HARRIS-WALZ TICKET / REPORTERS FIRED OVER HOSTAGE EMBARGO / MAUI WILDFIRES

The panel discusses Kamala Harris’ pick for VP and how they, as student journalists, would and should cover him; next, Bloomberg fired two reporters and disciplined others over an alleged breach of a White House embargo dealing with the release of American hostages in Russia – should reporters honor embargos, if not, why? And, finally, the Maui wildfires were among the deadliest in US history. The panel weighs in on the role of journalists in covering disasters.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
This week's panel on Studio six forty.

Speaker 2 (00:03):
I'm Kaya Mann and I go to Los Angeles Valley College.

Speaker 1 (00:07):
Hi.

Speaker 3 (00:07):
I'm Cameron Hughes. I attend Shopman University in Orange, California.

Speaker 4 (00:11):
And I am Jorge Monteo from Arizona State University.

Speaker 1 (00:15):
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

(00:38):
joining us our top story.

Speaker 5 (00:40):
Let's get more perspective now on the pick of Governor
Walls and what he brings to the ticket. We welcome
in Kristen Welkoerme moderator, Meet the press, Kristin. Good morning
there where it's a short list. Tim Walls gets the call.
Why well, Savannah?

Speaker 6 (00:51):
Look?

Speaker 7 (00:52):
I think one of the top reasons the rapport between
the Vice President and Governor Walls. She feels like this
someone who she can trust and who really understands his
role as number two on the ticket. Think about this
as basically one hundred meter sprint. This is going to
be a sprint to define Governor Walls because as Peter

(01:14):
just noted, seventy percent of Americans say they don't know
who he is. So you're already seeing the Trump campaign
trying to make the case this is the most in
their words, radical left ticket in US history. They are
going to attack his policies, everything from the fact that
he enshrined abortion rights to expanding background checks for gun buyers,
as well as the LGBTQ protections that he passed in

(01:38):
his states. So it's going to be the burden of
the Harris campaign to fire back.

Speaker 1 (01:43):
Kim Hughes. Were you surprised at this pick?

Speaker 3 (01:48):
I was initially Did you know who Tim Walls was?
I had no idea who Tim Walls was. I was expecting,
like I think some other people were, maybe Pennsylvania Governor
mister Shapiro, because pennsylvani is a big swing state. And
to hear that it was the governor of Minnesota that
ended up being picked was a little bit surprising for me, because,

(02:08):
you know, despite its close proximity to other swing states,
Minnesota hasn't elected a Republican to statewide office since two
thousand and eight, I believe two thousand and six. All
this in mind, though Trump, I know was going for Minnesota,
thinking of this as maybe being one of the states
that he had a possibility of winning, but states loyalty, location,

(02:32):
proximity aside. When you look at Tim Wallas's resume, I
think he's a great pick for this, even though he's unknown.
He's you know, a family man, one marriage, two kids,
our age. He's a football coach. I mean, hard to
think of a more all American job than that, and.

Speaker 8 (02:50):
A lot of that.

Speaker 3 (02:50):
I'm a little bit surprised that he's been attacked for
being so vehemently progressive, because you know, from what I've scene,
he presents pretty moderately despite having some progressive policies. You know,
for example, in pre Parkland shooting, he was actually given
an A rating, a grade of A by the NRA

(03:12):
National Rifle Association before you know, switching a stance and
supporting those background checks. But I think he's a pretty
safe bet, and overall, I think this is a great
pick from Kamala.

Speaker 1 (03:24):
Harris Horney Montile. Did the pick of this governor of Minnesota?
Did that seem to fit with what you think Harris
was looking for or as you look at it and
analyze it as a student journalist, how do you approach
covering that and what would be your first thing you
would want to know about Tim Walls.

Speaker 6 (03:47):
The first thing I want to know about Tim Walls
Sorr's policies and how well they aligned with Kamala Harris
because I think Kamala Harris Walker said it the best
in the clip that she was looking for somebody to
know their role as number two and be supportive of her,
and I think she found a perfect candidate for that purpose.

Speaker 4 (04:03):
He's going to be number two. He's going to back
around our policies.

Speaker 6 (04:06):
And we've seen how he governs in his state of Minnesota,
so we know his record and we know what he's
going to do. And what's a great pick about him
is that he is very good at SoundBite politics, which
is a useful tool against the Republicans because we know
that's all Donald Trump does. He loves soundbiting, he loves
steering the pot. So Walts is going to be a

(04:28):
good counter to that.

Speaker 1 (04:30):
Kaya Man. The thing that didn't take long though, because
the opponent in this case, Donald Trump's camp. You immediately
have to have weaknesses or find weaknesses in your opponents,
and the Trump campaign wasted no time in finding those weaknesses.
So when you look at it as a journalist and
you're looking at okay, who is Tim Waltz, Does he

(04:53):
have any faults and is it my responsibility to bring
those faults out.

Speaker 2 (04:57):
I've seen a lot of people on more right side
talk about how he presents a certain way but is
maybe you know, a wolf in sheep's clothing and has
super radicalized views. But honestly, I think a lot of
the talk is focused on his character. He is all American,
he is a family man, and Kamala Harris, as a
black Indian woman, she's going to be attacked for her character.

(05:21):
As a president of the United States, you're supposed to
be strong, you're supposed to be the leader, the boss,
but as a woman, it's the exact opposite, and people
often criticize that in women, and so having Walls on
the ticket, I think it's going to be a good
addition to her. Cappan Kaya.

Speaker 1 (05:37):
You know. The thing that it's interesting to me is
that there was a lot of talk with Harris possibly
picking Pete Bodhajeedge, which a lot of people thought would
have been an interesting combination because you would have had
the first gay vice president, someone in the White House
that was openly gay like that and that high of
a level. And then there was the other talk about

(05:58):
Shapiro that to Cam was talking about earlier, you know,
someone in the Jewish faith in that position, and instead
Harris goes for this. I mean other than you guys
have all said, it's just kind of an all American
white man. Does that surprise you.

Speaker 2 (06:14):
No, absolutely not. I think it was a smart decision
on her choice. I heard a lot of conversation about
the fact that if she did pick anyone else that
was any minority of any way, the ticket would be
too diverse, and that a lot of people wouldn't be
able to get behind that. So it was not surprising

(06:35):
in the slightest to me that she went with a
straight white man. It was expected and really, yeah, absolutely
for me, I think I almost saw no other way.
I think seeing a woman of color in running for office,
you know that there's gonna be backlash, and there's gonna
be people that, just because of their own biases and

(06:57):
their own morals, are even subconsciously against that and don't
support it. And having anyone, let alone someone like him
who coached football and is you know, has the nuclear family.
I think it makes sense.

Speaker 1 (07:14):
Okay, we'll pick up the conversation in just a moment,
but I want to let everyone know if you or
someone you know wants to be a part of the
student panel, just go to kfi AM six forty dot
com slash studio. Also, you can follow the show on
your favorite social media platforms. You can find us at
Studio six forty underscore. That's Studio six forty Underscore. You

(07:35):
can also find us on our YouTube channel. Just search
for Studio six forty. That's Studio six forty. Welcome back
to This is Studio six forty. I'm Steve Gregory. We
are talking with Cameron Hughes kaya Man and juadheim Antill
about the selection of Tim Waltz as Kamala Harris's vice

(07:59):
presidential pick for the ticket. And before the break we
were talking a little bit about Harris's motive possible motive
behind picking Tim Waltz, and Cameron, I wanted to ask
you some of the conversation sort of centered around that
this was a brilliant move on the part of Harris,
just picking a straight white man like this, I'm not sure. Unfortunately,

(08:21):
we live in a society now, where everything's about labels
and everyone's got to worry about where things fit in
the fabric of our society and where that fits in
the culture and all of that. Do you think that
this was more about because of where he was or
where he is still governor or do you think this
was more about him as a policy person.

Speaker 3 (08:42):
Well, obviously the clip we listened to mentioned that they
had seemingly built that rapport, and I think what that
means is the policies that Tim Waltz might want to
implement reflect a lot of Kamala Harris's policies, So I
think they're.

Speaker 8 (08:55):
Going to mesh very well together.

Speaker 3 (08:56):
But also, you know, when Tim Waltz was elected, he
unseated this i think six long term incumbent Republican governor
by winning a lot of these rural areas. And that's
what Kamala Harris wants to do with this election. So
the reason behind picking him as a straight white man
is who's going to be more palatable to all these

(09:16):
rural areas that previously Tim Waltz won to secure the
government or governor position. Is it going to be him
or is it going to be Pete Boodhage Edge or
Jos Shapiro as you mentioned, you know, an openly gay
man or an openly Jewish man for the more rural
nations might be slightly less palatable than this football coach.

Speaker 1 (09:37):
But do you think that when we're talking about a
segment a swing state, or we're talking about small segments
of the population overall. I just I find it fascinating
that this person would be selected because of the power
they wield in just a very small slice of our country.

Speaker 6 (09:54):
Yes, the instead of making it about labels and this
and that and other, he was picked because he's good
at pulling in conservative voters. He has a record of
that and as I mentioned, he has an ear for
sound by politics. I don't think it's necessarily because there's
a part of it, yes, but it's not just because
he's a straight white man football coach all that stuff.

(10:16):
But this is also part of a strategy to pull
in because if you want to win an election, you
got to pull the independence.

Speaker 4 (10:21):
And you have to pull some conservatives too.

Speaker 6 (10:22):
You're not going to get the election by just winning
the liberals who obviously just going to vote for Commeday.

Speaker 1 (10:27):
So none of you was surprised at the selection.

Speaker 4 (10:30):
I was.

Speaker 6 (10:30):
I was surprised because according to ap they associated Price,
he wasn't even on the short list. We talked about Shapiro,
we talked about buddhaj Edge, other Washington constituents.

Speaker 4 (10:40):
He wasn't even on the short list.

Speaker 6 (10:42):
And in fact, from Kamala Harris called him for the
first time.

Speaker 4 (10:45):
He didn't pick up the phone. He didn't pick up
the phone.

Speaker 6 (10:48):
He picked up the phone the second time around, and
she asked him if he was willing.

Speaker 4 (10:52):
To do it, and he did it.

Speaker 6 (10:54):
He said, let's go, you know, because this is sixteen
days and it's been a very chaotic sort of path
for her because she had to get the plan off
the ground immediately.

Speaker 1 (11:03):
Kaye, you were talking a bit about how social media,
you know, how things would would fit and how it
would work, and what about covering Tim Waltz Now, because
let's talk about the other side of this. You guys
have all painted him as this, you know, all American
high school football coach, military service, but now his military
service has been called into question. Some of his policies

(11:24):
have been labeled very radical, ultra progressive. So as a
student journalist, what's fair game?

Speaker 2 (11:33):
Well, First of all, he does his image is all American,
but his policies are very progressive.

Speaker 1 (11:41):
His image in what according to whom do you? According
to you?

Speaker 2 (11:44):
Or to whom according to me? And I think my
peers as well. Okay, he just on like the outside.
Of course he's a straight white man, but also you know,
he he was a football coach. He grew up in
the Midwest. But his policies and so els match with
Kamala's and I think appeal to a lot of more
left leaning voters.

Speaker 1 (12:05):
But what is fair game when it comes to criticizing.

Speaker 2 (12:09):
Him, I think, well, he's a politician. Anything necessarily is
fair game, I think, and when you are in that job,
you put yourself in that position. I've seen people talk
about things he's done in his past, and I've seen
him be open about it. But yeah, I think anything.

Speaker 1 (12:27):
Really cam What about the family? Is the family off limits?

Speaker 8 (12:31):
I don't think so.

Speaker 3 (12:33):
I mean, as Kaya said, he's a politician, he's in
the public eye. He should be expecting criticism coming at
every angle of his life. I don't really know at
if they're doing a little research on this guy, what
there would be to criticize about his family? I mean
we mentioned, you know, he's got a great nuclear family,
a wife, they've been married thirty years now, you know,
two kids that are our age. They've helped him, you know,

(12:56):
get a following on social media with the gen Z
knowledge and know how Now I would just like to
hear what criticisms people might possibly have of Tim Waltz's family.

Speaker 1 (13:07):
Well, you know that if you've seen, the criticisms are
already coming out in pretty rapid fire. I think the
one thing that I noticed right away was his military
service because that's being called into question. You know, he
said that he did a bunch of things in the army,
and you know, he achieved a very high rank in
the army. But there are now people that claim to

(13:28):
have served with him in the army that say he's
making a lot of that up. And then JD. Vance,
of course the VP pick for Trump is now they're
kind of going toe to toe because now they're going
to be, you know, having to spar and you know,
gende Vance is calling his military service into question. So
how far do you go with this as a student

(13:49):
journalist and where do you dig on this and what's
fair game?

Speaker 6 (13:53):
I think talking about people's record and service are completely
fair game because it's part of their profession career. This
is somebody who they want to be elected into office
pretty much. So we have to know what he's about
and what he's done in the military, because he's not
the first politician to have his military record coming to question.
Happened to George Bush, among others, And so we need

(14:17):
to know what he's done because the questioning of his
military service that you're talking about is apparently his platoon
got word that they were going to deploy to Iraq,
and he dropped out, so to speak, to go to
be elected to Congress back in two thousand and five.
And still what's in question is whether he signed those

(14:40):
release forms saying that he was going to retire from
the military to go to Congress or did not, depending
on the time length. So that's what's coming into question here,
like did he drop out to avoid service in Iraq
or did he drop out because he seriously wanted to
run for Congress or whatever. That has not been confirmed,
and I think he should come out in clear of
the air about this.

Speaker 1 (15:02):
Quickly before the break kaya would that matter then if
he ended up being untruthful about his military service.

Speaker 2 (15:09):
I mean, everyone has skeletons in that closet, and I
think it's one of his. But honestly, I think we
need to look at it.

Speaker 1 (15:17):
But is that important.

Speaker 2 (15:19):
I think it could be important for some people. I
think other people don't necessarily care.

Speaker 1 (15:23):
An exclusive bonus segment featuring today's panelists can be heard
by downloading Studio six forty on the iHeartRadio app or
wherever you listen. Welcome back, I'm Steve Gregory. This is
Studio six forty. We've been talking about Tim Waltz, the
man that has been selected by Kamala Harris to be

(15:45):
her vice presidential candidate on the ticket, and we've been
talking a lot about what's on the table, what's fair
game when it comes to covering mister Waltz and his family.
We're talking a little bit about his military service. He
has laid out his military service. It's being called into question.
Some people are claiming that he's lying about that military service. Kya.

(16:08):
Before the break, you said that you didn't think it
really mattered much if he ends up being untruthful about that.
But don't you think that goes to the overall character here?
If someone I mean, people have been criticizing JD. Vance
over the same type of thing, But for some reason,
people seem to think it's a bigger deal that Jade
Vance might be fudging the numbers or might be embellishing

(16:31):
his career. So why wouldn't mister Waltz get the same
sort of consideration.

Speaker 2 (16:35):
I mean, I certainly think that you should when it
comes to similar situations like that, you should criticize them
in similar ways. But I think you have to look
at what he's done as governor, his policies going into
the vice president role, and see how that aligns with
some of his past mistakes.

Speaker 1 (16:55):
That's interesting. What do you think, Kim Well?

Speaker 3 (16:58):
Politics is a game of painting pictures and telling stories,
and there is a difference in my mind between you know,
embellishing and straight up lying like people are on JD.

Speaker 8 (17:10):
Vance.

Speaker 3 (17:10):
For the fact that I think he's changed his name
four times, why what does that matter?

Speaker 1 (17:15):
You know?

Speaker 3 (17:15):
So if Tim Waltz is up there blatantly spreading misinformation
about his past, then that's an issue I think we're
gonna have to to get into again.

Speaker 8 (17:25):
You know, people are still digging.

Speaker 3 (17:27):
This is a relatively new development, given that we only
learned about this guy in the past week.

Speaker 8 (17:31):
But you know what he chooses to.

Speaker 3 (17:33):
Put out there about his past, what other people choose
to say about him, and how it aligns with what
he says about what is reality. You know, that to
me is more important. Honesty about the past is more
important than what happened in the past itself. So let's
say you know he did he did drop out to
avoid going to Iraq. I mean, the guy still served

(17:54):
quarter of a decade in the military. Is that a
little bit dishonorable?

Speaker 8 (17:56):
Possibly?

Speaker 3 (17:57):
But if if that is what happened and he comes
up front and own it, I think that's going to
be perceived as a lot better of a situation than
you know, if he lies about the truth.

Speaker 1 (18:07):
You should be a political consultant. You're telling people to
be honest. I don't know. You're telling politicians to be.

Speaker 8 (18:15):
Honesty wishful thinking. I don't know wishful thinking.

Speaker 1 (18:19):
So hey, let's talk about you know, I alluded earlier
about how you would cover this as a student journalist,
and let's say you're assigned this, how far how deep
do you dig on someone's past? How far back is
there a threshold in your opinion on how far back.
You should go into someone's.

Speaker 6 (18:34):
Past, anything that he's So when I'm covering a story
like this, I would cover everything that he's talked about,
so anything that he mentions in his speeches, but how
far back, as far back as he's been in service.

Speaker 1 (18:50):
So anything he did prior to being a politician is
off limits. I would say, do you eyes or anything
like that. I'm just saying for the sake of conversation.
But maybe it was a dy, it was a felony
or something odd like that.

Speaker 6 (19:04):
Is that maybe, with the exception of a criminal record,
that should be dug into. But I don't think that's
going to matter as much as his record as a politician.
I feel like people would rather have reports on that
when his record's been his military service, his time as governor,

(19:25):
all that stuff that's going to be more important to
the American people than he sped.

Speaker 4 (19:30):
He was speeding at eighty one to sixty.

Speaker 1 (19:32):
Okay, well we'll leave it at that one. We'll move
on to our next topic after the break. But first,
I want people to get to know who you are,
Cameron Hughes Chapman University. Tell us about what you've been
up to and what your career is going to look
like after school.

Speaker 8 (19:45):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (19:46):
So my first semester Chapman University, I got involved with
the university's radio station and started hosting my own show, Cranial,
where I talk about current events, other fun stories and
facts that I find interesting and invigorating.

Speaker 8 (20:00):
And that's been really rewarding for me.

Speaker 3 (20:02):
I've gotten to experience a lot of great opportunities within
the world of radio and journalism as a result of
my involvements with Chapman's radio station, and I'm really hoping
that maybe it'll it'll lead to something further on in
my career where I can get involved in a journalistic
aspect in some aspect of my career at some point.

Speaker 1 (20:21):
What's the station at Chapman.

Speaker 8 (20:23):
It's called Chatman Radio.

Speaker 3 (20:24):
So actually Chapman Radio is online only only no FM,
you know, no and what's the what's the URL? So
it's going to be Chatman Radio Dot Live or if
you'd like, you can download the Chapman Radio app, which
is very new and it is a great way to
tune into all the student shows.

Speaker 1 (20:39):
Very good, Kai Man, welcome back. You know you were
baptism by Fire your very first appearance on studio six
forty was the one we did live, yes, and you
still came back anyway. So tell us about your your
work over at Los Angeles Valley College.

Speaker 2 (20:55):
We're gearing up for the new semester. This is my
second official semester at the newspaper. I'm serving as editor
in chief this semester, so I really got thrown into
the deep end going in.

Speaker 1 (21:07):
But yeah, we're.

Speaker 2 (21:08):
Planning on printing newspapers, printing a magazine, and working with
the small team that we have.

Speaker 1 (21:14):
When you say small team, how small, very small?

Speaker 2 (21:16):
We have twelve to fifteen all together, including photographers.

Speaker 1 (21:21):
Okay, but and then what's your distribution, Like we.

Speaker 2 (21:26):
Try to print every two.

Speaker 1 (21:27):
Weeks, and how many do you print?

Speaker 2 (21:30):
We print thousands of copies and then they're usually four
to six pages, and then a magazine as well. At
the end of the semester.

Speaker 1 (21:40):
Do you get feedback people that read that you're a newspaper.
We do.

Speaker 2 (21:44):
We also have an online website where we put all
of our stories, and we have social media accounts. We
get a lot of feedback from the school itself. And yeah,
we get I mean the more feedback we get, even
if it's negative or people mad at us for whatever
we said or didn't say. It's all good and we
all take it.

Speaker 1 (22:00):
What's the URL for your newspaper where.

Speaker 2 (22:02):
The Valley.

Speaker 1 (22:04):
The Valley start the Valleystar dot com? Yeah, okay, excellent,
Jorde Montille Asu, welcome back. I know we'll eat you
a short time and then you're headed back to Tempee.
Tell us about yourself.

Speaker 6 (22:16):
So, I am a sports journalism major. I've written student
pieces on Easy Preps through sixty five dot com on
sports like basketball, baseball. I've also done some audio engineering
for the Watcher Cronkite Sports Network, which you can follow
on Instagram. And I have my own YouTube channel, a
montovers where I cover world wrestling entertainment.

Speaker 1 (22:39):
Yeah, we talked about that before World wrestling entertainment. That's
a very very specific niche Why that, I just.

Speaker 4 (22:46):
I've always enjoyed it as a kid.

Speaker 6 (22:48):
It's like sports meets theater, so it's best of those worlds.

Speaker 1 (22:52):
Yeah, very good. Welcome back to is Studio six forty.
I'm Steve Gregory. Thanks for joining us. Our next topic
is one that was very interesting to me because we
deal with it in my world. We deal with what
they call the embargo and the embargo is basically, we

(23:12):
promised to keep something close to the vest or keep
it a secret until we get clearance to make it public.
Earlier in August, Bloomberg News took disciplinary action against a
number of its staffers. They actually fired a reporter allegedly
overbreaking an embargo regarding the release of Russian hostages, Evan Gerskovich,

(23:33):
and the others that were involved in that group. The
issue is the White House found out called Bloomberg and
said you violated the embargo and you could have put
all of those hostages in danger by leaking that information.
You could have ruined all of the negotiations. So let's
ask the panel. First of all, have you ever worked

(23:54):
with an embargo before? Yes, and tell us about that.

Speaker 2 (23:57):
I did a lot of film and TV report in
my early days, your.

Speaker 1 (24:02):
Early days, Yeah, lest I'm sorry, did you say early days? Okay,
that's like saying back in the day. Yeah, Okay, so
I'm sorry.

Speaker 2 (24:09):
Go ahead, yeah, but so yeah, I had to go
like a twenty four had a screening of a movie
and I wrote the review the day after, was completely
finished with it and had to sit on it for
two weeks before the embargo, and we have our own
embargoes about, you know, our stories and pictures and whatnot.

Speaker 1 (24:27):
What would have happened if you had broken that embargo?

Speaker 2 (24:30):
I would have severed my relationship with A twenty four
and they might have never contacted us again about doing
any story with them. Or you know, I was able
to go to a panel and talk to the director
and star of the film, and it was a great
experience for me, and it was a great piece for
the paper.

Speaker 1 (24:44):
And would you have gotten in trouble by the college?

Speaker 2 (24:47):
Oh, certainly, I mean at least my professor. I'm sure
he would be very mad and disappointed at me if
I broke that.

Speaker 1 (24:53):
The rest of you, anybody deal with an embargo before
so reading the story or prepping for this story, what
are your thoughts or views about how this was handled?
First of all, do you think you should, as they say,
get in bed with the White House? Do you think
you should honor embargo when it comes to something.

Speaker 3 (25:12):
Like this, When it comes to something like this, absolutely.

Speaker 8 (25:17):
Because you have the world of.

Speaker 3 (25:20):
Leaks and you know going against first. First of all,
embargo is not a legally binding contract. All it is
is a verbal agreement, right that says we promise. So
when the White House called Bloomberg and said, hey, you
got to take this down, they said, no, we're not
going to, and that's entirely within their power. The only
repercussions for that were the firing of her name is

(25:42):
Jennifer Jacobs and other quote unquote disciplinary action. So I
don't think what happened them releasing the story was the
proper thing to do at all. The pro of it
was they get to be the first ones to break
that story that day. The potential outcome, but you know,
worst case scenario is that this trade is it. Shephardizes

(26:03):
the trade puts people's lives in danger. I don't know
how dramatic of a statement that might have been by
the White House, but you know, to me, the potential
outcome of this was not worth leaking it what a
few hours before they were told to or they were
allowed to. When it's something of like, I don't know,
you're exposing government.

Speaker 8 (26:26):
I don't know.

Speaker 3 (26:27):
Exposing an expose would be a different story in terms
of morality, and you know, whether the people need to
know this rather than having it kept under wraps. But
there was really no reason in my opinion, to go
through with putting this out early.

Speaker 1 (26:44):
So is it, Jorge, is it better to be first
or second in a story? Is it better to be
first and make a mistake or second and be perfect?

Speaker 4 (26:58):
Tough questions, Steve.

Speaker 6 (27:00):
I'm gonna say I like my facts.

Speaker 4 (27:03):
I like getting stuff right, so I would go second.

Speaker 6 (27:06):
The thing is, though, I think journalists should honor and
embargo somebody's at risk, like for example, whistleblowers, spies, and
better than other nations, things of that nature. There should
be a limitation though, because like saving a corrupted businessman
or politician is not a good enough reason to, you know,
agree to the embargo and keep it all the way through.

(27:26):
As far as what happened to Jennifer Jacobs that camera
was talking about, there should be an investigation from what
actually took place, because I found out that the Bloomberg
organization claims that journalists Jennifer Jacobs broke the embargo with
the Biden administration and published the story before it was
supposed to be published. However, Jacobs claims that she did

(27:46):
not have the final say on publishing the story and
the organization worked together on this. So it turns out
that you know, where there's smoke there's fire, there should
be an investigation.

Speaker 4 (27:57):
If she did say, oh.

Speaker 6 (27:59):
You know, I'm just gonna publish it no matter what,
didn't consult anybody, then yeah, I think the response of
her being fired was appropriate. If she did not have
the final say and it was her superiors that decided
to publish his story, then I don't think she.

Speaker 4 (28:13):
Should have been fired period.

Speaker 6 (28:15):
And another thing is when it comes to getting in
bed with the White House and some other stuff, our
job as journalists at its core is to tell the truth.

Speaker 4 (28:23):
We're supposed to keep our government honest.

Speaker 6 (28:26):
I mean, what does it say about us when we're
not reporting the facts?

Speaker 2 (28:31):
Journalists is also making keep relationships, and I think there's
a way to do that, especially with the White House.
It's such an important source of information in people. And
that's not to say that you can't criticize them, but
cultivating those relationships is important in the future of your
stories as well.

Speaker 6 (28:50):
Yeah, but a bigger responsibility is to inform the American
public of what's going on. I mean, we have to
ask ourselves, how are they putting the deal at risk?
I was a journalist reporting a swap that I was
supposed to be made.

Speaker 4 (29:06):
How are they putting that at risk.

Speaker 6 (29:07):
Well, is there something that we don't know or they
don't want us to find out.

Speaker 1 (29:10):
Well, here's the thing too, And I think to Cameron's
point is like they only did it a few hours
before it actually happened, and really, what was the big deal?

Speaker 4 (29:17):
Yeah, it was a big deal.

Speaker 1 (29:18):
And and let me tell you someone who and without tooting
my own hornets someone who's broken many stories. Uh, there
is a thrill to it. But I don't do it
at the expense of ruining relationships, and I don't do
it at the expense of putting anyone in harm because
I ever been positions situations where I've been. Again, I
don't think many people know I broke the story about
p Didty getting rated. You didn't realize I did not,

(29:40):
And I know that's incredible. You didn't know that. Yeah,
check Twitter or X. I'm sorry if you check X.
I was on that story two weeks before it happened,
and I had to make a deal with my sources
not to bring that. But here's the thing. I didn't
know it was Ditty that I was deal. I had
no idea it was him. But I was led down

(30:05):
this path and I was given these breadcrumbs to follow
until d Day. Welcome back to Studio six forty. I'm
Steve Gregory. Thanks for joining us. We're talking with Cameron Hughes,
kaya Mann and Jordie Montill our panel for this week,
talking about everything from the vice presidential pick for Kamala

(30:27):
Harris to what we're discussing now the firing of two
Bloomberg reporters and the disciplining of other staffers over the
breaking of an embargo from the White House because according
to the White House, Bloomberg broke the agreed embargo about
the release of the hostages from Russia, on the highest

(30:48):
profile member being Evan Gerskovich, who was a reporter for
Wall Street Journal. And we've been talking a little bit
about the ethics of this, and before the break, I
was telling you, was regaling you with my tales of
breaking big stories and the one having to do with Diddy,
because that was a situation where I have a relationship

(31:09):
with law enforcement and it's that relationship helps me, but
I also have to honor that relationship if I wanted
to keep going, if I want And I was also
in a film critics society in Phoenix and it's the
same thing you're seeing movies weeks before it comes out,
and if you tell anybody anything about it, and the

(31:30):
danger in that is you're booted from the list, and
it's hard to get on that list, and once you
get booted, you'll never get back on that list. So
relationships are important. But then Hornigey has a good point too,
is our job is to expose wrongdoing. Our job is
to hold the powerful accountable, and it is to give
a voice to the voiceless. So where's the balance.

Speaker 3 (31:52):
Well, yeah, I definitely agree with Warhe that the job
is to expose wrongdoing, But in this situation, where's the wrongdoing?

Speaker 1 (31:59):
Right?

Speaker 3 (32:00):
I'm also going to reference what he mentioned about the
reporter's statement, and she alleges that she didn't have the
final say, basically implying that there was conspiracy with more
than just her at Bloomberg to apparently leak this early.
So if what all that she says is true, I
would venture to say that by firing her and administering

(32:22):
this disciplinary action, Bloomberg is just saving face because they
messed up as a whole, you know, possibly severing this
relationship by by breaking the story earlier. And you know,
the White House isn't the one firing their White House correspondent,
which is what she is, who got fired.

Speaker 8 (32:38):
It's Bloomberg.

Speaker 3 (32:40):
And again, I really think they're trying to save face
for the whole situation.

Speaker 8 (32:44):
And you know, almost pin the blame.

Speaker 1 (32:46):
Because here's the thing, and it goes back to the relationships,
because whether people want to hear this or not, relationships
aren't a very very important part of journalism. I you know,
I don't care what you think. You know, I know
reporters here in Los Angeles that refuse to absolutely refuse
to sit down and have coffee or lunch with someone

(33:08):
in law enforcement because they do not want any implication
that they're currying favors or anything like that. And I
just think it's a really I think it's the wrong approach.
That's me personally, but professionally it's worked for me to
sit down and have that coffee. Doesn't mean I'm making
any promises, and it doesn't mean I've agreed to do
something in exchange for help. I mean, we have to

(33:30):
sign documents here at the company, at iHeartMedia that say
we will not do what they call pay to play.
I can't make guy, I can't go out there and
make promises in exchange for any kind of numeration or anything. So,
but relationships are the only way I get information that's exclusive.
Plus it's also trust. It builds trust, and that's an
important part of what we do. That's a long way

(33:52):
around of saying back to the case of the journalists.
Don't you suppose Bloomberg was afraid that the White House
would retaliate, so Bloomberg had to do something. It had
to make it look like it's like anybody else that
has to fall on the sword. Now, unfortunately this reporter,
if what she says is true, where she said I
didn't have final say my editors did this, or whatever

(34:14):
the case was, I'll.

Speaker 8 (34:15):
Go one step further.

Speaker 3 (34:16):
She says, I worked hand in hand with my editors
to adhere to editorial standards and guidelines. At no time
did I do anything that was knowingly inconsistent with the
administration's embargo. So she alleges that she had no idea.

Speaker 1 (34:28):
So now it boils down to somewhere in the middle
of the truth, and it's going to be up to
I don't know if Bloomberg unless she ends up suing
Bloomberg for wrongful termination, which is probably something that she's
considering right now, at least with an attorney, I'm sure,
But I look at something else like I don't know

(34:49):
if you remember the plane crash, the Asiana plane crash
in San Francisco years ago, where it was coming in
for final ending from Soul, Korea, and the tale in
of that plane hit the berm hit that part of
the the edge right there where the bay is before
it was landing, and it cracked that part and it crashed,

(35:11):
landed in. The plane caught on fire, and it was horrific.
It was a bad scene. It was a huge story.
I remember up there covering it. And two young ladies
lost their lives. But it wasn't from the plane crash.
They got buried in the foam from the fire department.
The fire trucks actually ran over them. It was It
was a horrific accident. It was a freak accident. So

(35:33):
that was the story. All of a sudden, a local
television station up there breaks in and says, we have
now been given the names of the pilots. The crew
on board the NTSB called us and told us the
names of the pilots. Now it's out there. So what
I'm about to tell you is it's something I'm just
repeating because I saw it live. The pilot's name is

(35:55):
Captain Someting Wong.

Speaker 3 (35:57):
Oh, I.

Speaker 1 (36:00):
We too low and bang ing out. Okay, Now, not
only did the anchor read it verbatim, but the names
were printed out on the screen for everyone to read.
The anchor read it and wasn't even hearing what the
what she was saying on the air. Now, the anchor

(36:22):
didn't get fired, No, no, no no. They fired low
level people all behind the scenes. Those people are all
the ones that got in trouble. I thought to myself,
the anchor should have been fired because as someone who
anchors and I'm reading something and I'm looking at copy
and I'm looking at it, I'm the last line of defense.

(36:42):
But it goes to where outlets are. You know they'll
punish the low level offenders. I guess if you will.
And I just wonder how far you know you go
with something like that. I would love to know what
the end result is going to be on this with
this reporter, because I'm with you, I don't think she
should have been fired. If anybody from the editorial department

(37:04):
or management had a hand in it, or even a
slight discussion with it. She should have never been fired.

Speaker 4 (37:08):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (37:09):
The thing is, I wouldn't even call it a low
level person. She is the senior White House, a senior
White House reporter from Bloomberg, and she's been so over
eight years now, so apparently she's very well respected. And
I want to know again what the rationale is to
fire her if this statement we're receiving from hers entirely untrue,
Like why why why? And yeah, well you said, what's

(37:29):
going to happen after?

Speaker 1 (37:30):
Yeah, I only mean low level in that they're not management. Yes,
everyone under management's low level in my world. Anyway. Welcome
back to Studio six forty. I'm Steve Gregory. We've been
talking about the firing of reporters at Bloomberg and the
disciplining of staffers over the breaking of an embargo having
to do with the release of Russian hostages. The White

(37:52):
House pretty po'd about it, and we've been discussing the
ethics of making that reporter the or of the scapegoat
of those reporters rather, and what I wanted to ask you.
We've been talking a little bit about ethics and about
honoring the embargo relationships. Something interesting happened this week here

(38:14):
in Los Angeles. Governor knew some California's governor came down
here to the San Fernando Valley and he participated in
a trash cleanup of homeless camps. This has been a
passion project of his and he came down. He wanted
the photo op. But what we found out our station
had been left out of the list. My station KFI

(38:36):
was not invited to this. There were a couple of
other outlets that were not invited to this as well.
There was this I think three or four outlets in total,
maybe five that were invited only. So when we talk
about these relationships and we talk about the transparency and government,
do you think that's cool for a government entity or
agency or anybody that receives public funding. Do you think

(38:59):
they should get to choose who covers their events.

Speaker 6 (39:01):
Absolutely not. I think that's complete violation. I mean, when
you do that and then it gets exposed the way
you just exposed it, it's obvious that they're.

Speaker 4 (39:10):
Trying to paint a narrative.

Speaker 6 (39:11):
Oh, Gavin Newsom's cleaning up the streets, and he's you know,
cleaning up the homeless and encampments, which.

Speaker 4 (39:16):
He barely just started to do. By the way.

Speaker 6 (39:18):
I mean, somebody at kfive was listening to like a
month and a half ago when I was picking up
my car from the dealership.

Speaker 4 (39:26):
The homeless.

Speaker 6 (39:27):
He was talking about how the homeless percentage was like
going down and whatever went down like like zero point
two five percent.

Speaker 4 (39:33):
It was only two thousand people that had been removed
out of the forty seven thousand or whatever.

Speaker 6 (39:37):
So when you try and signal out people who are
going to cover this story or should be covering this story,
I think that's complete violation. It's it's like you're dictating
what is going to be reported as the government official.
I think that's wrong. People should have different points of views.
That's one of the founding things in this country is on.

(39:58):
Is that freedom of the press, journalism, telling the truth,
exposing what's going on.

Speaker 4 (40:04):
Reporting.

Speaker 6 (40:05):
We're not China or Russia where they get to say
what's reported.

Speaker 1 (40:10):
Kaye. You were talking about relationships, but it works two ways.
Do you think that's cool for especially the governor's office.
It's not like it's you know, the county clerk and recorder.
We're talking about the governor talking about a very high
profile situation here. Do you think it's cool for them
to pick and choose who gets to cover.

Speaker 2 (40:28):
I mean it definitely kind of yeah, paints this picture
of like they're trying to control this narrative and tell
a story in a certain way. But yeah, I think
if it's a story, especially story like the homelessness that's
been such at odds and the bill has been passed,
and you know, obviously there's photo ops that he wants,

(40:49):
and he wants to portray this image leaving certain people out,
and I don't think it's cool, no, Cameron.

Speaker 1 (40:56):
So let's say you're in the newsroom and you find
out that you've been left out of the of the
group that gets to cover the governor. How do you
react to something like that.

Speaker 3 (41:08):
Well, my first thought is there has to be a reason, Right,
I would be sad if it's because I'm not a
successful or popular enough news outlet to get to cover this.
I know clearly that's not the case with KFI, Right,
So it's possible that in this situation, maybe his office
was scared that it would be painted unfavorably. I'm not

(41:31):
gonna lie. You're saying this, This shouldn't be happening. What's
the alternative, you know, because unless this is what happened,
KFI was not banned from attending and covering this event.

Speaker 1 (41:43):
Well, and here's the thing I'm asking you for your outlet.
Let's let's leave KFI out of the equation, because we
have our own way of getting back at people. So
but and I mean, that's what our talk shows are for.
So but on the news side, in your newsroom, you're
left out of this. What's your play?

Speaker 8 (42:02):
Well, again, clearly there's a reason behind it.

Speaker 3 (42:05):
I might have to evaluate the history of how I've
reported this situation, you know, see what was it that
got me, I guess uninvited or lack of invitation from
the start, and then you maybe examine the journalistic integrity
of what I'm working with. But at the end of
the day, it's it's the decision of whoever's putting on

(42:27):
this event whether or not to invite me.

Speaker 8 (42:29):
I can not. I cannot control that.

Speaker 3 (42:31):
All I can control is how I cover the things
that I do get to cover, and doing that with
the most honesty and the most integrity possible, I think
is about all you can do in this situation, right,
I would argue that you know there, what.

Speaker 8 (42:47):
Can you do?

Speaker 1 (42:49):
Well? Let me well, he asks the question. Let's see
if you guys have an answer to that. What can
you do if you were exempt from an event featuring
the governor taking care of you know, dealing with a
very high profile event, how do you deal with it?

Speaker 6 (43:06):
Take it to him and ask him why there was
How do you take it to him? Ask asked his cabinet,
ask him, get get in contact with somebody as to
why we were not invited to this thing? Because I'm sorry.
When I don't, I don't look as a reflection like
within like oh, the journalistic integory. I'm working like I

(43:27):
know my Steff's on hit. As a journalist, that's that's
my job, That's what I aspire to do, That's what
I do. They're clearly trying to cover something up. More
often than not, when a when a political official says
that they can't or some people can't attend because oh,
you're not invited whatever, it's just it's it's not right,
it's not responsible, it's not what America is built off of.

Speaker 1 (43:50):
Kaya do you think it's fair for a government agency
or any publicly funded agency to uh, you know, not
include all members of the media because they don't want
hard questions.

Speaker 2 (44:03):
Well, I think there's a world where you can try
to be included, and you know, maybe if you're not invited,
you can still try see if they turn you down.
But no, I mean it's not fair in a way.
I mean I understand why they would do it, like
why someone would want to paint themselves in a certain way.

(44:25):
I mean there are times where I'd be walking around
campus and I thought, maybe I shouldn't walk by this
this building. I just wrote something about them, just about
the cafeteria workers. They might be mad at me, but
you know, I do it anyway.

Speaker 1 (44:38):
Well, in this particular case, you know, the only recourse
is just to sort of out the behavior. But I
think it's always interesting when a you know, a government entity,
they pick their friendlies. And that's really what that's what
it boils down to, is they're picking their friendlies because
they know they don't want it to turn into a circus.

(44:58):
Possibly they don't want it to get I don't want
to put the governor position where he's having to defend
his decisions. And the other thing, too, is that governor's
subject to being asked about all kinds of things, not
just for the event that they're doing, but he's subject
to being asked about the budget and about everything else.
So uh yeah, it's kind of interesting how they control
access like that so they can control the message. So

(45:19):
we'll wrap up that topic when we come back, we'll
introduce a new topic. To contact the show, just email
us Studio six forty at iHeartMedia dot com. That's Studio
six forty at iHeartMedia dot com. Welcome back to is
Studio six forty. I'm Steve Gregory. Our next topic the
time of remembrance and strength as we contemplate the wildfire

(45:41):
that took Lehina and one hundred and two line. For many,
it's been a year of suffering and uncertainty. This week
is offering a chance for the community to come together
to grieve and to continue healing. Ahoo America, Ohana Lua
Kei More is on the way from Oahu.

Speaker 9 (46:02):
There are people suffering, and there's at all kinds of
levels and a pain that I can't understand, but you
just have to be there.

Speaker 1 (46:12):
Put Navigator Ninolah Thompson and a small crew set sail
without fanfare aboard the Hoku this afternoon destination Lina.

Speaker 9 (46:21):
We are going to sail there quietly, and hopefully the
community will understand that our presence are just about.

Speaker 1 (46:29):
Respect, respect, but also holl for those who lost so much.
The first year was about survival. The second year will
be about rebuilding. We want to see everyone heel and
we know it's going to take so much time. That
is the Hawaii Governor, Josh Green. We're talking about the
fires that happened a year ago August on the island
of Maui and Lahaina. The historic town was decimated and

(46:53):
they're still in recovery mode. Have any of you ever
had any experience covering a disaster?

Speaker 4 (46:58):
Can't say that I have no.

Speaker 1 (47:00):
Have you seen coverage of disasters? Yes? Yes, yes, Now
as future journalists does the does covering a disaster excite you?
Is this something you look forward to doing?

Speaker 6 (47:11):
I'd say yes, but maybe my reasons are a little
bit different from everybody else's. It's it's I don't almost
say it excites me, but it's something to that effect
because I get to sort of help people in a way.
You report something, you you you report the devastation, people
that need water, food, housing, whatever the case may be

(47:33):
I get to report that, and I get to notify
government officials in the public of what these people need,
so in a way, I'm helping them.

Speaker 4 (47:40):
That's what excites me about it.

Speaker 2 (47:42):
I think any new, big story is exciting. It's I've
noticed since I started school, every time I see a
news report or something big happens, my first immediate thought
is I want to print this in the newspaper, even
if I'm not printing a newspaper. But yeah, I mean,
obviously things like this can be tragic, hard to report,
but it is exciting if you're picked to do that

(48:03):
and do that service journalism.

Speaker 1 (48:05):
Cam have you ever, I mean, are you that familiar
with what happened on Mali a year ago?

Speaker 3 (48:11):
I am slightly yes, the line of fires, and I
am not familiar, however, with the aftermath what's taking place
in the last year, because you know, after the big
influx of coverage and support and all these donations go
fundmes being set up, I really hadn't heard much since then.

Speaker 1 (48:30):
What is the role do you think? And Horney kind
of went there a little bit, but what do you
think your role as a journalist is covering a disaster
and at least in the initial stages, what would you
think is your is your role?

Speaker 3 (48:42):
Well, yeah, you did mention you you know, let the
public know that these people need help, truthful about what's
going on, and expose the what's happening, so that people
who might want to provide support and these government officials
who might want to help are informed of this. You know,
beyond that, obviously, it's not like after two weeks and

(49:04):
after the fires were put out, everything was a okay.
But you know, judging from at least from what I've
seen my frequenting of news websites and how the press
really died down, that isn't what happened. So your duty
as a media outlet is going to be, in part,
I think, conflicted by putting what the people want to see. So,

(49:27):
you know, if you if you cover Hawaii and put
out a story every single day about here's what's happening,
here's how many people have been affected, you know, something
like sixty percent of people in the year since the
fires have moved at least three times in Hawaii, And
if you had coverage of it every time something was happening,
Eventually you're not going to invoke the woes and the

(49:49):
wows and stuff you get from the breaking news when
it was first covered. People are going to hear that,
and it's just kind of a sigh of.

Speaker 1 (49:57):
Well, you're talking about you're talking about coverage fatigue. That's
what we talk about a lot a lot of times
in wildfires and things like that. After a certain amount
of time, your your audience is like, Okay, enough, we
get it, it's burned, it's you know, people have died,
we get it. Let's move on. And it's it's it's
that sad attention deficit that the general population has and

(50:18):
they get over it really quickly. But here's the other angle,
especially with the fires on Mali and not knowing how
much research you all did on it, but what about
the cause of the fire? Liability, responsibility, culpability, did anybody
What do you think the role of journalism is there?

Speaker 2 (50:40):
I mean, I think going back like what we're doing
now a year anniversary, and then maybe using it as
a jumping off point to talk about why it happened,
Why you know, California is burning up, why is that?
And the cause is and effects of that as well.

Speaker 1 (50:55):
Have you any of you ever covered a wildfire or
looked at doing anything with the wildfire.

Speaker 2 (51:00):
Experienced a few, but never covered.

Speaker 1 (51:03):
You've experienced a few, lived in California my whole life.

Speaker 8 (51:05):
That's true.

Speaker 1 (51:06):
Yeah, that's true. But when you think about the role
of journalism, and you know, you guys are in a
very unique market because this is a very busy area,
and even you and at ASU on campus there, Phoenix
is a very busy market, Phoenix, Tempee. I worked there
five years before I got here, so I know how
busy that market is. As student journalists, I don't know

(51:28):
what your limitations are, and I don't know what you
get sent out to, but you have the ability to
cover a lot of really cool stuff here even before
you become a professional start getting paid to be a journalist.
If you've watched these disasters before, whether they're fires, earthquakes,
or floods, does does any one of these disasters like

(51:49):
float your boat? Is any one of these disasters something
like you wish you could cover this? Has anything ever
caught your eye like that? Uh say again, all of it?
All of it?

Speaker 2 (51:59):
Yeah, I mean I'm still new to it, to journalism
in general, but anything that is exciting or breaking or
really has an effect on people is exciting. To me.

Speaker 1 (52:10):
But when you're in the throes of a breaking news
story and you also have to look out for your
own safety, absolutely you're still excited about that. Yeah, Okay,
we'll pick up the conversation in just a moment, but
I want to let everyone know. If you or someone
you know wants to be a part of the student panel,
just go to KFIAM six forty dot com slash studio. Also,
you can follow the show on your favorite social media platforms.

(52:33):
You can find us at Studio six forty underscore. That's
Studio six forty Underscore. You can also find us on
our YouTube channel. Just search for Studio six forty. That's
Studio six forty. Welcome back. This is Studio six forty.
I'm Steve Gregory. Before the break, we were talking about
the wildfires on the island of Maui in August of

(52:54):
twenty twenty three that killed one hundred two people and
destroy twenty two hundred homes and buildings, and we were
talking in you know, you all said that you've never
really had to personally cover a disaster yet, because I'm
sure in your career you will. Other than you are heye,
the only disaster you might be covering is that the
stadium ran out of beer. But when it comes down

(53:20):
to it, you know, it's one of the most exhilarating
things you can ever cover, and it's also one of
the scariest things you can ever cover. So Cam before
the break, you know, Kanye was talking a little bit
about how she's excited to get in there and start
doing that kind of thing, and do you share the
same view.

Speaker 3 (53:38):
Yeah, I mean we're kind of dancing around this whole
concept of excitement because obviously nobody wants disasters to be Yeah,
gets understood, but the ones that are inherent, for example,
like earthquakes or you know, wildfires like this, I think
what entices me about it, and the really exciting aspect

(53:59):
is the fact that you get to cover it for
the sake of awareness and help keep other people safe
for future events. Especially I have an experienced one, but
on the East Coast there's a lot of hurricanes, and
covering these hurricanes, getting really into the nitty gritty of
what people are experiencing can help others in that same area,
you know, prepare themselves better for when something inevitably comes

(54:21):
up like it again.

Speaker 6 (54:22):
Yeah, And I guess the most exciting part about this
as you were talking about accountability earlier in the second
and I mean, there's been so many California wildfires that
have been started by some buffoon and lighting up fireworks
in the middle of the grass, or whether it's in
Maui when somebody left an old car tired, you know
it started something there.

Speaker 4 (54:42):
So it's like.

Speaker 6 (54:43):
Holding people accountable, I find is what thrills me. I'm
not so worried about stepping on eggshells like a lot
of people.

Speaker 2 (54:52):
I think the thrill also even goes past disasters. Anytime
there was a big story, it was exciting. Anytime or
professor someone came with a budget note that was big,
and even if it was bad, if it was about
if the campus or bad for us as students, it
was exciting. There was always a part of us as
journalists that were like, yay, we got something to write about.

Speaker 1 (55:12):
Now. The cool thing about where you're at in your
lives and career is that you're very pure right now, okay.
And I say that because as you start to get
into this this little world of journalism and this is
this is leading up to a question, and it cam
made me think of it because you was talking about

(55:32):
the hurricanes back east. Do you think it's important to
stand out in middle of a hurricane and scream into
a microphone? Is that is that real journalism? Oh?

Speaker 3 (55:45):
Here's the thing is what people see makes them less inclined.
I guess I probably wasn't a good way to start it.
But for example, my you know, recently where I'm from,
my hometown, there pretty tragic shooting and as a result
of that, a lot of people I know have said
they've taken precautions to be more safe when going outside.

(56:08):
And you know, my mom texts me and she says,
you know, don't ride the train at night and.

Speaker 8 (56:11):
Things like this.

Speaker 3 (56:12):
So if you can, you know, somebody on TV sees
a guy reporters standing out almost getting blown into the
wind in the rain, that's gonna, you know, raise the fear.
And fear is a human instinct that is designed to protect.
I think this protects people.

Speaker 1 (56:27):
Do you think that not showing the roofs coming off
of holmes does the same thing.

Speaker 3 (56:33):
I think you should show the roofs coming off of homes.
I mean obviously there's nothing really you can do to.

Speaker 1 (56:38):
Yeah, Al Roker standing there in watching the rain in
him like fighting with the wind and he's screaming into
his microphone with his you know, his Columbia coat on
with the NBC logo and screaming, And don't you think
that a lot of this is performance.

Speaker 2 (56:52):
I think for a lot of viewers it add some
validity where they look and they're like, well, he's actually
experiencing it.

Speaker 4 (56:58):
Maybe you know, Okay.

Speaker 2 (57:00):
He's going through it, and it's almost a level of
respect I could see some people having where you know,
if he's willing to stand out there and give us
the news, tell us what's going on firsthand, then we'll
listen to him.

Speaker 1 (57:14):
See that's the difference. I said you were pure because
you haven't been grizzled and jaded. Yet I look at it.
I see it differently. I see it as you know,
the one thing that uh, and I don't want. I'm
not My job's not to be your mentor or anything
or your professor. I just would I almost always lived
by this, don't be the story, just cover it.

Speaker 3 (57:35):
Yeah, So I would argue, you don't need a guy
standing there, you know, if you have a shot of
the houses and what's going on, that's great.

Speaker 1 (57:43):
Well, I mean you still need you still need the
conduit of information from the scene back to the public.
And that's what we are. We're the conduit. We're not
we're not the stars.

Speaker 6 (57:52):
The I think a good example of this is David Muhr.
Anytime he's covering a tragedy or something that's like intense
to whatever, he's making.

Speaker 1 (58:00):
His perfect hair and yeah you mean that, David Muir, Yeah.

Speaker 6 (58:04):
David Muir. He's a good reporter. He makes it about
the story. You see the footage of whatever's going on.
It's not Oh I'm David Muir. I'm standing in the
middle of the rain, like we get it. It's raining, dude.

Speaker 1 (58:15):
That's well. I mean how many times you've ever seen
reporters that are if you've seen the one where the
CNN reporter was standing in the ditch and it's like
up to their waist in water, and then the people
were walking by and they basically found the deepest part
to stand in to Basically it became a prop and
a setup.

Speaker 2 (58:34):
I mean this, I think it brings up the difference
between telling a story and exploiting a story too.

Speaker 1 (58:40):
Well, that's what that's where I was headed. It was
exploiting a story and it becomes performance. And I agree
with you Cam when you say that it's our job
to exhibit and you know, implore people to take precautions
and tell them the severity of the situation. But at
what expense, I mean, do you do should you go
out there and actually stage the scene?

Speaker 4 (59:03):
No, yeah, we're not at the movies.

Speaker 1 (59:06):
This is news. Well yeah, but there's some journalists out
there that didn't get that memo. But you know, the
thing is, I'm excited for you guys to be able
to go out there and get your first big one
like that, because it is a thrill. It is very exciting,
but it's also it's exhilarating, but it can be very
very daunting. Just put it that way, because and then

(59:32):
when you get to be put in that position where
the public is counting on you, they are counting on
you to tell them what's important. They're counting on you
to tell them if they're going to be safe or not.
That's an awful, big responsibility. And with that brings to
the close of another episode of Studio six forty. Can't

(59:53):
thank you enough for being here. We're going to go
offline here in a minute and do our podcast episode.
But again, Cam Jorge, thanks a lot for being here.
Much appreciate it.

Speaker 8 (01:00:02):
Thank you, thank thank you for having us.

Speaker 1 (01:00:07):
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 Kintaro.
The opinions expressed on this program are those of the
guests and do not necessarily reflect the views of KFI,
iHeartMedia or its affiliates.