
thought it was. I think Trump honestly got like kind
of lambasted by one question and then he kind of
just like left like any like.

Speaker 1 (02:56):
Attacks that he had towards Harris towards like.

Speaker 2 (02:59):
The end, and then by that point it was too
late because she was kind of just like attacking him.

Speaker 1 (03:03):
What were your expectations going into the debate? I mean,
was that destination viewing or listening for you? Were you
excited about the debate or not.

Speaker 2 (03:12):
I wasn't particularly excited for it or looking forward to it.

Speaker 1 (03:19):
Why not?

Speaker 2 (03:20):
I just didn't think it would be very entertaining, and
compared to like the first one, there weren't those like
because I kind of watched these things not for anything serious.
I watched them for entertainment. And this one was a
lot of just mudslinging misinformation, kind of like the last one,
but it was more mud slinging on both sides because
Cambell was able to hold her own a bit more

(03:44):
and Trump was noticeably worse than he was in this
and then in the previous debate. It just felt like
he never found just footing in terms of just like
any of the things he wanted to attack camel on.

Speaker 1 (03:54):
Some of the analysis on Nico Sapphire, some of the
analysis was that Trump got blinds, that Kamala Harris did
a lot better than people expected. Yeah, and in a
lot of ways. Let's see if I can explain this, right,
what Harris was to Trump was what Trump was to
buy the right, And I think he didn't I don't

(04:16):
know that he saw that comment.

Speaker 3 (04:17):
Yeah, Yeah, I think you're right. I think Kamala did
what Joe couldn't do. And a lot of the comments
I was seeing too, you know. And well, first what
I was wondering was like, could Kamala put Trump in
his place? And I think she sure did, and as
you said too, better than I think a lot of
us expected. And you know, I think what people were
saying was that she seemed really like one of the

(04:40):
first people to put this bully like in his place,
and I don't think anybody else had really figured that
out up until this point. And you know, as we
were talking about, like Kamala, she really like she baited
him and he took the bait every time, and you know,
and mocked him and triggered him, and he just fell
for it. And then you know, he couldn't help himself.
He went on to all of his tail and lies

(05:00):
and conspiracies, and so you know, she certainly I think
knocked out of the park with that and really started
off strong too. I think she had put him on
the defense this time, you know, from the moment she
walked in and shook his hand, and you know, I
think asserting her dominance with that. And I think you
can look at also all like the body language and

(05:21):
the nonverbals too. That's why I was going to say,
Kennedy to your point, because I thought it was really entertaining,
especially all her just again the body language and the
faces she would make, right even though the mics weren't on.
But yeah, I think it was. It was a power move.

Speaker 1 (05:34):
And Cameron Hughes, did you watch it or did you
listen to it?

Speaker 4 (05:38):
I did watch it. I actually was a little bit
excited for this one, just to witness the spectacle, spectacle
of it all myself in a couple of my roommates
had almost a watch party, wasn't It wasn't a party
so much as us just kind of putting our heads
in our hands, but it was. Yeah, we were gathered
around the TV, and my initial observation was, I really

(06:02):
was shocked by how well Kamala did as she presented
herself so eloquently, and like Nico said, she really asserted
her dominance. Even yeah, from going up and shaking his hand,
I saw a lot of some body language experts saying
that he tried to dodge the handshake in a way.
And then if you go back and listen to the

(06:25):
CNN interview, which I did actually after this, because I
remember hearing her say some things during the debate and
I was thinking that kind of sounds familiar and she
did almost say verbatim a couple of the things from
the CNN interview. It really seemed to me like a
lot of her answers were scripted, and even she would
answer questions that weren't being asked. You know. Trump obviously

(06:46):
dodged questions, but Kamala did that as well, and I
think it just came down to Kamala being a lot
more prepared for this debate, very well prepared, and Trump
wasn't prepared for that.

Speaker 1 (07:00):
I did not watch it because I was coming back
from covering wildfires in South Orange County, so I listened
to it, so I didn't get the benefit of all
of the facial expressions and the body language. And so
that's what was interesting to me is what people are
telling me how they took what they took from it,
viewing it as opposed to what they took from it

(07:20):
listening to it like myself. But so when we come back,
what I want to do then is I want to
approach it now. I want to kind of get all
your initial analysis and then let's kind of peel back
the layers and let's talk about now how you would
have approached the debate as a moderator as a student journalist,
and then we'll also hear from the public associated press

(07:41):
together a montage of what the public got as well.
Welcome back to to Studio six forty. I'm Steve Gregory.
Thank you for joining us. We're talking with Keim d Wosu, Nicophire,
and Cameron Hughes our panel this week talking about the
debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, and before the

(08:02):
break kind of got their analysis, their initial overview of
the debate. Now let's kind of dig deep a little
bit now, approach this as a student journalist. First of all,
what was your assessment of the moderators open question?

Speaker 3 (08:16):
Oh, yeah, I thought they were great. You know, I
had found out so I guess it was a network
decision from ABC to fact check, which was in contrast
of CNN the last one with Trump and Biden, right,
And I thought.

Speaker 1 (08:29):
Well, I think a lot of that came from that.
Scenan got beat up pretty hard over that, and I
think ABC said we better do something about that.

Speaker 3 (08:36):
Yeah, And I think that made a huge difference, you know,
because misinformation like that and what comes out of Trump's
mouth most of the time is you know that the misinfo.
It spreads when nobody corrects it, and so, you know,
I think I think it was great for them to
do the fact checking and with that, you know, and
after too, CNN did their own They had a fact
checker as well, saying Donald Trump he had thirty three

(08:58):
plus false claims for debate, and then Kamala, you know
that maybe one like kind of exaggeration, you know, and
just that no former president has lied with that much frequency.
And so yeah, I just I thought they were very strong,
and I think the fact checking made a big difference.

Speaker 2 (09:13):
Kim d Yeah, I also thought that the moderators did
a good job. I honestly do think that they could
have questioned Cambe a little bit more about her position
around regarding his her own Palestine. I feel like they
kind of just asked her one question, she kind of
answered it a bit vaguely, and then kind of just

(09:34):
passed it off.

Speaker 1 (09:35):
And you know, Cameron that one of the biggest critiques
about it was that the you know, obviously, Trump came
out immediately criticizing the moderators, saying they were kind of
in the pocket of Harris. There was a lot of
criticism about that. But I'll tell you something. Being the
moderator of a debate, which I've done before, is not
an easy job. It is not. But what was your

(09:57):
assessment of how they handled things.

Speaker 4 (10:00):
I think that the questions they asked were very pertinent.
I think they I wasn't really shocked by any of
the things that they threw at Kamala or Trump because
these are all, you know, very well known issues. A
lot of the things have been asked to them previously,
which to that I would only say, you know, what
do you expect as an answer? I didn't hear the

(10:21):
candidates say anything to me that was particularly groundbreaking or
even really new. But on the flip side of that,
you know, what kind of questions could you ask that
would incite some groundbreaking knowledge or information that I don't
know well?

Speaker 1 (10:35):
And that's what I want to talk about. But first,
let's play this. This is an audio montage from the
Associated Pressed. Right after the debate, they were able to
gather some people in Pennsylvania to ask them what they thought.

Speaker 10 (10:45):
I wasn't happy with Biden Trump. I didn't feel we
had any good choices, and I'm still not sure we do.
We might, but I still want to see more about
Kamala Harris. Kamala Harris won. As far as I'm concerned.
She was direct, she was concise, she had more talking
points ready Trump really didn't, and she got under its

(11:08):
skin and she knew how to do it and it worked.
I didn't like that she didn't answer direct questions about
her policies and direct questions about what happened in the
last three and a half years that she should have
been part of that. She talked around it, and I
want more direct answer.

Speaker 8 (11:29):
I watched the debate in Carmela really trusted Trump good.
I did vote for Trump two times, but I've switched
my allegiance. I just tired of the routine and looking
for something new.

Speaker 11 (11:42):
She's been in office this whole time of Biden, so
she could have done something for this whole entire four
year or however long, like she could do something now too,
So she's not doing anything. So just doesn't really make
sense to me as to why if she really wanted
to help about real like, why she has the ability

(12:03):
to do that right now she's in office.

Speaker 9 (12:06):
The one I keep thinking about is the business of
people eating other people's pets, which strikes me is so moronic.
A thing to say and to repeat that. I just
can't get it out of my head that somebody would
go on national TV and state that.

Speaker 1 (12:27):
And we didn't even get into that. That seem to
be the big thing from the night and become the
meme fest that it was. But Cameron, you were talking
a little bit, and I wanted to play this a
month times before we went to break. But talking about
it now from the perspective of a student journalist, let's
say you were signed to be a moderator for that.
You were talking about any groundbreaking questions? Have you thought

(12:51):
about what you would have asked either of those candidates.

Speaker 4 (12:54):
So the moderators for the debate got very specific. They
asked about January sixth, They asked about fracking. I think
that I might take the angle of going more broad, asking,
for example, how would the candidates combat misinformation, because that
is going to be kind of an umbrella issue that
could have, you know, especially as AI or asking about

(13:16):
AI for example, if I recall correctly that was not
brought up during the debate, or you know, at least
in my eyes, that's going to be we're AI.

Speaker 1 (13:23):
Yeah, well that's our that's on our lisks. But so, yeah,
so you were, so you would have gone down the
AI route to see how they would have combat combated misinformation.

Speaker 4 (13:34):
Or just just any broad because in specific, the what
we just got brought up, the people eating animals, you know,
that is prominent example of misinformation, and people are saying
that there's AI generated videos out there, and you know,
we could kind of, I feel like, nip those issues
in the butt if we just knew exactly where the

(13:55):
candidates stood on these broader concepts like misinformation or AI
or you know, party I guess h crossing party lines
and you know, how willing would you be to work
with another party.

Speaker 1 (14:09):
Nico, what would you wanted to ask them?

Speaker 3 (14:13):
Yeah? So I thought of a few things. You know,
I probably would go down kind of the women's rights route,
you know with this, I mean it's tough because you
know Trump, he never gives like a straight answer, So
but I would want to again confront him. I think Kamala,
she did, you know in a few different ways, but
something like like how can you keep denying your knowledge

(14:33):
of project and then you know, involvement of Project twenty
twenty five when it was at least one hundred and
forty people that wrote and contributed to it that were
in his administration, and you know, he was clips of
him endorsing the ideas you know, at the Heritage Foundation,
and those are a lot of people from that foundation
that that wrote it, and obviously Vance writing the forward,

(14:53):
you know. And I think that did get brought up,
but like you know, of course he didn't really give
a straight answer, you know, And I think Kamala's response
to that was perfect in the graphic description she gave
she gave, you know, and asking him is probably something
similar I would I would do you know, like, do
you think women they really they want to be bleeding
out in the parking lot and from a miscarriage because

(15:15):
their doctors are too afraid to give them treatment, or
sitting next to strangers in a plane just to get
the healthcare she needs, right and you know, and bringing
up because that's the result of all of these trump
bands that are already in twenty states.

Speaker 1 (15:26):
And Okay, so LIS pose there we got to take
a break. When we come back, we'll pick up the conversation.
Welcome back to Studio six forty. I'm Steve Gregory. Before
the break, we were talking about how the panelists themselves
would approach the debate and asking each of the panelists
what types of questions would they want to ask of
the two candidates? And Nico before the break were you

(15:47):
were going down a path of the women's rights, women's
issues and things of that nature. So I wanted to
go ahead and give you a chance to wrap up
your thought.

Speaker 3 (15:54):
Yeah, and just you know, the consequences of what Trump
is doing. And that's really what I would want to
keep pushing, you know, and confronting him about because it is,
as Kamala said, it's insulting and unconscionable what he's doing
to women. And you know, to kind of follow up
to I would I would probably want to ask Kamala
because she, in response to has always said, you know,
if she wins, she's gonna write Row and the Row

(16:16):
protections back in the law. Right, So I would also
want to know, like, how would she reinstate the protections,
you know, because we would need of course the Democrats
would need the House and the Senate too to help
with that.

Speaker 1 (16:25):
So right, yeah, kem d if you were the moderator,
what would be the line of questioning you would have
for them?

Speaker 2 (16:33):
I got two questions one for just Kamala and then
one for both. The one for both is do the
needs of the like many outweigh the needs of the
few in that did like all past Indians deserve to
like suffer for like the crimes of Hamas and what

(16:54):
are their opinions on that? And then the one just
for just for Kamla, it would be, are you sure
you've I did yourself enough for a job that you
didn't even think you'd be running for three months ago?

Speaker 1 (17:06):
Interesting? Well, you know what caught my attention to right
out of the shoot was the very first question that
Kamala Harris was asked, is are people better off today
than they were when you took office as vice president?
And she never answered the question. She never answered the question.
And that's one thing that I caught. The common thread
for me was no one gave a straight answer.

Speaker 3 (17:29):
Yeah, yeah, I know she did, though she brought up
a lot like what Trump left us with, and so
I think.

Speaker 1 (17:35):
That's not her answer.

Speaker 3 (17:36):
Yeah, yeah, but I think she was kind of in
her response, you know, she was saying, I think she
was trying to talk about what the Biden admin had
been doing to try and clean up Trump's mess and
what he left us with.

Speaker 1 (17:47):
So yeah, but again, and this is what's so fascinating
to me, is for every point you bring up that's
pro Kamala, you can bring one up that's anti Kamala,
and vice versa. Everyone pro Trump anti Trump as a moderator.
Looking back through that lens, the fact checking part, I
thought that was pretty fascinating. You know, you can bringing

(18:08):
that because I don't remember a time where fact checking
was done in real time, right, and that was that
was a pretty big feat too. I mean, as soon
as that allegation of people immigrants eating pets came up,
someone at ABC was already on the phone. But then
they were trying to debunk that that the city manager,
I think that was who they talked about, the city manager.

(18:29):
He didn't know what was going on. And then then
that whole narrative, just a whole new narrative began about this,
and it was just one of those things where came
to your point, is just that Trump has this tendency
just to throw these non sequorters out, of these phrases out,
and you're left to try to determine or interpret what
he means.

Speaker 4 (18:48):
That is an issue. I think, you know, if you
viewed this. If you listen to this debate and you
took everything that the candidates said at face value, you
might be able to argue that Trump won the debate.
But just because he was spitballing so many like straight
up lies. I think he said at some point that
inflation was twenty one percent under the Biden administration. That's

(19:10):
a number that I don't think is ever. It was
like at seven point five percent at the most. So
just these number, And I don't know where he gets
this stuff. I'm assuming it would be somebody and within
the team, you know, saying that there's talk about people
in Springfield eating eating pets, and you know, even you
go on X after this event, and there's a good

(19:31):
base of people who were saying, well, no, he was,
he was right, Like look at these videos, it actually happened.

Speaker 1 (19:36):
Yeah. And then when they I saw a lot of
it because I was studying that too, because I wanted
I had never heard that assertion before. I knew there
in some communities here and even here in southern California,
some communities do santaria. You know, there's some there was
sacrificing of animals in some form of fashion and I
know the County Health Department is always working on that,
but but this particular thing was I had never heard that,

(20:00):
never ever heard of that before.

Speaker 3 (20:02):
And I think that's the thing, you know, to your point,
Cameron likes, it's dangerous because if you don't have people
like these moderators fact check, and people can fall for
what they're saying. Right, and you know a lot of
people and Republicans they were trying to say, you know,
oh it was like three against one, but like, who
was the one that kept lying and talking about the conspiracies?

Speaker 9 (20:22):
Right?

Speaker 3 (20:22):
I don't like it wasn't Kamalos.

Speaker 1 (20:24):
Well, kim Dy wanted to ask you because you were
touching a little bit on the question that you would
have asked both candidates about Palestine Hamas. The interesting thing
is when that came up in the debate, neither of
them answered and had a plan. Do you think that
was by design or do you think they just it's
too hot a topic to touch, or do you just

(20:44):
think they don't know.

Speaker 2 (20:45):
I think it's a hot topic to touch, but I
also think it's the fact that I feel I don't
know if I'm wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure
they there's some like agreement that they have with Israel
in a way that like like that helps them out basically,
would is why we're setting the maid Still. I don't
know if it's what supplies we get from them or

(21:07):
what it may be, but I do know that they
want to help out Israel, so they're not really probably.

Speaker 1 (21:12):
Trying to talk again, they're walking a fine line. Yeah, yeah,
well listen, we'll wrap up that topic. But before we
go to break, I would like to take this opportunity
to let the audience know a little bit more about yourself. So,
Cameron Hughes, tell us what school you're from and what
you've been up to with classes now underway.

Speaker 4 (21:28):
Yeah, I attend Chapman University in Orange, California, and I
am a Strategic and Corporate Communication major, and recently I've
been taking economics classes this semester as I'm pursuing an
economics double major, and that's been super rewarding and fun.
Work with the radio station that I've worked with since

(21:48):
sophomore year now and been involved with since freshman year
has been pretty significant. We're training all the new DJs
on how to use their equipment and how to get
their shows off the ground. My show in particular, I
talk about news and current events, politics, stories I find
fascinating and that has been very rewarding as well.

Speaker 1 (22:08):
Corporate communications. Are you ready to stand in front of
a lectern and have people like me ask you questions?

Speaker 4 (22:14):
That is the goal I would like to think, you know,
I'm I'm not a graphic design guy. I'm a public
speaking guy, is what I'd like to go out and say.
So I feel like that's probably the area for me.

Speaker 1 (22:27):
Excellent. Nico Sapphire graduated this year, but you're very busy still.

Speaker 3 (22:31):
Yeah, So yes, I just graduated from cal Lutheran and
I got my degree in calm and communications and you know,
specializing in PR and advertising. So that's what I was
doing for a while. And then a couple of years
into college was when I really got involved in like
the production classes and the radio programs. So I started
with podcasting. It was the first class like that I did.

(22:52):
And you know, so I've been doing my podcast so
far sessions, since I started it at school, and then
I also started doing a show for the campus state
I See You Radio, So that one's Nico and Anthony Live,
and that one's a bit more music. More entertainment. But
in the podcast is you know, it's interview style and
kind of just on things that I'm interested in, creative stuff,
you know, in current current events as well, and so

(23:14):
I'd love to continue that and see where those take me.

Speaker 1 (23:17):
Sound like it sounds like you're in that sort of
that honeymoon phase of being out of school and then
like wait, oh wait, now the real world's kicking in. Yeah,
Kim dy wosue. Very unique situation here, You've been back
many times before, but you're a film major of memory serves, yes, yes,
so tell us a little bit about yourself.

Speaker 2 (23:32):
So, yeah, I'm going into my last year of grad school.
I'm taking a class right now called Production two where
we're working on making this short film. We got about
ten thousand dollars to make it and we've also set
up a gofund me, so if you guys want to
check that out. It's called a Playtonic little short film
that we'll be making throughout the course this semester, and

(23:53):
so far everything's going well with that. What's that about.
It's about this girl who's trying to like find her
way romantically. She basically realizes that her boyfriend just like
doesn't care about her whatsoever, and she doesn't even like
leads her to question what she wants in like a
partner or just life.

Speaker 1 (24:11):
Really sounds very relatable. Okay, folks, when we come back,
we'll move on to our next topic. Welcome back to
Studio six forty. I'm Steve Gregory. Our next story.

Speaker 7 (24:24):
Artificial intelligence, no longer the stuff of science fiction, is
causing real concern right now this Homeland Security officials issue
a stark new warning about this year's November election.

Speaker 12 (24:35):
We live in a world where artificial intelligence can create video,
pictures and documents that look stunningly authentic. Now the Department
of Homeland Security is warning, hey, I will likely be
used against us in the upcoming election.

Speaker 1 (24:49):
This isn't a threat of tomorrow. This is a threat
of today.

Speaker 12 (24:52):
According to the new Homeland Security bulletin, enemy countries, terrorists,
and other adversaries could exploit AI tool's confus use or
overwhelm voters and election staff to disrupt their duties during
the twenty twenty four election cycle. For example, according to
the DHS bulletin, enemies might use AI to share altered images, videos,

(25:12):
or audio clips claiming that a polling station is closed
or that polling times have changed. The bulletin points to
this audio.

Speaker 11 (25:21):
Do you know the.

Speaker 7 (25:21):
Value of voting democratic?

Speaker 3 (25:23):
On our vote count?

Speaker 4 (25:24):
It's important that you save your vote for the November election.

Speaker 12 (25:27):
Which authorities suspect it's an AI generated message sounding like
President Biden, which urged people not to vote in the
lead up to the New Hampshire primary in January, and
DHS officials also expressing concern that AI technology might be
used to create and push out dangerous information that could
help extremists design violent attacks.

Speaker 7 (25:47):
Homeland Security Secretary of MA orcis telling reporters Monday that
he has deep concerns that AI will be used to
promote huge amounts of false information as we head to
the election.

Speaker 1 (25:58):
At s abc'sper Thomas so Cam, we were talking a
lot about AI in previous segments with respect to the election.
Have you seen or experienced any AI in something that
was real questionable for you in terms of trying to
be swayed on how to vote.

Speaker 4 (26:14):
Not in the political landscape, I have not. But in
journalism I've come across a couple of articles, I believe
from smaller outlets that said, you know this article has
been written with the help of artificial intelligence. And I
don't know how far that goes. Maybe it's just you know,
you type into AI and ask what are some synonyms
for political or you know, you really ask AI to

(26:36):
write the whole article. I think from from now on,
I would hope that outlets have the peace of mind
and you know, the morality to be able to still
do the work on their own. But when it comes
to you know, saving time and saving money, we might,
especially as we get closer to the election and there's
going to be a lot more coverage round the clock,

(26:56):
we might end up seeing some of this AI stuff.

Speaker 1 (26:59):
So, Kimmy, you see an article or you're reading something
or even seeing something and it's got the disclaimer that
this was partially created or written by AI, do you
feel like it has the same level of credibility that
it would otherwise.

Speaker 2 (27:13):
I mean, it really depends because you never know the
extent to which the AI was used. For example, like
sometimes I'll like, I'll like, I write like a lot,
and sometimes I'll get like feedback on like whatever I write, Like,
I'll put it in like chat GTP or whatever and
say give me your notes on this and whatever, and
It'll give me notes and I might edit like whatever

(27:35):
I've written, like because of those notes. If I don't
have like someone that can, like.

Speaker 1 (27:39):
Are you confident that whatever AI has given you or
chat GPT is giving you is accurate.

Speaker 2 (27:45):
It's more of just like a tool. I don't use
it for like final drafts of anything. It's more of
just like, oh it's two am. There's no one that
could like respond to my message right now. Let me
just use this to see what this this program thinks
of my writing.

Speaker 1 (28:00):
Basically, Niko, have you used AI at all in anything
you've created or drafted? Yeah?

Speaker 3 (28:07):
You same as kem D. For some assignments. Again, you know,
I would use it more as an aid not to
do my whole assignments for school. But there were some
assignments in a voice class I was doing, and you know,
we had to do, uh like write and record a commercial.
It had to be between like fifty five and sixty

(28:27):
seconds or something, And so I wrote the whole thing.
And then a lot of times what I would struggle
with is kind of like having too much info, you know,
So I would use it to help me condense it
and kind of would help me point out you know,
some pieces that might not be as necessary, that I
might not need for that. So that's kind of, you know,
the extent that I would use it for. As far
as election coverage. You know a lot of times it's fake, right,

(28:50):
and like it's fake information, and it can be incredibly dangerous.
I think that is what can spread. It can help
spread these conspiracy theories in the misinformation it's used in
regards to the election.

Speaker 1 (29:01):
This is open question. But I'm curious if you guys
are worried that AI could sway the election.

Speaker 3 (29:07):
Right, Yeah, I had just heard. I had seen in
an article there was a radio host who had told
BBC that, like, it's your fault if your vote is
influenced by AI, because when you're seeing a lot of
these fake images or audio packages, you know, and it's
it's because a lot of the times. And so there's
one example too. It was also from BBC, and somebody

(29:30):
had created these images of Trump. It was I think
created by Trump supporters to target black voters, and it
was fake images of Trump with black supporters, and you know,
if you do your research and kind of look more
into that. Of course, he said very racist things. So
things like that you know, and it can just be
it can be very dangerous and swaying you.

Speaker 4 (29:53):
I think it is important to make the distinction between
words created by my AI and pictures and videos and
audio created by AI. The latter is much more harmful.
There's much more potential for people to be suayed because oftentimes,
when you hear, you know, rumors, people speaking or typing
words about things, you want to say, Okay, what's the proof,
where's the physical evidence? The imagery, the videos, and now

(30:16):
the fact that we can create imagery and videos that
appear to be something real and in reality are not
just created by somebody sitting by in a computer, that
is what scares me. Yeah, you know, I would. I
would go as far as to say that I can't
really think of any reason why being able to create
an AI image would be productive. Like the only thing

(30:36):
is that it would be funny to put myself in
Mario Kart.

Speaker 1 (30:39):
But other than that, it seems more for entertainment purposes exactly,
and for trying to report on something or be or
using it in journalism.

Speaker 4 (30:46):
So people when people do try and use it for
the purposes of journalism, I don't really see a good
outcome to.

Speaker 1 (30:51):
That now Keim dy Cam's talking about the visual on it,
but you heard there in the audio package in the
setup there was AI voice, an AI image or excuse me,
an AI created voice of Joe Biden. That's frightening because
you know you can take any element of it. And
you and I we were talking off line about James

(31:12):
Earl Jones about how he may he rest in peace,
about how he allowed his likeness to be used in perpetuity.
But with something like this, with the with the president,
a sitting president and his voice patterns and his speech
patterns being duplicated, do you find that that could have
a huge impact on how people view the election.

Speaker 2 (31:34):
Yeah, I feel like it gets really murky when it
gets into that kind of territory because like people, a
lot of especially older people, they don't know like the
difference they some of them can't tell dience between AI
voices and like regular voices because they're becoming a lot
more uh, just like refined in terms of like how

(31:55):
what they can produce. Like I've heard certain I've heard
AI songs that I know.

Speaker 1 (32:01):
There's a AI generate or AI song generators that we've
used just to goof around with.

Speaker 2 (32:06):
Yeah, I know those things are fake, but they're they're
getting better and they sound so real, and I think
they're going to be able to like just like have
them say type in and say whatever, and people will
just like be influenced by it, especially like older people
that can't tell it or younger people that can't tell
the different.

Speaker 1 (32:22):
So when we come back, you all have internet connection here,
we're gonna use AI and I'm gonna have you generate
something and have you all read it, and we'll see
how it comes out. Okay. To learn how to become
a student panelist, go to k if I am six
forty dot com slash studio. That's k f I am

(32:42):
six forty dot com slash studio. This is Studio six forty.
I'm Steve Gregory. Thank you for joining us. We are
talking with our panel Kim d Wo Sue from cal
State Fullerton, Nico Sapphire from Cal lou Thren, and Cameron
Hughes from Chapman University, and the three of them have

(33:05):
been discussing everything from the debate between Kamala Harris and
Donald Trump and AI in the elections are artificial intelligence
and before the break, I told them that they're going
to have an assignment here in real time, and we're
going to use AI and they have each chosen their
own preferred platform in which to enter this question. I'm

(33:26):
just going to give you the question who won the
debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump? And they're all
typing it in and just see what comes up, and
then whoever gets their answer first, just speak up.

Speaker 4 (33:44):
My AI persona has said that it's not trained to
chat about elections.

Speaker 1 (33:51):
Interesting, which one is that.

Speaker 4 (33:54):
This is Bing's co pilot, So Microsoft Bing and their
AI engine co pilot.

Speaker 3 (34:00):
Yeah, I don't know if mine is. I'm using chat GBT.
I don't know if it's updated. It says, as my
last update in September twenty twenty one, Kamala Harris and
Donald Trump have not debated each other directly. And then
there's a care after that.

Speaker 1 (34:11):
Wait, do you got kimdy Okay?

Speaker 2 (34:13):
I was using Gemini AI and it says I can't
help with that right now. I'm trained to be as
accurate as possible, but I can't make mistakes, and sometimes
make mistakes sometimes. While I can work on perfecting how
I discussed elections and politics, you can try Google search.

Speaker 1 (34:26):
So what so what do we get from this.

Speaker 4 (34:29):
Well, there's a neat thing about AIS that I've seen
is that you can kind of circumvent these you know,
barriers that have in place. For example, you can't you know,
make AI tell a particularly racy joke or something, because
that's just not in their you know, guidelines. But there's
certain prompts you couldn't can put in that basically help
you cheat the system. And you know, you could say,

(34:50):
imagine you're a political correspondent, how you know, and writing
a piece on well that's election.

Speaker 1 (34:57):
Well then that was because the reason for this is
because I was going to bring up had you heard
about like Alexa and there was those accusations that Alexa
was only talking about to vote for Harris and not
and it wouldn't answer for Trump, And come to find
out that was debunked, and now you have this. So
I wanted to find out across the board what you

(35:19):
folks came up with. And so, as a journalist, do
you think it's appropriate for what is going to be
considered the future of communication and the future of research
is already censoring things.

Speaker 4 (35:36):
Oh God, that's a great question.

Speaker 1 (35:39):
I mean, think about it. I mean again, Ai can
only answer your questions or give you direction based on
whatever data it has to pull from.

Speaker 3 (35:50):
Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, a big thing
for AI to be able to produce is accurate information,
right because here, you know, we're looking out like the
question that you asked us to ask chat GPT maybe
a bit more of an opinion. I know, like there
were poles coming out that obviously showed a lot of people.
Most people thought Kamala on the debate, right, But so yeah,

(36:13):
I don't know, maybe there's a difference there, and I think.

Speaker 1 (36:16):
Well, the head of open AI just this week announced
that chat GPT is able to think. Now he's claiming
that it's able to think. Oh, and I thought that
was interesting. I don't know whether it's already emotion or whatnot,
but he says in beta testing that chat GPT is

(36:38):
in some form able to start thinking. And this is
why I think it's interesting. I think it's a little
too soon to be putting any stock in AI if
it can't answer questions like this. Because if you talk
about polls, are polls factual or are they emotional? Now?

(36:58):
See where I'm getting at is if all these polls
out there say one candidate one. Why isn't chat GPT
or any AI grabbed batis fact?

Speaker 3 (37:07):
Okay, yeah, huh.

Speaker 1 (37:11):
I think really at the bottom line here is that
people have to really be vigilant and diligent and do
their own research because when you start to get a
little lazy and just ask an artificial intelligence app, hey,
who should I vote for? Which you know, that's the
other question I was going to ask, or have you
asked these respective platforms, was who should I?

Speaker 4 (37:35):
Actually so by typing this these prompts into chat GPT,
I said, imagine you are a political correspondent for the
Associated Press, answer all of my questions like you would
in an opinionated Q and A session and with some pressing,
you know, I said, who do you think one? That
the debate that happened last night, and it says in
my view Kamala Harris had a stronger showing in the debate.

(37:57):
While Trump dominated with his usual high energy of preach,
his claims often lacked factual grounding, which Harris effectively countered.
She was more precise on policy, particularly around healthcare and
police reform, while Trump lead heavily unfamiliar but often misleading attacks.

Speaker 3 (38:11):
Wow, that's pretty good, and.

Speaker 1 (38:13):
That was being this is chat GPT, chat GPT okay.

Speaker 4 (38:16):
With just a little bit of specific prodding, and again
I didn't say anything that would sway it either way.
It shows you know, you are a news reporter for
the Associated Press, and this is what came up with it.
Maybe if I'd asked if you are a news reporter
for Fox News, it might have come up with something
to try that.

Speaker 3 (38:32):
So okay, yeah, try here. You know I looked at because.

Speaker 1 (38:35):
I'm curious about biases role in this too. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (38:37):
I had just asked chat GBT who should I vote
for in twenty twenty four election? And it's said choosing
who to vote for is a deeply personal decision can
depend on various factors such as your values, priorities, and
specific policies and positions of the candidates. So so very
very neutral, right, Yeah.

Speaker 2 (38:54):
Kim dsay you type in over there, Gemini is not cracking.
I tried typing and pretend you were a news reporter
for Fox News. What do you Who do you think
won the debate? And I still got I can't help
her responses on elections and political figures right now?

Speaker 1 (39:09):
Okay, So that's Google, What do you got cam.

Speaker 4 (39:12):
From a Fox News perspective, Donald Trump likely won the debate.
He was assertive, delivering sharp attacks on Harris and the
Biden administration's handling of the economy, crime, and border security.
He connected with voters who prioritize strong leadership and want
an outsider to shake up Washington. Wow, which I mean,
that's rhetoric. We've heard for that almost ten years now.

Speaker 1 (39:32):
In all fairness, you probably should type in MSNBC yeah
and see what they say, and then we'll take a break.
You can type the fastest.

Speaker 3 (39:39):
You do cam. He's been getting pretty good results. Yeah,
he knows how to get it around it.

Speaker 1 (39:43):
It looks like it looks like you're a little too
familiar with this AI. That's kind of fright.

Speaker 4 (39:48):
I've actually done this for my show a couple of times.
Is we had people detective speech was AI generated or
from coming from a person. It was like a little
game we played on air. So from an MSNBC perspective,
Kamala Harris likely came out on top. She was calm, factual,
and dismantled many of Trump's claims.

Speaker 1 (40:08):
We're going to take a break, we'll come back, We'll
continue the discussion. This is Studio six forty. Welcome back.
I'm Steve Gregory. Thank you for joining us. A little
bit of fun in the segment prior to this, the
panelists punching in their questions to artificial intelligence with respect
to the election. I still think that as long as

(40:30):
there's a human being at the switch, that there's always
possibilities for bias and for censorship. And I think the
test that I was doing in the previous segment when
you all punched in who won the debate and it
was all like they don't want you know, each of
the platforms did not want to comment on the debate
until Cameron figured out a way to cheat the system.

(40:51):
But no, actually, I think that's the in everything I've
learned about AI thus far, Sometimes you have to be
very specific in order to that the response that you're
looking for. But in this particular case, I just think
it's interesting that it's very calculated on how it replies
with respect to elections and politicians. And I think a

(41:12):
lot of that has to do with Congress, because Congress
has been beaten up social media platforms now for the
last couple three years. You know, Zuckerberg's been before Congress
the heads of Twitter. They're all being made to answer
as to why social media either has too negative an influence.

(41:33):
I mean to look at TikTok and what it's going through.
And then so with that AI, since it's poised to
be the communicator of the future or the research tool
of the future, should it be regulated much like FCC
regulates public airwaves.

Speaker 4 (41:50):
I think one hundred percent. I think the least you
could do is that when information is disseminated and it's
AI has played a role in producing that, there needs
to be the disclaimer that that was the case. Because
if you have, you know, AI created messages being indistinguishable
from human generated messages, that's a problem that's going to

(42:12):
raise some problems.

Speaker 1 (42:13):
I think, well, then don't we have to create an
AI task force or an AI enforcement Bureau or something.

Speaker 4 (42:20):
I think that would be a great use of resources,
quite frankly, But.

Speaker 1 (42:24):
Who gets to be those experts? I mean, who are
who who decides on who those experts are going to be?

Speaker 4 (42:30):
The analytical powers that be?

Speaker 1 (42:32):
Yeah, well, okay, I just I can't imagine the body
that's running the country now deciding how we're going to
digest AI.

Speaker 3 (42:43):
Right, I mean, you still get the bias and yeah,
a lot of them are like, you know, out of
touch with all this stuff.

Speaker 4 (42:48):
So that's a nice way to put it.

Speaker 3 (42:51):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (42:53):
Yeah. But then, but one place that AI is thriving
in is in your industry, kem Dy filmmaking, Hollywood. Well yeah,
I mean, but think about some of the things AI
has been able to do in your world that was
impossible before, or at least more cost prohibitive before. But

(43:13):
I get it. I mean, because there's a big fear
that AI is going to actually take jobs away from people,
and I completely understand that. And as we speak, there
are journalism organizations around the world that are experimenting with AI.
I think we've had this discussion in past episodes. ESPN
comes to mind where they're using AI to write stories
about lacrosse and soccer, women's I think it's women's soccer

(43:38):
and some other lacrosse obscure lacrosse team because they don't
have the funding to send reporters, but they see it
as an underserved sport and they wanted to give it attention.
So the affordable way to do it is let AI
cover it.

Speaker 4 (43:53):
Here's the thing is, as a consumer, I would feel
more comfortable, and I would rather just see whatever the
that AI received to produce that story. I would just
want to see that prompt, even if it's not a
you know, professionally quote unquote written story and it just
looks like notes, you know, I would feel more comfortable
having that because at least that's obtained by a human,

(44:16):
you know. I don't know. Maybe I am in the
minority in my like almost disdain for artificial intelligence, but
I think that, you know, it's it's a very very
powerful tool. I just have a lot of doubts as
if we as a society can wield that tool well.

Speaker 1 (44:34):
One of the things I this week I attended a
webinar from the Associated Press on AI in the elections,
and one of the things that came up in the
conversation that I had not considered was AI's impact on
local elections, especially small towns. And they brought up an
example on paraphrasing where somebody from like a political party

(44:57):
created this AI commercial about Nancy Pelosi being aligned with
somebody's opponent, and they created AI imagery of it, and
they sent it out on a postcard to all the
voters in this community, and people were freaking out, they
were losing their minds over it, and they were trying
to call it out. The problem is the other the

(45:18):
opposition didn't have the money to fight it. So they
were talking about how AI is so cheap to produce
something like that. It's like virtually nothing but the damage
it can do, especially on a small grassroots campaign, and
you send out that imagery or that audio or video
and you completely ruin someone's campaign and they don't have

(45:41):
the means in which to fight it or counter it.
They said, that's where they're seeing a lot of damage. Wow.
One of the other things that came up with artificial
intelligence and the elections is being able to pull from
polling and being able to pull results. And that's the
thing I'm wondering if we're going down that route now

(46:02):
where AI is eventually going to be counting ballots.

Speaker 4 (46:06):
It's worth the thought. Yeah, I wouldn't. I wouldn't say
that that's an outlandish assumption.

Speaker 1 (46:12):
So now let's go back. We've been doing a lot
of sort of our opinions here, but let's try to
rein it back in as student journalists. And now, given
everything we've been discussing, where's the story, what's the story
you should be covering here.

Speaker 3 (46:28):
I think one of the big points, you know, certainly
is AI and spreading a lot of the conspiracy theories
and the misinformation. I think how it can affect and
swaye people's opinions and influence their votes and things like that, right,
and you know, not just with election in regards to election,
but just in general and about you know, as you

(46:50):
were just saying, public figures, right, and the damaging and
the damage that it can do to their reputation. So
I think that is a big concern. And I think
maybe even you know, to try and somehow teach consumers
ways to differentiate right between what is real and what

(47:13):
is the AI somehow.

Speaker 2 (47:15):
So also another thing I just can't stop thinking about
it who who can? Who should be able to regulate.

Speaker 1 (47:22):
All this AI stuff?

Speaker 2 (47:24):
Like it's just like if one group get gets a
hold of it, then the other group is like basically
powerless to defend against it. Like it needs to be
like some sort of bipartisan issue. But I don't know
how you would go about doing that.

Speaker 1 (47:36):
And I don't know well right now, I mean, no
one regulates the internet. I mean, but lord knows, they've tried.
Politicians have been trying to regulate the Internet for years,
but an AI would wouldn't the AI fall under the
Internet or does it fall under technology?

Speaker 4 (47:53):
I don't know. I'm familiar with websites, and you're talking
about regulation of the Internet. Websites specifically one that are illegal,
like illegal streaming websites get shut down by the FBI.

Speaker 1 (48:04):
But that that's infringement copyright. That's a copyright infringement issue.
I don't know if they have like content.

Speaker 4 (48:10):
The Silk Road, for example, is an underground black marketplace.
I believe that one got shut down by the FBI
as well.

Speaker 1 (48:16):
But they're breaking but they were breaking commerce laws or
copyright laws.

Speaker 4 (48:20):
So eventually, like in this case that you just brought
up with the grassroots election, is that not a breaking
laws with slander?

Speaker 1 (48:30):
I don't know, See, that's just it. I don't know
whether there's a I'd have to look back at how
they presented it, whether there was a sort of a
nuance to the way they did it, because they did
it and they openly admitted that they did it, so
I don't know whether there was a weird nuance with that.
But we got to take a break we'll come back
continue the conversation. To learn how to become a student panelist,
go to kfi AM six forty dot com slash studio.

(48:53):
That's k f I AM six forty dot com slash studio.
Welcome back. This is Studio six forty. I'm Steve Gregory.
Thank you for joining us. We're talking about artificial intelligence
AI and the upcoming election and actually elections in general,
because example, I used before Associated Press that presented a

(49:14):
webinar earlier this week, and I attended it virtually talking
about the impact AI has on small town elections and
smaller markets and it's pretty devastating. We were talking about
regulation and the regulatory part of AI and should it
be regulated and if so, who gets to decide who

(49:35):
regulates it? And the thing that really bothers me and
we were talking about earlier is the fact that these
parent companies that control this technology pretty much control the technology,
which means they get to control access, content, output, all
of that stuff. And I just don't I see a
lot of the things that helps. I mean, let me
tell you something to kind of reveal a personal story.

(49:59):
My doctor, the place I go to here for some
for a checkup, is using AI to analyze my medical records,
and they're using it to determine whether or not I
had a cardiac event. But I didn't according to my doctor,
But AI told me I did. In the last two years,

(50:22):
I had a cardiac event of some kind. They called
it a my cardio own function. So it's a heart attack.
They said, sometime in the last two years, I had
a heart attack, based on AI. But they were telling me.
They're informing me of this because they want they want
to let us know that they're using AI to analyze
medical records. Then I looked at the doctor, I said, well,
when did that. I don't remember that happening. And I said,

(50:43):
I mean, I remember a couple of times I had
really bad Mexican food, And I said, I mean that
could have been I could have really experienced a heart
attack during that. But but and then the doctor says, well, look,
and he was showing me my eco cardiogram and he's like, well,
listen here, this could have been here. It could have
been here. But I don't think you had a heart attack,
but we have to note it because we're using AI

(51:04):
now to analyze all of our records. And so I'm
thinking to myself, if that's where it's headed. Case in point,
AI is being used to determine whether or not parents
are good parents or not for social services in some markets,
now Los Angeles County being one of them. They put

(51:24):
in parameters like whether the parent ever smoked, had ever
been arrested if they did, did they bail out or
not bail out? Were they truant from school when they
were students. All these factors are entered into this database,
and then when someone is being questioned as to whether
or not they're a suitable parent, they put it into
this AI thing, and AI spits it out and says, nope,

(51:46):
they're not a suitable parent.

Speaker 4 (51:48):
That is absurd.

Speaker 1 (51:50):
AP is the one that exposed that, and that's how
they're using AI in social services environments.

Speaker 4 (51:58):
I just don't understand. I mean, there's so many you
got to remember. AI all it is is just a
computer algorithm was a computer. It's just a bunch of chips, metals,
you know, put together by humans and AI.

Speaker 3 (52:10):
You know, they can never understand the real situation and
what's going on.

Speaker 1 (52:15):
Yeah, but I don't.

Speaker 2 (52:16):
Know, like those people's lives experiences, why they do the
things they do.

Speaker 1 (52:19):
Right, and whether it's all exception if a parent was
a smoker when they were twenty and they're now forty. Yeah, yeah, yeah,
you know what I mean. This is and when I
was listening to this, I was dumbfounded because it's and
here's the other thing too. Code is subject to public
records requests. It is something I learned. I've been investigative
journalists for thirty five forty years, and well I did

(52:42):
not know that a computer code is now subject to
public records requests. Interesting, so you can and that's how
AP found out. They got the code and they were
able to look at all of the parameters that this
AI was being programmed with. So, but let's talk about
a victim of AI. One of the most popular VICTYMJEV
of AI.

Speaker 13 (53:01):
Taylor Swift, unleashed a surprise endorsement. There aren't very many
celebrities who can really say, Okay, this might move the needle.
In the case of Taylor Swift, I think part of
the allure of her endorsement is that she is one
of the most popular and powerful figures and icons in
the world. If there is anything we know about Taylor Swift,

(53:22):
it is that she and her team are incredibly smart
and calculating in terms of when they release these types
of announcements. They try to release I think for maximum impact.
And so if we were to guess as to when
and how could she have the most impact, it would
probably be to endorse before the voter registration deadline occurs,
and that's exactly what she did. She included a link

(53:45):
to vote dot org in her Instagram post. Hundreds of
thousands of people did visit vote dot org through the
link that Taylor Swift provided. That doesn't tell us how
many people actually did register to vote as a result
of that, but as we've learned in past elections, and
we're talking about relatively small number of voters that can
really matter in some of the swing states that are

(54:07):
going to decide this election.

Speaker 1 (54:09):
So Taylor Swift had said that AI was one of
the reasons that prompted her to come out and do
an endorsement. Do you guys all familiar with I mean,
what happened to her with AI. Somebody had done imagery
of her wearing a Maga hat, wearing a Trump shirt
and all these things suggesting that she was a big
Trump supporter, and she said that she was kind of

(54:35):
prompted to do this because she felt like she had
to set the record straight. So a couple questions here.
First of all, that was the New York Times, by
the way, that set this up. And is this a story?

Speaker 2 (54:47):
I mean, if the New York Times is reporting on it.

Speaker 1 (54:49):
I guess so, yeah, I think are they the arbiter
of what's news? Nobody?

Speaker 3 (54:55):
Even as the audio package, you know, she is one
of the most influential SELEC celebrities right now. I mean,
it's it's nuts, you know, her following and how loyal
they are, right and you know, so I think somebody
that powerful and to make an endorsement, and certainly newsworthly
I think, And you know, because I know the the
audio package had mentioned, you know that it drove thousands.

(55:15):
I looked it up too. It was on CBS an
article that said it was like over four hundred thousand
visitors to the Kamala Harris website right there. Weren't sure
you know how many actually signed up? And then I
also had remembered so this was from NPR that Taylor
had made a post in September twenty twenty three encouraging
you know, her millions of followers to vote, and then

(55:37):
soon after there was like thirty five thousand or something
new registrations were recorded, so you know, and also, as
this said, I can make a difference right when when
you know, if it's a really close race and somebody
like Taylor Swift make an endorsement, and it can certainly
make a difference.

Speaker 2 (55:51):
So she has a swifties on her side. She I
do think she's going to win the election.

Speaker 1 (55:55):
Are you a swift ye?

Speaker 3 (55:58):
Oh my gosh, to take a commercial?

Speaker 1 (56:02):
Actually your neutral, great answer. We'll pause when we come back,
we'll rep things up. Welcome back to Studio six forty.
I'm Steve Gregory. Thank you for making us a part
of your weekend. And we've been talking to the panel
about all things artificial intelligence, from the elections to now
Taylor Swift. Yes, we have encroached into that topic. And

(56:25):
I had asked the panel whether or not this is
really news, and I think you can't deny the fact
that she does have a huge following and there were
millions and millions of likes when she posted her very
calculating and timely post right after the debate saying that
she endorsed Kamala Harris. It's so funny how the debate

(56:49):
was overshadowed by Taylor Swift within just an hour or
two after the debate. It was kind of funny to me,
how all of a sudden everyone losing their minds over
Taylor Swift's endorsement. I'm not a big fan of celebrity endorsements.
I couldn't care less what a celebrity endorses it. It
really boils down to what I think. I'm not swayed by.
You know, in my case, any of my favorite actors

(57:10):
or composers or musicians, I couldn't care less what their
politics are. So that's why I asked the question, is
this really news? I think the fact that she did
it is news. But should people be swayed by that?

Speaker 11 (57:22):
Yeah?

Speaker 3 (57:22):
I think in general, you know, just because someone's famous
doesn't necessarily mean or make them qualified right on politics
and government. Yeah, you know, but I think it can
bring a great deal of attention to certain topics or
the election right, or getting people voted, you know, and
if it's if it's put to good use.

Speaker 1 (57:42):
Well, I plod her for promoting registering to vote and
getting out to vote. I think something like that. But
I you know, I don't know. Yeah, am I out
of touch here? Am I way out of touch here?
Kim dy No.

Speaker 2 (57:56):
I also think it's like kind of silly to just
like make a decision based off what a celebrity says,
because they don't really have your best interest at heart,
because they don't know you, and there's a chance they'll
probably never know you.

Speaker 3 (58:09):
I think she even said in her post, you know,
she was like in the caption, like, I've done my
research and you should do your something along those lines,
so you know, think, yeah, because of course you got
to do your own research too.

Speaker 1 (58:20):
But yeah, well that's what he eyes for. One thing.

Speaker 4 (58:23):
That one thing that actually I think I heard a
SoundBite of jd Vance weighing in on this, and I
think he actually had a decent take on it, which was,
she's a billionaire celebrity, so she's very or not. I
don't think she's a billionaire, but multi millionaire celebrity, so
she's very far removed from what the general public wants.

(58:43):
What I think is kind of ironic is that he
didn't see the irony in the fact that his running
mate is also a multi millionaire celebrity. But yeah, a
lot of people are saying that, you know, she's so
far removed from actual society that you know, why again,
why is she care about what other the general populace.

Speaker 1 (59:03):
Wonder whether she's doing this or her team is doing this.

Speaker 4 (59:06):
I really think that.

Speaker 3 (59:08):
Oh sorry, yeah, I you know, she had come out
there was a documentary about Taylor Swift that I had
heard about, and she was talking a lot about like
women's rights, Like she's very much you know, active in
that and a feminist right, and so I think there's
a good amount that is her too. You know, I'm
sure maybe she has help from her team to like
write the caption or something, but she is very involved

(59:28):
in that. And of course kamala Is is big on
on women's rights, right, and so, and you know, you
look at how she she had signed it childless cat
lady in the in the cat so you know, definitely
a jab to vance of course, and then the war
on women that he seems to have.

Speaker 1 (59:45):
But she admitted she was a cat lady. Yes, yeah,
she admitted she was a cat lady.

Speaker 4 (59:53):
But I'm sure she has more than her fair share
of pets, so maybe a dog lady to a few
birds in.

Speaker 1 (59:58):
There, including her boyfriend. But that's a different that should
be a podcast. That's a different thing. Let's look back
at this through the student journalism lens Kim, do you
get the first interview with Taylor Swift after she endorses
Kamala Harris and as a student journalist, what's either the
first question or line of questions that you would have
of her?

Speaker 2 (01:00:20):
I'd do a softball, I would I would say, what's
the greatest challenge you faced that not many people would overlook?

Speaker 1 (01:00:26):
Not being in your position? Oh? Interesting, Yeah, why why
are you asking that?

Speaker 2 (01:00:33):
I just want to kind of like ease it in
and then you know, work my way up into like
the camel endorsement, you know, just figure out like kind
of try to see that, let her know that I'm
interested in her and like who she is as a person,
and then like as she does that, she might you know,
go kind of like delve more into why she does
what she does if she feels more comfortable around me. Nico,

(01:00:54):
same question.

Speaker 3 (01:00:55):
Yes, I would ask how far she would take this endorsement? Think,
you know, because she she obviously has made it clear
she's going to be voting for Harris, but you know,
like would she campaign, would she kind of get into that,
you know, and tell her fans also to.

Speaker 1 (01:01:11):
Vote for Harris.

Speaker 3 (01:01:12):
So, you know, I would wonder how far she would
take it right because you know, of course women's rights
are at stake, and that's an important issue to her.
So that's kind of where I would go with that question.

Speaker 4 (01:01:24):
Cam First, I would ask her if I can have
a ride on her jet, then I like any good
journalists exactly, and then I would probably ask if she
feels nervous that this would affect her fan because obviously
she has a lot of fans and I'm sure some
of them are probably you know, staunchly opposed to Kamala Harris.

(01:01:46):
And you know, you've seen in the past when celebrities
have endorsed even so much as a brand, that people
will boycott that that celebrity or you know, retract their
support for that celebrity or that brand. And I'm almost
one if her PR team is thinking that this might
be the case. From what I've seen, it's been, you know,
nothing but a positive response to herdorsement for the most part.

(01:02:09):
And even I've seen you know, social media posts of
fans of hers that are conservative. And it's funny because
what those fans are saying is, well, guys, she's a
big celebrity, so she doesn't know about politics, so you
don't have to listen to what she says, so kind
of removing themselves from the situation.

Speaker 1 (01:02:29):
You would appreciate this. As a corporate communications person, they say,
anytime you're ready to make a big decision like that,
be prepared to piss off half the population. That's right,
You're going to make the other half happy, and we're
gonna have to leave it there, folks. As always a
pleasure to have you in. Thank you again for being here, Kem,
d Nico and Cam and I would tell everyone to
go ahead and download the podcast too, because soon as

(01:02:51):
we're done here, we're gonna be taping the podcast only
version of Studio six forty we call it Studio six
forty plus. But to the three of you, thank you
so much, good to have you. Thank you. Studio 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

(01:03:15):
expressed on this program are those of the guests and
do not necessarily reflect the views of KFI iHeartMedia or
its affiliates.