good afternoon, everybody. we are thrilled to welcome here a very important conversation at a pretty consequential time. a news industry, the country, the world. i met someone earlier today that

flew from sydney australia. the actual genesis of the meeting of this gathering was a few months ago when jeff's basals killed the presidential endorsement featured nine days before the election. there was a huge uproar, of course, politically about killing the harris endorsement, but i remember calling and saying i'm angry for a different reason. jeff basals is probably one of the greatest in the world. a disrupter, new thinker and visionary.

we are thrilled to convene such an amazing group of leaders. we are obviously not going to solve this question, but we can do a few things. grounded in data where we stand on this issue. we will hear from broad and very, very high level ray of leaders. and also hear from rentacar, the new chairman not just consequential but the heart of controversial and very relevant discussions. i get to stir the tables on our editor-in-chief. as everyone knows, a well-known

media writer that has been looking at these issues for a long time. in your view, how did we get here? >> i think it's funny. it is very easy to say it started in 2004 with dan rather. the hunter biden laptop or ultimately managers of media companies screwed everything up. when you hold back fast technological shift. totally remaking the industry. ultimately, a deep shift that they did not create and we are all living with. >> i quit the new york times and i quit bloomberg. we met my apartment in new york. the first question was, well, how can we rethink journalism or the design of journalism, the

gathering, the expression of it in order to try to move this question. what has worked, what has not worked, what have you learned? >> i mean, i guess the core thing is could we break down this sort of news and opinion and analysis in a way that pushes them forward now pulls them out. framing a new way of doing stories and also gives us a sophisticated view on what they think. you know who the reporter is, you know where it is coming from bringing in views from other point of use. a level of humility that we all need in terms of our own rules. >> how do you think that it is actually working. in this town right now, peak polarization, how is it landing?

>> too soon to tell. i do think that that approach right now where maybe no one is persuading anybody of anything right now, i think there's a real opportunity to help people understand how the other side is thinking. out the other many sides are thinking. i think that is a lot of what we deal. letting people and on their own blind spot. doge a good example. a few that it is a tool to destroy the democrats. yes, it is a tool to destroy government and tear down the administrative state. a project to cut costs. i think understanding more perspectives. understanding the different views. honestly held as pretty important. >> you built the newsroom from scratch. how did the choice of journalists, how did this

mission impact to you chose to join. >> i think that that is a thing about this moment where independent journalists voices at the very front and center. two of the big stars will be here later. it is actually, i think, in the old days you could just hire a bunch of maniacs and tell them to keep their opinions to themselves. now i think there's a lot more transparency. approaching them with an open mind. you have a lot of work to do this afternoon. go take a rest for a few minutes before we kick it off, i want to thank the foundation who has been a wonderful partner in doing this. lots of framework. also think and also introduce the gallup organization, this is

gallup civil headquarters and jim clifton is the chairman and i will ask him to come up to the stage to set the table from a data perspective on the question of trusted news. welcome and thank you. [applause] when you look at the contrast of trust and other institutions, a different picture. do you want to talk a little bit about it? >> congratulations. the timing is incredible for this. a very meaningful moment in journalism and history.

you asked me for a slide here. i made two. >> the crowd thanks you for that >> a good idea. the very seriousness i think about today. i put down the three branches. judicial, executive. that is the lowest those three have been. how long are they at measuring. >> back in 1970. >> 55 years. >> i was going to say, that sort of the soul of democracy or the soul of government. judicial executive.

all of us here back there, we are supposed to be the watchdogs . the watchdog is the least trusted institution in this whole town. >> in this country. >> in this country. if you look at the bars, i have them right here so i can see them. fair amount. that is pretty easy. that bottom one is a single 8% unit 8% of the people have a great deal of trust or the media that is just below congress which is for. very problematic when you think about how is our democracy doing will it be okay? the current state of media in this country is either and very last-place or second to last

place compared to every single institution including police, small business, big business, higher education, anything you can think of. the people here working on this are dead last or second to dead last with trust from the citizens. >> unbelievable. i think congress for a long time was beneath media. media has fallen beneath congress. what is interesting, i know you have another slide and i want to do here. i would say the conversation, the broad conversation is this is all happened across the last couple of years, social media, polarization, political systems, divisions, et cetera. walk us through the history of

this trend. >> that is why it is so important. saying one question. one statistic. feeling without question a long time ago. all of the break rooms and location and the direction of the speed. i think most people think there was a crash on msnbc and fox and all of that. that train started coming back in about 1972 when media was the most trusted single institution. they did a pool, it was not gallup, the single most trusted person, leader in america. guess who it was? >> what year?

>> 72. that was the golden era. breaking the big scam. then it started coming down. i was thinking about the team. mainstream news is very neutral. he pulled it off for a long time that is one readers opinion the neck it almost seemed to decline rhythmically during election cycles. right? >> i think so. in studying trust in other institutions, are there examples of these sorts of trendlines vomiting out? is there any precedent for saving this really difficult

picture? >> that is fixable. that is very hard. you don't want to see our trends , the aggression coming straight down like that. you would rather have someone like this. when leaders do pull it off, yapped at the right strategy. that is not to reverse it. you cannot do it. get it headed the right way. that is been very hard to deal. in those questions turning it around. coming back any time we have a dip, that is real bad. this was 40 points. almost nothing had a 40-point i think that is why it is so important that you guys are

doing this and spending time on it. somebody does need to fix this. >> thank you so much for setting the table here. appreciated. [applause] the mac our media editor, i think you are up next. >> ladies and gentlemen please welcome chairman and ceo of cnn worldwide and the media editor. [applause] >> thank you for coming. you may have heard some of what we were listening to backstage. you have seen some of the numbers about trusting media. you and i both heard 1 million times trusted media will improve if only we report without fear or favor. people will trust us, audiences will trust us.

is there any evidence that that is actually true? >> i do. i don't know if i am a representative example. >> i am a journalist. i have spent my entire life questioning and trying to compare and figure out what i should believe in what i should not believe. i think where i differ from i think quite a few people certainly legacy media. the differential to media. there was an age of deference it would be automatically believed because it was a great institution. i think additional document eyes asian and also disruption of

deference and politics has left any people probably now somewhat more on the right and the left but that will probably change. another year more the left and the right becoming much more questioning. i look forward to having a positive, but quite challenging and critical regime. i think, you know, use a box of kleenex to dry our eyes about lots of traditional trust. it is always the more adult relationship. guarding the sheep. who believe everything that we say. who we need to kind of raise our

connect to qualified trust. >> certainly do have plenty of people that are challenging the point of use in the mass media. is that possible that that mission has been accomplished obviously. people are plenty skeptical. do you think that at some point it does become detrimental and toxic? >> i think that it depends on where it comes from. it can be overdone. it is a complicated story. we have heard. i have seen this in the numbers. elections is kind of a moment where maybe you see a step down. lynn moore trusted on average by voting democrat and independence

i think with television players tv cable players, the most mixed audience about, if you think about one in five of our television viewers being republican, probably ask them. and we have lots of independent and a slight majority of people that are democrat. in the last treasury in the election, a spike up in trust specifically from our republican audience. that would overrule probably the highest in 25. so you can make it look and feel and maybe at the population level a one-way slide.

i think that it was quite a dynamic thing and i think the choices you make and in particular the way you present yourself as open-minded and fair-minded, you could win the audiences over. i don't want an audience that is not engaging in an active thoughtful way. i think and. >> is there something that you guys as leaders have seen, proactively did too, you know. >> the idea that we as a brand first and foremost the provider of news and we sometimes. if it is you and it happened be

the latest actions in the trump administration or be at the wildfires in los angeles, we will be the best place to get that in pictures on the ground reporting and a fair-minded approach to it, so not to conjure up. >> i'm not saying the opinion is a bad thing to do, i am saying it is the dna and of cnn to focus on new journalism. the more we do that, the more we convince ourselves and they convince the world that is our central mission. by the way, make sure that in that endeavor, we are trying very, very hard to be accurate. >> not quite yet. not yet. [laughter] >> these things take time. you convince people that you stand for something.

whatever can. >> on the opinion point, cnn ratings have not necessarily rebounded since the inauguration . have not necessarily rebounded the same way msnbc have. famously leaning cnn into this kind of resisted program. is that that that you made recently as you will give up on some of those tv ratings to regain trust with republicans? >> no. the purpose is to say what the focus is for. absolutely believe that in a crowded world, staying true to your brand and what you stand for is the best strategy. this is a moment where aggregated journalists around a brand have better have a logic to it in a better feel like you

are doing something and which is helping you reach out to larger aggregate spirit 150 million plus people coming to us every month. only a small minority, by the way. and, they are coming to us for news. and, you know, we have this great legacy platform, clay bowl -- cable tv. the future of cnn in the growth of cnn will not happen on that platform. it will happen by what the company does in finding the right products and services and platforms to reach out to global audiences and u.s. audiences and i would argue, principally, doing some non-news and news adjacently and some lifestyle and all of that. the principal offering being

around a very classic view of what cnn wants us to do which is not to press opinions. >> so, on the digital point, that has been a big part. kind of making that digital transition. jim acosta rated pretty well. recently left cnn to go to sub stack. the early numbers suggest that has been pretty great. several hundred thousand people that have already subscribed. what is a benefit of letting someone like that leave you clearly does have a digital audience and is proving already that they are digital news. >> we were making a change as you know. >> was he wrong to think that the midnight slot, i mean -- >> jim has every right to make

his own mind up about this. you should ask him kind of why he did that, but i want to say is, firstly, the idea, you know, someone that literally wanted the set up, you have mainly coming on to talk, again, someone you should welcome the fact that you do not just have you develop a journalistic career with a big brand. we cannot be gatekeepers. i do not want to be a gate keeper. similar the idea of startups, you have a new take interesting example. the idea of more choice for the public on how they get news and new platforms, i think to be welcomed for the choice of the public, the issue for an established brand would start off at one platform and how you

make sure that you thought hard about what is the merit for journalists coming to work for you. who do you want, how many different ways can they reach their audiences. honestly, look at licks. i mean, clearly, people want to make a tv drama just raising the money themselves in distributing it themselves. it kind of makes more sense to aggregate sometimes and to be a big department store where you can come in and you can find whatever you want. the same thing as the documentary there, comedy there, classic duvets, one modern movie , hbo, new products and so

on. aggregated for the convenience of the public. no role for the new york times. because some of these have a successful sub stack is a simplified way of looking at the world. >> i want to ask one question we do not have that much time left it i want to ask one question about a lot of people here in washington this week, the big media story is what happened yesterday with the washington post. jeff bezos announcing he wants to make some pretty serious changes to the opinion section there. >> absolutely. that is absolutely something. >> that is true. >> accessing your legacy media. >> i think that that is true, obviously, something that influences elite opinion.

it is obviously quite important. i am curious, do you think jeff bezos will help restore trust? >> look. is it a good idea, is it i feel to have very important media assets including important providers of news by individuals , whoever they are? >> i feel like it is a disaster, generally, because people have so much choice. different ownership models including newcomers and entrepreneurs, to sitting in the front row. that have got it together. the demise of going dark or going to some big media brand, that is obviously not that. there is plenty of rising.

>> one of the reasons, you know, i think that models like the bbc which i ran and liked the new york times, the majority is a family trust. those are attractive models to how you ensure quality independence as a journalism. but they are hard to construct from scratch and in countries which are largely, largely based on free market forces in media it is difficult unless you've got a killer business model. even at times making sure the times had a viable long-range business model with itself violent underpinning of the times is independence.

cnn, to me, the way that you guarantee a global force, fair-minded accurate news is by developing a business model for cnn which cannot survive despite the rapid collapse. >> we are out of time. i would love to talk about the rapid collapse of the cable ecosystem even more but will have to leave it there. >> thank you so much. ♪♪ >> megan kelly, hosted the megan kelly show and then smith. ♪♪ gmac one network you have not

worked for, i guess, that ship has sailed. >> out for lack of trying. >> thank you for joining us. that was all about you. and you are now almost uniquely free. you have a big media past. you are not working or big corporation. you are working for your self. one of the things you are able to do was appear on stage with president trump on november 4, my birthday, in pittsburgh and said president trump that, list the reasons you are voting for them, lots to do with masculinity which own ask you about later. i want to know how you think about that in terms of did it compromise you as a journalist, did it make people trust you more? >> i never would've done that when i was doing straight news. that would've been totally inappropriate. it was a new bridge to cross for

me in whatever lane i am in now which is a hybrid and the invite came in from team trump and i talked to my husband about it and i was like, wow, they want me to do this and i really think that i want to do it and, doug, who is very smart was like i don't know if you should, you are still in this other lane. it is crossing a rubicon in a way and i said, honey, i do not know what to say other than i really feel called to do it. too many things that are too important to me to wear if i can make a difference on this and i did not and he loses, i will never forgive myself. protection of children with the gender madness. i say this every day on my show, what is the difference between doing that and going out and saying it next to him in a way that would get potentially even more pickup. from the second i said yes to the second i.c.e. finished speaking for them i felt totally elated and i have not second-guessed that decision one

time. >> do you worry that they cannot trust you? >> no, not at all. our numbers are huge. i know you just had cnn on. in january last month, on their youtube feed they got 155 million euros and we were 147 million. just me. >> is your cost structure slightly lower? >> just me and my six producers versus every show on cnn and youtube. i was within six or 7 million of them. the month of election, november, i beat them. i beat all of them. cbs, nbc, i beat them all. abc, cbs, nbc, all of them. i'm not having a trust issue. >> some people in this room are very dire, do they wear you as a

citizen or in some sense benefiting from this environment in which people are losing trust in everyone else. >> well, that is an interesting question. to some extent, it is sad. i am formally of legacy media and i am sad that it has decided to go this way. i was making it in the media and would be doing just fine if i were in it now. i do not feel like my own success depends on them failing. but, i think the country would be better off if we had the old version of cnn and the more original version of msnbc. it is fine, we are where we are, i like the fact that we are all getting more honest, it is what it is, cnn pretty open. >> that is not what i heard just now. >> he will not say it. who was a conservative post in the cnn primetime. anyone?

one panelist does not make your network. >> he was trying to say they are trying to get out of the opinion business. >> they could do that. they could but it would require firing everyone. that would be like saying tomorrow please try to be more fair and balanced. she somehow manages to do it and she's neutral right down the middle. no one will believe that. they already know what her biases and that it's a position which cnn finds itself. it did this to itself. it was a travesty. i watched it happen. it only got worse in the four years after i left. >> you want that something that stuck with me in a private conversation about the challenge of you have very strong views of the media. you are able to do some of your own reporting more than people on youtube but ultimately

information on the people you are criticizing. >> i do not say that media has no purpose. especially local reporters have no purpose. you find all the great stories and local news. they are losing money and that is a first ago. so, i do not say the new york times has no value. i would not agree with that but i do think it is a travesty that we have over there is brett stevens for an alternate point of view. every single piece, we know what it is going to be. it's got to the point where even seasoned journalists, probably everyone in this room trust cannot even read a paper anymore that is wrong. something has gone wrong. he does not want to pick it up for information because he thinks that. >> a lot of those stats come from the new york times. things like that. >> or from the pool. >> or from the pool. >> yeah, sure.

i'm not saying there is no need for actual reporters are going gather information. to have virtually every publication in the country be established leftist is bad for the country and it is what led to the rise of digital media and a more diverse field of independent broadcasters who are pushing back against that. >> on a business object, just acquiring a company that produces advertising for the megan kelly show. very brilliant guy named chris. >> he does not produce my show. >> they are very intertwined and have been very central to the creation of this. although they do not control the programming. i'm curious when he calls you and says we are going back to fox, is that an awkward phone call, do you care. >> everything that is good for him i am in favor of. he has worked so hard for so many years. good for him.

what it means for me is now instead of him fox news will be selling my ads. it is almost irrelevant to me. it is fine, probably better to get along with dan not to, but it is a complicated relationship i would just say, the differences and you headed in your podcast with chris, they work for me now, i do not work for them. they cannot control anything i say or do. >> do you ever think it would be better if he had a producer like in the old days? >> you assume too much on how it used to work with me at fox. the whole thing is collaborative if i say something wrong, and, of course, i do, i just go back out there and tear screwed that up, let me correct. the audience is extremely loyal. they know you. podcasting is very unique. they tune in. i talk about how i recommended

the covid vaccine without questions. i really felt strongly that if there was something a significant strain of negativity around it that they would own it and fix it and i was very wrong about that and i've owned it openly. >> we will not get to the bottom of this one in the next three minutes and 45 seconds. years ago protesters went to tucker carlson's home, you called it stomach turning and said it has to stop. talking to another broadcaster the other night, one thing megan does is go after other people really personally. agreement not to attack each other personally. >> google megan kelly nbc and tell me if the journalists do not go after each other publicly >> put up or shut up, basically. real estate about her home.

i'm curious, she have any compunction and that being personal? >> i would never give out her address. it does not compare to what happened to tucker in any way shape or follower. rachel got out there and try to act like i'm a woman of the working class i'm here to represent the poor staffers that could lose their job now meanwhile she is collecting $25 million a year. multiple homes worth millions. why don't you take a $2 million pay cut in tape some of those jobs. just tell them amy 23 million next year instead of 25. she will not do it. she wants to see virtuous and sanctimonious but in fact she is only the letter because she will not put any money on the land. this exorbitant life that she leads. the jobs i've worked. her hypocrisy. >> sometimes i watch clips, may be more like the very heated --

the mother of elon musk's latest child, i wonder the medium that you are in now, the views that you've talked about mostly the viral cliffs. the bulk of youtube will always be an incredible monologue that went viral. do you feel like you are misshaped by the media, pushed into these more heated monologues, i don't know, something about the kind of monologue about it trying to go viral. >> no confrontational segments. >> that is just who i am. >> by the way what i said about elon musk's partner and the baby would have been nothing, but she decided to go public and then play the victim. >> you and after her. >> here's the thing. for purpose. you should listen to what i said we see these young women trying to or successfully hooking up

with these millionaires and billionaires. if you want to do that, go for it. don't you dare turn around and asked me to look at you. remind them if you want the lavish medicine. i want privacy in her photo shoot. earn it. go get a job. work weekends. due the shady jobs nobody else will do. on top of that, you could meet a man that wants to marry you and build a family with you. when you make those terrible choices don't go to the new york poster twitter asking me to feel sorry for you, because i don't. >> final question. >> a couple of abrupt decisions.

>> i guess closer to week because he is doing what we did. he is bending the knee. the same trip tomorrow lago. just days else for years up until about two weeks ago imploring jennifer rubin at the washington post. he has not had a change of heart nobody loves mark her than me. you are not even true diehard. >> do you think that they help us when points? >> with respect to trump when you go to him and you tell him i likely you which is clearly what he did. >> i think he will be fine. that does not make any difference at all for somebody

like me. i am like, i am really pleased to have come around to the value of individual liberties because they were written right into the bill of rights 100 years ago. welcome to the party. >> also the free market. thank you so much for joining us ♪♪ >> please welcome brett their hosted geopolitical anchor of special report and remaining on stage to lead this interview. >> nice to see you. you ever get tired of dealing with management and think i'm going to youtube? >> no. no i don't. >> just wondering if it's ever crossed your mind. thank you so much for joining us i will just jump right in. we've talked a little bit about social media.

the way in which it distorts our business. i just want to preface the opinion person. not your responsibility, not your department. somebody said something on social media. musk retweets it. fox broadcasted. >> how do any of us avoid the last tail being lagged. the last and that machine that deals with some random tweet. >> how that information travels fast. this environment, social media environment is automatic. my job of six-seven person had tried to prevent those from getting through. there are lots that come at you.

we have different jobs. working under the same umbrella. it is, you know, it is a different world now than it was. >> something about the way that he described it. it takes a lot of control away from us. he is to be the quarterback and now you're the goalie or something. is there anything sitting in the chair you said, you are probably the most influential news anchor in america every night at this point. >> just put it in your next book this is antitrust. someone like you, someone moving the needle. or are we all just sort of reacting. >> what i think more people do

is keeping people out of it. keep the emotion out of covering the news. i think over time, over the years, that is been a problem in some people got emotional about it and went and lost half of the audience. >> isn't that what drives ratings? >> for my job, the emotion of covering something, you represent both sides hear both sides. i think if you build it, they will come works. i took over 16 years ago in the anchor chair. you know, i am trying to do big news stories. this week i had a manual macron on monday. uk prime minister today. i have a live interview with zelensky tomorrow after his meeting with president trump.

this is big stuff. big news events that i think that should drive a lot of news coverage and not the controversy of the day. >> by the way, we are all jealous. probably being watched by the president. >> the white house decision. till block the aps access. also the makeup play take control. the correspondence association. this is a reordering. we will have to see how it shakes out. it will be the same kind of thing.

tv network still doing the same job. i worry about setting precedents that changes things down the road and maybe they do not realize the implications of it. i think they are talking about more transparency. you cannot argue that this white house is not answering questions and opening up. i think he had 1100 questions in the first month. >> a power struggle. >> who controls access to the president. >> 100%. >> do you think media deserves us to have control over who gets sent to follow him around. >> we stood by the ap. we signed a letter of the network standing by, not blocking somebody for editorial decisions. i have stood up for cnn when they were not in a pool, standing up for fox. >> just making it explicit.

it would have been different times, yeah. we set precedent. i think it's something you have to be concerned about. >> a bunch of these controversies always i think. in a way that the audience may not love. kind of micro- prerogatives in the white house. >> i will say, telling the story about that is not something people care about and middle america. >> this is not a thing you talk about. >> this process is very washington. >> very boring. are you worried that your audience will be upset? >> it was a bigger story. if somebody cared about how the white house press pool would operate, it is big here in washington. it is very process he.

>> i would think that there is a sense across the media that is certainly true. at times the network is scared of its audience. their things the audience is so passionate about president trump if you say something negative about president trump maybe you avoid saying it at all. do you feel that pressure? >> no. we've done stories that are positive and negative. i've been on the backend of tweets of president trump. at a pretty contentious interview last time. not the super bowl one, but the one before that. you cover it both ways. i want to come away tough but fair. that is it. sometimes you look at my ex account and sally says you're in the tank for trump and bob says you are such an anti-trumper.

bob meet sally and sally bob. i will just cover the news. watch fox than any other network we have had our largest ratings boom in the past month. it is crazy numbers. over 5 million viewers. i'm getting 4 million at 6:00 o'clock in the evening. so, not getting those numbers all because you are doing things cookie-cutter. each one of us covers things differently. >> an extremely busy day and some other giant interview. he said, maybe he was not at your show but certainly looking at primetime and msnbc he said the only ways to get ratings his opinions. are you basically willing to sacrifice tv ratings in order to

rebuild the brand that is away from opinion. mark i think is making the case. we will do news and people will watch it. what advice would you have for him? >> i really do not want to give him that much advice. [laughter] i'm kind of happy with the equation right now. [laughter] listen, the format we have on my show seems to work. it is like a network newscast in the first 30 minutes. a lot of interviews that drive news and then a panel that analyzes it. i'm trying to get a balanced panel of left, right and trump. >> those are the three sides. >> left, center, trump. >> the three genders. [laughter] you, i think, personally, and

you cannot really acknowledge this in a way but you straddled a very complicated line. a central casted news man at a network truly defined. huge opinion personalities that burst into flames and igniting go elsewhere. tucker megan to big cost -- two big broadcasters in the world. chuck todd, an ex- friend of yours said i thought he really actually cared about being a journalist first and walked -- wanted to walk that line. >> that is interesting. i do not know. i do not know what promoted him to do that. i had an interview with the prime minister today. i don't know what he's doing. [laughter] i think, my focus is, you know, what i said it covering the news . if i had off the record

conversations and moments with president trump, i think that any journalist would want to get in his mind of what is next. things are going a million miles an hour. i do not think that that is true as i said, we have covered a lot of things that we were first on. you know, the cognitive questions about president biden. we were told that we were running sheet take videos and it was all attacked. and now there is an effort. >> did you not apologize for that? [laughter] >> no. covid, you go to the lab and you go to all of these things that we were a conspiracy theory. and one year later, it turns out to be we were leading the way. over time the audience has come to trust when we have big events

breaking news, we are the most watched. i think that that trust is important. >> i think that there is a debate inside the media about the range of rusher this white house has put on media. whether it is the fcc investigation, mostly mainstream network. is this, you know, kind of scattershot or is this like a real attempt to rearrange the first amendment? >> i think that it is been pressure tested over time. >> what do you think trump is trying to do? >> i do not know yet. we have to watch that. we really do. we have to stand together on that. we've seen it over time. again, it is the same thing. you set precedent and if you do

something here, at last for a long time. no matter democratic or republican administration. i do not know the motivation. we will see how far it goes. >> thank you for taking the time congrats. >> joining us now is executive editor of the new york times. [applause] >> thing you. thank you for taking the time. thank you for continuing to talk with me. like megan now i am free. [laughter] big media tyranny. just to start with the news of

the day, elon musk this morning tweeted new york times is propaganda and a bunch of [bleep] holes filled with dollar signs. what do you make of that? >> you know, i wish that i could be a little bit more inside elon 's head. understand everything that he is up to. i think he is absolutely using x as a platform for his own i think you could call it propaganda. i do not incredible news media is propaganda and we are covering him and his white house with as much energy and perspective as we possibly can. i don't think that is propaganda so i disagree with them. >> there were 83 on february 6. >> i think the peak was 95. >> we have been talking

questions about trust, an interesting aspect about is it really what we want. how do you engage with questions like that when you are absolutely drinking from that fire hose. >> trust remains even when you are reacting to the fire hose and in some ways, you know, putting out a big volume. trust is important in those moments and we are trying to do a bunch of things to enhance our part of it is now more than ever you really can get to know that journalist who were doing that work themselves. we put them on camera. their big personalities on the daily which is the podcast where you really get kind of conversations to understand what they are working on. videos becoming a part of covering these big stories and having individual the reporters

speak directly to readers, viewers, explained to them what they are working on and how they are working on it is part of opening up the journalistic process. get to know the bylines, telling people more about the expertise of the reporters working on those stories. making that easily accessible to them. i think that they become more important in that environment. >> leaning into the personalities of its journalist. the direction of travel. it is also tricky. our newsrooms populated by totally insane views of lots of things but great reporters. going out and talking, but they can do great journalism. if now we are all personalities, we are all influencers, can you just not hire those people anymore? that is a lot of people we know. >> i would still hire you.

[laughter] not without thinking about it. honestly, i think, yes. every individual journalist has personality. sometimes out personality, you know in the days of the journalism was kind of edited out of the experiences. called on the individual journalist if they cannot do it, a more immersive more trust building exercise. >> the politics of the newsroom because the professionals have a job. your dentist, did not care what

the politics are. >> i am not sure that is as true in this new environment. new york college-educated people probably about as liberal as you expect that demographic to be. do you just go out and hire more liberals than western mark. >> i do not really think about it going out and hiring conservatives as much is going out and hiring liberals. i do want to hire more people that come from different geographies, different personal experience, different backgrounds, different schools, different education, whatever it is because, you are right that actually part of your own personal experience often where you grew up, who you grew up with, whether you are part of a religious family, did you have any military experience, that can actually open your eyes and ideas to different kind of journalism into pushback on the news. we should have diversity in that

way. it is important. that is not the same thing as saying i will go out and look for someone that voted for trump and put them on my staff. >> everybody raise their hand and it fits very sharply upon republicans. not entirely but pretty specifically among republicans. how do you take that in where you say they have sort of a good line and a legitimate criticism of, you know, the mainstream media. >> i think a lot of the trust data, you know, comes quote unquote mainstream media is pretty flawed. >> you do your own surveys? >> we do. we do get that feedback. i mean, i do think some of the things the media are doing it

were doing to open up the process will be trust enhancing. i also think we have gone for 40 -50 years of allowing, you know, voices out there to say you cannot trust what you see in the media without actually doing much to present our own story, open up our own process. i hope it will not take 40 or 50 years, but it will take some time to see if we can actually rebuild that kind of trust. >> driving a truck around here right now. i have seen the time sort of punching back more. when you are criticized, you will really go out there. do you think part of it is playing more offensive going after critics? >> i think that is part of it, guess. the older philosophy of just let the story, let the journalism

speak for itself and we do not have to defend our people or our institutions when they come under attack. that is not right. i think you can go too far in the other direction but we saw a long way to go. our people do their work with an amazing amount of energy, but also integrity. it is very easy to attack. we just talked about x. it is a cesspool. i do not think always wanting to get into it on x itself, but i think making our journalist know that we will stand up for them in the moment they come under attack. the institution is behind them. their safety but also their integrity is a very important thing to do. it also allows us to communicate with readers what the actual facts are about a story or reporting that we have undertaken. so, yeah, i think that is

important. >> is trump good for business? >> news is good for business. trump, as we know, from his first little more than a month is the most news making person to occupy the oval office i've ever seen. that cabinet meeting yesterday was, you know, whatever it was, and our plus of musk walking around and trump talking about the five or six things on his mind was probably -- actually, that cabinet meeting that he had the first term where there were pledges of loyalty and dan was also pretty interesting. this guy makes a lot of news and it is really interesting. some of it is fact challenged and we have to correct that and as much of real-time as we possibly can, but they are also

opening up lines of inquiry into federal agencies and the functions of government that none of us have thought about since civics class and is now part of the new cycle where we can begin deeply. what does this agency do, when did you get started here is it still living up to its mission. how much funding does it get. how much oversight or control does congress have. they are all sort of under by this disruptive agenda of trump. was it good for the news business? i think that it probably is. it is raising awareness, raising people's attention to what is happening in our country. in that sense, the perspective of journalism a great journalistic opportunity. >> the process you just described is literally donald trump setting the agenda for the new york times. suddenly you have a bunch of reporters digging into it. do you worry that he he is the editor-in-chief at the new york

times? >> he will often set the news agenda for the day in a way that no one other than the president of the united states can. it is on us and i think we have demonstrated it repeatedly to come back at those stories in a deeper way with our own kind of standards in mind and in an accountability mindset and we are doing that. we are regularly revisiting the issues that he has raised and come back and asking fundamental questions about those things. you know, whether it is some of the issues of his own conflict of interest and the trump coin in the way that he is profiting from that or the way that, you know, musk and the doge thing is playing out in terms of elon musk owning companies in the regulatory control he now has oversight of in the way they may affect the bottom line that the company's.

those are things we are continuously coming back on and doing reporting on. yes, he can set the agenda for something in the news. but we have the capacity and the determination to come back at those things and not let him move on. >> i wonder, do you worry also that that is a place where they can pick the terrain on where to have a big fight about journalism, terrain where there is hundreds of journalists who raise their hands to be called on by mid-level communications professional. probably not our most famous favorite kind of journalism. >> look, i think that the issue of the white house pool and the way that access to that is dictated actually is in the public interest. the exclusion of the associated

press which is the most experienced and most professional and most nonpartisan news agency that all of us rely on, whether it is fox news or little more on the writer organizations on the left , domestic, global, they have been in there for generations. the idea of excluding them from the day-to-day access to the president that comes from that white house pool is just wrong. handpicking others to comment and substitute, some of them possibly, i hope this is not the case, but possibly not serious fact based news organizations to participate in the pool just does not make any sense. others have to rely on the integrity and the quality of that information that comes from the pool. what they do as a service not just to its members, but to the general public. they provide access and the rotation for good quality

journalist to cover the president in real time and serve everybody else in the media 800 members, 800 organizations that have white house access. a tiny fraction of those can actually have access to the president at any given moment. they rely on that pool to provide that. i really do not see why the white house needs to be handpicking that are interfering with something that is worked well for generations. >> is there anything that the white house could do that would prompt you to pull your team out and have a photo op. >> i do not really want to speculate on the hypotheticals. they have said that they will have more control over this. i would like to see what their plan is for that and make sure that they executed. i really do not think that trump wants to deny good quality media access. he is having these cabinet meetings. doesn't he want those to get covered globally? >> it does not make sense. >> final question.

talking here a lot more about how ai has actually disrupted the business. right now, the times is doing open ai over the way it trains on times articles, are you disappointed that basically everyone else. >> all right. i will talk about it, but, you know, i am not the ceo of the company and i'm not responsible for the lawsuit against open ai. we are covering all the issues around ai. the way that a newsroom should. i am not personally disappointed that anybody is cutting deals with open ai. >> at diaz, he has not told me that. i think, you know, every organization has to work out their own arrangement with this open ai and the times company is working it out, too, including

his experimenting with those ai tools in our own organization and negotiating with the platforms and the others who control it including biswas -- lawsuit but not limited to this lawsuit. >> thank you. thank you. [applause] >> please welcome vice president of journalism at the knight foundation and cofounder and ceo justin b smith. [applause] >> thank you, jim. the foundation is a partner in this event so thank you again for your support here. tell us what they do across journalism. >> i will start by saying as part of the agenda where you say i will play something for my new album now. [laughter]

i am honored to be part of it. we have been funding local journalism for 75 years. in the last 15 of them is a business model collapsing is probably a fair word. i think we focus on what the future business model of local news is and we put a lot of money into the ecosystem every year to figure out what that looks like so we can get local news back to where it was serving a crucial role in american democracy for such a long time. >> that is a good jumping off point. this conversation today is mostly been about the national picture interested news. the gallup data was national as well. what is the landscape in terms of trust and news on the local level. do you have a lot of insight to that? >> certainly a better picture than at the national level. a few studies last year said 74% of people trust local news which

is much higher than the national side. doing some research in 2022. 53% believed that local news organization cares about the impact it has on the community and 47% believed that, you know, they care about the people in the community and the betterment of it. >> do you know much about the trends? >> that number was hired 20 years ago than it is now. just having kind of a trajectory it's always been higher than national but it has gone down as well over the years. i have theories to that. i think one of them is the dirt has actually contributed to the lack of trusted news all across the board. i live in miami now. that is where my foundation is based. whether you are republican or democrat you are mad when you're stuck in traffic. you root for the same sports teams and you complain when the

temperature is below 80. a lot of things that bind people together in a community. also a lot of things that citizens could be involved in and problems they could solve but they do not will a lot about them because so much of the coverage has gone away. i do feel like when you do not even know how to get involved in solving problems in your community, thrown into issues at a national level that you cannot really do much about that fuels a lot of frustration and, you know, i have thought for a long time that one of the real answers to the polarization of national news is the renaissance of local news. local news is where so many stories emanate from. you lose that source at a national level just less to polo . i think a lot of it gets filled with opinion and other things that just tend to amp up that frustration. >> sticking with the positive point in the trend, why do you think the local news, trusted news is so much higher.

those numbers cited double or even triple some of the numbers on the national level. >> i think you are reporting about things people know and care about. i think one of the things we did do very well for a long time, i will speak mostly from the newspaper world where came, even when the business of local journalism is really good, i do not think that that actually meant we were deeply in contact with our audiences. the profit margins were so good that we could kind of cover whatever we wanted and what the audience wanted was not necessarily something top of mind. i think that changed a lot of the business model going from advertising to much more membership in the subscription model. good luck wielding a viable membership or subscription model if the audience does not get asked what it is that they want. or way to express their satisfaction or dissatisfaction. i think there is much more of a sense that local news

organizations, especially the ones launched in the last 15 or 20 years start with the idea we need to give consumers what they want and you have to start with this whole whole of asking them. i think, you know, an interesting newspaper publisher last year making a point that said, you know, when you get 100 high school football scores right every day in the paper people tend to believe in the stuff you put in there about government and transportation another things in the community two. i thought that was an interesting way to look at it. people can verify you are getting things right because they are living among the people that have been covered. >> you recently did a study with keel. i saw that there was a finding in the research that is 37% of americans i think between the ages of 18 and 29 get their news from influencers. i know you've underlined that

and i've been thinking about that, what is your view on that particular -- >> it certainly is not surprising. i think we talk a lot about business model local journalism changing and i think everyone knows that to be true. i think sometimes we forget about the fact that distribution models have changed as well. everyone logging on in the morning and typing in a local url just is not realistic. so many other ways to get news. the fact that they are using this, i am not surprised at all. i do think when you say the words influencers it does not exclude journalists. i do not think this diagram of influencers and journalists, there certainly is some overlap. i do think what is interesting is if you look at the people they cite as influencers, very few people that have a large number of that percentage. >> a big powerful force in the

local news. >> they can be. >> replacing local newspapers .... >> i think working with influencers that were even in the ai space, like we have to acknowledge that we have to change and we have to seize these opportunities and, yes, we

have to worry about all sorts of copy right and legal issues related to ai, my god so much ai that can help local newsroom and time to turn the tide. same with influencers. risk with working with influencer who publishes stuff lick a lot of influencer sites do, crazy, wacky, yes, but i still think the biggest risk that we have in this is not taking any risks. >> conventional wisdom for many years now has been is on negative trajectory, business model wise, audience wise, you do a lot of work to try to reverse that. are there bright spots, ultimately optimistic and can become healthier? >> i'm hospital mystic. i'm optimistic if you take the a real view and if everybody

thinks newspaper era is coming back, that's not going the happen. do i think we can build local news organizations that are, you know, profitable enough to keep operating, yes, and i think there's a couple of reasons for that, one i do think the shift to membership and subscriptions is a good thing in the sense that it forces the business side and editorial side to chase the same goals which is have to make readers happy. everybody wants to make more money. i think that model has helped the advertising model helped the business side and the second piece is we worked in the last five years to build the roads and bridges and powerline and we want to -- we want to the enable anybody that wants to cover local community to do so and so one of the things we've done we have funded a lot of things like

essentialized content management system that any publisher can use. organizations that help drive membership revenue, legal support for journalists. i think we are trying to build and fund organizations that could serve the entire ecosystem and do two things, one bring down cost of publishing and by unlocking a lot of renew tools increase the opportunity to bring in more renew. i think over time we are seeing the progress about the organization that have the night has funded, the organization has funded, the publishers that use that have seen roughly 10% renew on an annual basis and basically flat for everybody else. thank you very much for your support of this event. please give it up for mr. brady. >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you.

editor-in-chief ben smith. >> wasn't of the big fashion changes in trump era that ties are back. you'll be the last one. >> i'm not wearing any tie. i was told this is the first time in a while. >> thank you. not even business leadership in journalism but often run by journalists which turn out not a great idea and i always admire and i say in nicest way, you come from the commercial side, you've always had a very, you know, run corporate media in just the literal sense, that's nbc. i'm curious whether in your four years running nbc has left you

thinking that big corporations, a lot of resources but also, a good homes for news or do they put news organizations at risk because of the kind of prosecution on the parent company? i know it's a big question. >> look, i would say a few things, first, if i've had the privilege to your point of working for the last 15 years running large news organizations in a variety of different capacities and so i've been able to see firsthand i think the incredible commitment of journalists here in the united states and around the world and we have seen evolution of business model. i think it goes but i feel fortunate to have had the opportunity and i do come at it from the business side. and it goes to your second part of the question, how does that impact sort of news organizations. look, i think we are at inflection point in the media industry overall and with news

organizations >> at nbc we are local and we are national, we are international. we are in television, we are in streaming, we are in audio, so on and so forth. we are in english and we are in spanish. yes, we have content genres and politics and lifestyle, true

crime and being able to provide different kind of content allows us to underwrite some of the important journalism that's required. >> i have seen that. now, you have brandon carr going after stuff on cable news which he doesn't regulate or on the web which he doesn't regulate, broadcast towers, another division inside your organization. that just seems like a huge vulnerability for journalism. in our particular case we have large business both english and spanish. it's important a big part of our business and, look, we are focused on the public service element of what we do and that's fundamental to our day-to-day responsibilities. >> your roots, and are in free math med bay and broadcast.

jim was talking about intensity of subscriptions, a lot of the competitors are going that way. >> i think all the organizations because of the inflection point the business is in have to be proactively looking for new audiences and new revenue streams and we have been on this journey for the last few years. we've invested aggressively to diversify beyond the linear business which for us has been great and continue to be great but we have diversified over the last few years in streaming into audio, into commerce, into more digital publishing, into for live events and subscriptions. we've been building that subscription muscle for the last few years. cnbc and today show and we are at the point of evolution where we think there's an opportunity in the marketplace to serve our audiences to build a subscription tier service for nbc news proper.

a mobile first platform when you look at trends and habits of audiences it's clear audiences are more and more gravitating to consuming their news and information in video and a variety of different capacities. we happened to be, you know, up with of the largest if not the largest producer of premium journalistic video. we are going to lean into that. we think there's a real opportunity in that space or working towards q4 launch of it and they'll be more to come but the other thing i will say, though, because i will finish where you started, this is additive to what we do and what do i mean by that, our roots as broadcaster and nbc has been supporting free journalism for mass audiences. that's not going to change.

we will continue to push best journalism and in addition to that, there's premium subscription here. >> i think you made news. thank you for that. a lot of news around nbc right now and, you know, it's about trust. i don't know how much you can talk about the plans to spin off nbc or msnbc, nonpublish information but what is nbc's identity become in a world where there's not overlapping progressive cable network and does that help you build trust? >> what do you think? >> look, i say two things, one, is a company as you alluded to or parent company spinning off networks in msnbc. post spin co, nbc news group continues to be the largest organization here in the united states both in scale and in reach across tv and digital and

so it's a very, very, you know, fundamental part of what we are trying to do. now as it relates to trust, i would tell you a few things. you know, this is obviously discussion today but something that we spend a lot of time. i saw a little bit of the data that you had pulled up with gallup, when we know the trends or obviously trust in media. when you double clique in that, what jumps out in the local media continues to be the part of the overall media ecosystem that has held the trust for the most part. we think that's extraordinarily important. >> even as the businesses collapse. >> i will tell you, look, one thing that we can proactively collectively as a profession is we have to invest in local journal i. the underlying -- >> the underlying strength of the democracy is a strong and backbone of our media industry

is local stations. for us as broadcast network the backbone is our local tv stations. we have huge print in local tv and local digital around the country and what we have found that is actually a huge competitive advantage for us not only building trust but hopefully over time but reporting. there's so many increasing new stories that are originated as local news stories and then become of national importance. >> you talk about shifting investment from little rock -- >> owned and operated stations. we have one of -- if not the largest. >> that's right, that's right. >> one most recent example that comes to mind is the la fires and in our particular case we have huge, largest footprint in los angeles with our local nbc, telemundo station. when the fires broke out, we went 60 plus hours of nonstop coverage in that -- in that market.

yes, you know, we had to bring in resources from other local stations so thank god we have a healthy and thriving local business in in markets to reinforce those things to be able to do that job but what happened during those 60 plus hours, every la resident was glued to their television, mobile phone to be able to get that information that's so important for them at that moment in time. that builds trusts, that builds engagement and so it's something that we think makes a lot of sense and going forward we hope we can lean into that more. >> and really interesting stuff and somebody mentioned, underlying what a national story this is and obviously when nbc gets beat up it's not about local, it's about national. in retrospect do you wish you

had been done with ronna mcdaniel. >> the organization moved on. that's behind us. >> one other thing that i think -- that this administration is really going after for right now in the summer of 2020, 50% of the workforce should be people of color by 2030. now huge target for this white house. do you agree making that commitment? >> i feel fortunate that we are at a company with great values and those values haven't changed. we are very, very big delivers. we always have.

we are a national business. we work in every single community and the values tonight to be the same. >> one of the things i think nbc hired a great bunch of people around and during the last few years, something a lot of us reported on, missed information. the subject, now disputed term, sometimes referred to very specific health claims that were debunked, sometimes referred to what i think more political claims and msnbc among other organizations did a lot of reporting and the misinformation. i don't know how in the weaves you are and i think about it a lot. i wonder if you think, i don't know, that the news media brought too far into this misinformation industrial complex that ultimately was politicized in a way that we

were drawn to. >> we really are believers, we have to be focused on accuracy and fact-base. we are constantly doing both on air to the degree that we can but also digital capacity. >> it's more of -- >> i don't know if you caught this but mark johnson was up here, i pressed him on, the evidence of our experience is best way to get ratings, as of november last year, more opinion better ratings and i think if you look at megan kelly, tucker, you can just kind of continue that linear, and mark made the

case that contrary to the perception, straight up the middle, he doesn't see as trade-off, do you buy that? >> i will give you case study in our particular company. about five years ago we saw as an opportunity in the space that relates news content and we said, you know, we want to are actively invest and go after what we felt was and audience that was hungry for information in that platform. and so we, you know, hopefully we have nbc news now streaming platform, now the leading platform for news in streaming. five years ago, we said let's build a model, let's be fiscally disciplined, model for two-year

even. we decided to run before we walked. fast-forward to today, five years later and by the way that encounter intuitive at the time we made the decision to go with hard news, lifestyle news, not with any perspective and any opinion which is counter the perception of what people thought. fast-forward to today, we broke even in 18 months and today it is not only very profitable but it's contributor. >> absolutely. rebuilt the platform and we've been able to build critical mass

and based on internal data that we have, nbc news now has and audience during break -- big-breaking news events most recently inauguration where we have audience 18 to 24 demographic, major cable news networks. in less than five years we've been able to build offering that audiences are hungry for and it speaks of we think the demand in the market if you give audiences a premium in this case video experience on the platform and the places where they are consuming they'll react. >> i guess retain -- it's one of my favorite conversations and explained to me how you amortizing the cost of correspondents. >> that is business model. we can distribute and

efficiently do great journalism across many platforms. >> yes, final question before i let you go. we are doing this event next year. you think you will be still in this job? >> i love what i do. we are very fortunate to be able to be doing this job at this moment in time. i can't think of a more important time in journalist. >> thank you, so much. >> please welcome katherine, ceo of npr and editor max. [applause] >> thank you so much for doing this. >> so, you know, i kind of want to address the elephant in the room, get that part out of the way first, we have fec commissioner, fec is investigating npr for having sponsors that sounds too much

like ads. is this, in fact, an effort to go a media outlets that president trump doesn't like? >> you know, i have absolutely no idea what the underlying intent is but what i can tell you that we feel confident that we have worked throughout the years to comply with sec guidelines and we will look to see what happens with the inquiry. >> obviously the kind of things that you can say about this but we are obviously having later. do you have any questions that you think that we should ask him, anything top of mind. i imagine that you have a few? >> because you know sec uses cafeteria, they have access to it. >> really? you are eating lunch together? >> no. >> quickly shut down diversity office. yesterday it was reported that chief diversity officer was

leaving, do you plan on replacing? >> no, not at the amendment. our plan is to actually move some of that work into our operation and strategy with the goal of continuing to think about how we need reach diverse the audience because that's where america is going from intergenerational standpoint and we want to make sure the future of public radio for that audience and continue to support our staff that we do better reporting the nation and reflect the nation. i think you heard folks saying earlier. >> yeah. one core critique from the right, i think you're familiar with, npr is too liberal. the cliché, what would you point to right now in npr's programming, 10 million people, the fact that we are in every

part of the country and have millions of listeners in every state, red, blue, otherwise. in terms of the programming, our broadcast programming is down the line and focuses on bringing the folks on who are making the news every single day and asking them the questions that matter, so we don't do opinion programming unlike other parts of the folks that we've had on so far tad and i think that's a pretty big difference. >> why do you think that people still have that view? i listened, i listened to morning edition, all things considered. these are often -- i know plenty of the people who work on them. these are often quite, you know, rigorously very, very, objective in the traditional journalistic sense. why do you think people have that viewpoint? >> i would say a couple of different things. public radio is public radio. not everything that you hear is npr as you hear across the

country you may hear things appropriate to your local community. you're going to hear in san francisco which has a totally different audience that is trying to serve. so it has a different tone and that's part that makes it special and local communities chose what the program and not all program radios -- >> something that i heard earlier. we really have to advocate for what it is that we do and explain what we do. i think we have to show what we do. i think that's a really important piece of how we think about trust and part of that is also articulating, hey, you actually listened to coverage, tell me it is that you are hearing. >> i'm not sure everybody knows this. i'm sure a lot of people do. before npr you ran wikipedia foundation. a lot of people trust wikipedia. it's not always perfect but plenty of people rely on information that they see in

wikipedia. what are some lessons from working at wikipedia from running that you actually applied at npr? >> trust your audience. we keep talking about how to trust, how to make sure that we are trusted. it's actually trust your audience. show our work. it's very clear where we got the information. have confidence that the audience knows exactly the limits of how they're going the use this information, so if you want to find out if it's based in fact, great. figure out some things, major consideration, probably you should go to your doctor. it's good place to start, terrible place the finish. i liked what mark was saying earlier. we know all news consumers are consuming news from different places. this is a very important thing. our goal is not to be trusted but trust worthy. we wake up every single day and

earn trust of audiences. >> what do you think -- can you explain more about distinction there? i don't know if i'm 100% following. >> as somebody who didn't come up through the ranks of journalism, journalism is remarkable being self-regulating industry. journalist who is don't practice the craft well are known by their peers for perhaps being lazy or shoty and you don't tend to find them at high-quality news organizations, right. that is not what the public knows, the public doesn't know what goes into the decisions of how you report a story. they don't know why you have chosen to edit a certain part of an interview. i think that is showing the work piece is very different in other aspects and other sectors. so very different way when we think about showing the work as trust worthy. 90% of people don't check the citation. it's the fact that the citations

are there that is the form of accountability. it's trust worthy versus assuming trust and wondering why people don't trust you. >> so along the question of trust npr, first week on the job, you faced this big question about trust and bias in npr, not the easiest first month on the job, so, you know, but it means that it's clearly something that you thought about a lot in your -- forced to think about very early in your time as ceo of npr. what have you done in your first year to build or restore trust in npr. >> we have seen a number of different things and things that we would have loved to have done regardless. we have been able to invest in our editorial review process which means we brought in additional editors so that every single story that goes out over npr is various different broadcast channels, podcast but

having editorial background is valuable. we have been able to start categorizing. you ran too many stories on this and too many stories on that, we hear all the things that we have done over the course of last year, month, week, for example, we do a lot more sports than i realized. the other thing we have done is done quarterly editorial planning with our networks so i heard a lot of people talking about local news. to me the absolute defining difference of npr with every other national media organization. nearly 3,000 local journalists and every quarter we sit down and we say what's on the docket, what are the people in your community interested in and set up monthly -- sorry, monthly editorial process where we rotate people in the newsroom, the hardest stories. >> this is new --

>> a lot of people wanted it and just got push to go over the edge. >> you do have this, you know, network of local stations which kind of contribute and vice versa, you know, some of those local stations lean into the npr branding very strongly. some don't mention in homepages, how do you get to a place where they all want to be associated with the npr brand? >> it's funny you say that, one of the things that i think is critical about our local network, it's okay if they do or they don't. many stations have local identities. texas public radio in san antonio is always texas public radio and that is great. what i am really looking for is how do we as network work toward strategically and how do we communicate our value and everything that happens in the news, happens somewhere and we want to make sure we are the first people on the ground to do that. 25% of programming on local

station is npr but 50% are listening. >> in an age where everybody has phones, are you concerned with the kind of rural republican will no longer kind of be listening to npr as much or relying on it. this is a key part of argument, okay, people hate these kind of urban npr stations but the local stations are obviously core to npr's identity. do you feel that with smart -- with smartphones and people getting more of their information from podcasting that threatens that?

>> well, it's interesting, if you look at broadcasting, distribution of web and podcast which are all digital products you see fairly balanced sort of political spectrum of listeners. folks tuning in for planet money or life kit or short way which are podcast adults, finance, that's a broad spectrum in range, right, and that is true too. we see that in traffic in npr, they come from every sort of different affiliation in terms of ideology. i don't worry much about it but i think it's an opportunity for us to lean in. >> so it doesn't apply to big podcast, you know, up first which is one of the top news podcasts, you know, in the country which you see it in all of the charts. as the government tries to go after npr, does it make you kind of feel, maybe we should become

podcast company and regulatory eye? >> i would never, ever give up broadcast network. we have reached millions, tens of millions of people across the country and it's a remarkable thing to have. i want us to be able to serve folks in alabama, folks in south dakota as well as folks sitting here in dc so absolutely, podcasting is great but broadcasting is a big of power and where we have huge audience. >> how do you take this, i know we are short on time. some of the trust that people have, what do you think is the best way to transfer some of that brand trust up towards kind of the national space because it does seem that people trust local, they don't necessarily trust national. is there a way to transfer some of that? >> absolutely. when i was at wikipedia it was called transit of trust.

that's true, i mean, pta's, state houses, town hall meetings, all of that is real. we've actually been building out what we call collaborative newsrooms. regional newsrooms across the country, appalachia, texas, texas is its own region as you all know. deepen the ability to meet regional needs with the goal of being able to also surface stories that matter to those communities to the national story as well. i think when people hear themselves reflected in the news of the day at the national level it actually, they are able to have around is this accurate, do i trust it, how might i lend that to somebody that i'm less

familiar with. >> we are out of time, thank you so much. >> thank you. [applause] >> founder and ceo and editor-in-chief, max to guide this interview. >> so i feel like a lot of people are familiar with you. you are growing your youtube. that's a fair description. so in calling around to people kind of preparing for this

interview, the question, you know, you have to do a little bit of prep. the question from critics of yours, often critics of your coverage of israel, where is this guy getting its funding and you haven't disclosed who the funders are. >> people are going to hate this. he's running media company. it must be the middle east. you launched in qatary. i get qatary money all of the time. i could have got money.

i decided to do because i knew very well this could be -- >> all the investors, group of friends an family. they are americans. of course, people who don't like coverage of israel, they are going to stay qatar, qatar, that's become the talking point amongst people of this town. why not just disclose them and end the speculation? >> a couple of reasons, obligation to do it right. people want to come and give money, small little thing. we raised $4 million for grand folks, rounding area for some of the media companies and people who have been sitting here before me today. the other reason, again, to go back to unfortunate climate we are in, you found critics. do you want to be associated with me right now?

why do you want planes to crash? >> what did you say? >> i said who are you? this is the world we've been in. i am not going the blame anyone at the time when elon musk is saying imprison journalists from cbs, i'm going to say don't blame anyone. i'm going to say being anonymous. >> not just me, yes. >> can you give detail of how the business is doing subscribers because it seems like it's growing? >> we've had great growth. tomorrow is the anniversary of when i drop the video saying i'm launching aafter i left msnbc. today is the last day a year ago

we didn't exist because no one knew apart from me and other people that were launching it so we've had great growth. almost 400,000 subscribers. >> how many of those are paid? >> last time we revealed the number was 40,000 and we are way above that now. we will reveal probably later on. completely different audience. that's what is so amazing. that's interesting for us as well. we are growing and making money. we are growing and i hope year two is as successful as year

one. >> you are speaking to a lot of subscribers. i loved him on msnbc and i liked that he goes back and forth with j.d. vance. is that goal to broaden it? >> depends how much you want to go. i could have hired never trump republicans, i didn't do that. we have 12 full-time staff, we have all these -- >> why didn't you hire never trump republicans? >> did it work for kamala harris, not so sure. look, they are everywhere. slightly ahead of me -- they are doing fine. they don't need another platform from me. what's not doing fine when we talk about diversity viewpoint we are obsessed with getting

maga viewpoints and will send journalists to a diner to trump voters but what is miss asking the left. 3 cycles in now, the new york times doesn't have columnist. jamal but no act to proper bernie bro. so for me mainstream excnn, excnbc, works very well, i'm a huge fan, one of my first hires. i'm so proud that he joined. we have owen jones in the uk who quit the labour party because he saw him as betrayal of the left. we have views of left, central left, everywhere there's conservatives. i won't start media company and come on in conservatives.

>> you've obviously gone, independent, part of the whole appeal. are there things you can say now that you're independent now that you're at nbc? >> that's a good question. i don't have to check with anyone. you have my old boss sitting up here. there's not a lot of bus at msnbc. >> word like genocide scares people. the new york times didn't want the report in genocide. watch multiple holocaust historians have all said genocide, i think the it's worth more of media people willing to say the g word without saying a melttown. >> are there things that you check before you want to say them that they said, no, you can't say that? >> when i was at msnbc? >> we always had internal discussions in the company i'm sure you have discussions as

well about what's in the rundown, who are your guests. msnbc has fired, got rid of progressive hosts. various people in this room, do you think that's an effective way for them to build trust? >> similar to what you asked tom about john acosta. people have a of fans and

support. >> this is what we got at with megan as well. this big growing audience on youtube and you see the things that people like to click on youtube, these shocked, explosions in the background. people are going like this. are the i recentives to produce viral clips of owning people, does that -- do you find that kind of -- that you have more incentives now to kind of create these big viral moments that might kind of make a splash versus -- >> that's a good -- i will say no because when i was at msnbc

because i was the brown muslim from the uk that not that many people knew. clip going viral on twitter. now if it goes, gate for revenue. it's not like i'm trying to impress anyone. i like owning people because i like owning people. on a serious note, i don't think we should be embarrassed of journalists, people watching our stuff. amazing interview and no one have seen. i take great pride that we do in-depth interviews that other people don't do but get great viral clip out of it. i will have my cake and eat it. >> last question before we go, as i was calling around to people asking, somebody posed philosophical question which i thought was interesting, you mentioned part of your style, confront confrontational interviews sometimes arguments. >> accountability interview. >> sure, sure.

okay aationly it resembleses an argument i would say. the reason i think we have been success nfl the u.s. and people like what i did is because the trust deficit existed around the form of interviews. if you stick to interviews, everywhere i go people are fed up with sunday morning shows and fed up with coziness between interviewers, anchors and guests, they are fed up with lack of follow-up question. the reason why we made a name for ourselves we were doing something that the existing groups weren't doing. we built trust at least in interview format that you can watch an interview and say we are taking seriously and it's not just cozy chat with two people that go out partying later in the day.

>> we certainly won't be doing any partying later in the day to build trust. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> joining us is emma tucker, editor-in-chief of the wall street journal, anne smith turns to guide the conversation. >> i feel all the pressure to own the remaining interviewees for viral clips. >> he told me to hurry up. >> well, we have all the time that we need. thank you for joining us. i was just remembering when you arrived in the states, we certainly wrote stories about the british invasion about how, we had another of you views up here and i'm hoping they will turn up for the reception.

i do wonder watching the journal work right now i think you are sort of on fire in the positive sense, do you think that gives you a sense of valuable, sense of distance from rolling -- >> yes. >> the story is astonishing and i don't have a dog in this fight. i do in the sense that i'm doing jobs that i'm doing but it's not -- i think it does -- i mean, it's interesting when i go back to the uk to see the difference. i think people outside have bigger meltdown than they are inside. >> good. >> and so you sort of pick up this perspective. >> you think washington is freaking out too much about

trump? >> actually maybe yes a little bit perhaps a little bit too much. >> i think the stories are extraordinary that are coming out every day and, you know, we as the journal recovering them, we are not having spin, we are not having any emotion to it because i think these stories speak for themselves. there's a lot going on. some of what is happening business really -- so, we hate to keep telling the stories but not -- whether the meltdown is exaggerated. >> bret baier said taking emotion out of news was

important. the whole point to have emotional connection. do you really think that. isn't it why people read? >> many speaking about the journal, there's no room for emotion at the journal. >> mild amusement? >> we can be funny, believe it or not. the great advantage we have a business publication but only lens that matters what does this mean for business for for finance, digital hugely and it gives us a really strong lens through which to the approach the news and, you know, this is information. we are trying to give people good information, information that they can use that's valuable, that is helpful and if we stop bringing emotion to it it becomes less valuable.

our strength, our strength in particular is taking the emotion out of it and it might be different for other outlets. >> i'm not sure if you heard earlier, jim showed up, dire figure, decline in trust and the national media dipping down every election year. it is sort of staying in -- how do you try to move the needle on that? >> well, i think -- i think the decline in trust is a real challenge but it's a challenge, it's a challenge for everybody who is in news. if they don't trust it, then it's on us to win that trust back, so i think some of the things that we are trying to do at the journal is we are very clear when we approach stories that we are observers. it really helps us with that. i asked to check their biases all of the time, everybody has

them. try reading it as if you come from a completely opposite standpoint. i think the other thing that we are doing and i think this really helps us is to be sort of radically focused on the audience, don't think of what is rest newsroom is going to think, is this going to win a prize, what is the wider -- what are the journalists going to think. that cannot be the motivating force behind journalism. it has to be what are we doing that is useful for readers, what are we telling them that they didn't know. what are we tell thing them that adds value to their lives. the fourth thing is you have to not be afraid of the consequence that is you're going to publish. i think it's particularly in places like washington. everybody has got something to say on it. it's very easy to start being afraid of consequences of something that you are going to publish might be for.

good example of that was the biden age story that we did. some of my colleagues in new york warned me that this would lead strong reaction. i had no idea how strong but i'm very glad i didn't stop to think about it because it was the important piece of journalism and we published it as we did. >> i love that particular attitude. a lot of people are afraid, particularly afraid of taking on elon musk who has enormous power in the information ecosystem. damage your brand with millions of people who are hearing the from him first and you covered more aggressively than anybody else. are you specifically worried that he can hurt your brand, can tell people things that they believe about the wall street journal. >> he's in a position to do that but, again, if that start to become a consideration, then we will stop doing our job.

now, i very much don't want it to look like there's some sort of, you know, agenda here. powerful administration in the world. we wouldn't for be doing our job if we didn't cover musk seriously, so we don't -- we acknowledge huge achievements. by all means, he's an incredible, extraordinary businessman and we've covered that too but i think if we start worrying about the consequences of what we published, then -- then we will stop doing the job as well as we should do. >> something i noticed about the journal, the opinions out of the journal is that a moment when particularly i said la times and washington post obviously gotten scared about the consequences of certain decisions and stories.

the murdoch-owned press seems to be much less worried than the wall street editorial page. is that murdoch family value. it's surprising for me to say. you worked for them for a long time. is there a rupert murdoch threat here. >> i can speak to the journal newsroom which is independent. i've worked with murdoch papers. in that time he has never ever told me to change or drop something. i know what he thinks because he likes to talk about news. he's a news junky and he likes gossip. i'm always aware of what he's thinking. but he's very respectful of the newsroom and i'm sure that's true for the opinion --

>> do you think he's enjoying the musk reporting? >> he appreciates the independence of the newsroom. do you think and there's sot strategy which is trump is in power, trump threatened commercial -- maybe let's win trust back from conservatives from getting twist from elon musk. do you think that's a good strategist? >> to win back trust whether from the left or to the right you have to just think about the readers and the journalism and stop, stop trying to game the system that way then i don't think you're doing great

journalism. i don't think the established media was quick enough to latch onto the fact that people have got so many choices now. they can go anywhere for their news and i think for a long time the media, well, you know, we are on the news, people will always read us. and that wasn't the case. now we are getting better and the way to win back that trust is to give readers news that they find useful, interesting, relevant, compelling rather than playing some sort of weird internal going with ourselves about what we think journalism is. >> in terms of segue, but as we were booking this event and perhaps people will notice, few people running major news organizations right now. major news papers. other times there's been more like a year ago or two years ago. mark zuckerberg recently celebrated return of masculine energy and culture that celebrates aggression before.

what does it mean masculine energy? >> we have to ask megan kelly. >> there are senior women, senior men as well and certainly outside in the uk there are female editors. the editor is a woman, the economist, yeah. >> you continue to cut cost. you think that's true? >> i get asked this the all of the time. here you are again. first of all, we are not cutting

costs, we are restructuring. >> i inherited a newsroom that i was set up for i would say, you know, it hadn't fully adapted. rehiring people, we brought all sorts of new people, visual storytellers. >> i doubt it. thank you so much for joining us. >> thank you. [applause]

>> i will take the applause. >> we positioned them under each seat. 100%, put that out of your mind, focus on what's in front of you. >> exactly. exactly. >> but it reminded me fcc's core powers, oldest century chunk of the industry, broadcast tv, terrestrial radio.

do you think give you a shrinking role in the marketplace of ideas. i wonder if you think that we should expand the government's role into other kinds of media. >> covers a lot of different areas, satellite industry is a really growing and big area. when it comes to media in particular across the media sector there's unique set of speakers, these broadcasters and for years the fcc sort of stepped back. if you're a person on the street, podcaster, you don't have an obligation to operate what's called public interest. >> i know, i'm asking if they should basically.

>> at some point they are going to be gone and doge will shut down that part of nbc. do you think enforcing across is important what you have access in. >> what congress decided if you're going to the get this unique right which is using a natural resource, the spectrum to broadcast when you have to do so and operate in public interest. i'm totally open someone making an argument. >> podcasters, regulatory obligation. you can make an argument, but unless they do that, it should be our job to step in and enforce the laws and that's what we are doing. >> if you were to level the plain field which way would you level it? >> i do, i do.

that's ultimately for congress to decide. for broadcasters is an obligation -- i should step back and say this, trust in media as a general matter, gallup building, all-time low. less than i think 31% have a lot of trust in the media right now. >> right. but this is one of the things that i tried to do with the fcc. that's where there's lack of trust. if you separate to level regulated by fcc, people actually trust broadcasters and see them at the post office, at the grocery store. one thing i'm trying to is reempower the local broadcasters and feel like they have the freedom to serve their local communities because they have relationships with the national programmers that -- i don't think entirely healthy.

i want to reempower to serve the public interest. >> do you feel like you're forcing policy changes owning it? >> i hope that things were changing. look -- >> any reaction to you? >> it's possible. when you look at poll numbers coming down, i think the industry should stop and reflect on what to do. i'm reminded of the five stages of grief. denial, anger, bargaining and depression. for a lot of national news media they are working their way through their stages. i see denial of lack of trust. i see anger and maybe bargaining, some are depressed. that's a good thing. you are one step away from

acceptance which is the solution. >> and i know everyone appreciates -- you're a government official and for people who care, the framers of the constitution, just the typical long-standing american views is the government, is you. and you wrote in 2021 a newsroom decision about what stories to cover, how to frame them, beyond reach of any government official, i wonder has your view changed now that you're in power? >> what i say is the greatest threat that we have seen over the last several -- incredible amounts of power. social media companies got more power than any institution in history. what we saw them doing with that power discriminating and the government was involved. the government particularly the biden administration was

pressuring social media companies to shut down core political speech, mark zuckerberg last summer put out a letter sort of saying we felt pressure today do that. my position is we want more speech, not less. that's my approach on -- >> you're not a cable news commentator but government official who can threaten companies and impact their businesses. seems like you longer think that -- >> president trump issued an executive order to stop government officials from calling into social media companies and asking them to take down posts. i think that's a good thing. >> how do you do it on twitter? >> social media companies on the one hand and you have, again, licensed broadcasters on the other. if people don't want to have obligations, if they want to change that, they can go to congress.

i will give you the address of the fcc, you can turn license in, you can go podcast and over the top but as long as congress says you have unique access -- >> i know. it's terrifying for those -- i live on the internet. by all accounts a very good lawyer. but i'm curious, something sort of explanatory. the public interest, you've suggested, in the abceps of absence ofthat, where do we drae absence of this definition where do we draw, how do we know what the public interest is other than sort of asking you? >> one thing that's in the

guides are through fcc's public standard is localism, serving the needs of your local community. i think we've gotten so much national news media sort of coming from national programmers into the local communities. step back for a second. how many of you have written if you're a journalist or seen lots of stories about the fcc and cbs and seeking comment on moving forward on complaint of cbs, raise your hand if people heard? how many people thinking of two-week period, how many of you remember writing stories about the fcc seeking comment on not renewing a fox broadcast station

license? >> i would argue that that is bias right there. it's not just what you cover, it's what you don't cover and so the fcc has history of looking at broadcasters, taking these actions but it's the last couple of weeks in particular that people say it's unprecedented. well, it's not unprecedentedded if you bothered to look at what the sec is doing. >> there's a license broadcaster sinclair, they have something like 200 licenses renewals that came up at fcc over the last four years. how many of those hundred renewals in the four years do you think fcc approved? >> i do not know. >> zero, zero. it is basically unprecedented to have many renewals come up in four-year period and have the fcc approve none of them. i think that's the type of thing

that would go to restoring trust but feels like there's a lot of attention on some actions of the fcc in complete silence in cover-up on others. >> i've talked to people at the fcc, but the -- sounds like the argument that you're making, correct me if i'm wrong, that the fcc in the previous administration was acting against or looking into conservative media inappropriately and that you want to right the ship by looking into liberal media? >> what i'm saying -- >> really, that's not what you're doing? >> what i'm saying fcc is a place that operates by case law and by precedent and these cases and precedent that were developed over the last four years were apparently not controversial when the democrats were in charged and i'm surprised it's not controversial. >> you said they were partisan and inappropriate basically,

right? >> there are things that the fcc does that once they do them, that create it is precedent. that creates the case law and the thing that the fcc is supposed to follow. what we are doing right now follow the law that fcc developed over the four years. i'm surprised it was controversial now and wasn't then. >> i feel like i'm being tooled here. >> by me? >> it's funny because i did talk to a lot of your friends and enemies in preparing for this? >> what did they tell you? >> your friends and critics said, smart guy, good lawyer, really pleasant to work with. >> not good looking apparently. >> didn't get into your physical appearance but that when they look at public presence on cable and social media, bombastic, you talk about shocking off for the swamp, and patriotic, i wonder if it's performing for the president? >> i joined fcc in 2012.

i had lots of different jobs there and opportunities there. i absolutely loved the job that i'm doing. i think if you look at everything that i've been doing it's consistent over the course of my conduct over years. just to go back, i think the point that you're trying to make before is important. you were saying that the precedence of essentially in your view partisan persecution of media outlets and partisan, institute parts -- is that what you're saying? >> that's not what i'm saying. what i'm saying is that we are coming out of a period in my view, there's a lot of weaponization in the fcc, your last name dictated fcc's treatment. when elon musk got award for $800 million to bring high-speed internet, fcc revoked the award and the loser was the american people that was supposed to get service. if your last name was soros, you get a very different treatment. soros came in at the end of the biden administration and

purchased 200 radio stations and for the first time ever the full commission gave a special soros shortcut for him. >> to reverse that or end it? >> operates by case law and common law, the agency follows it. >> next democratic chairman is almost bound by the same case law? >> the last fcc was the one that sought public comment on not reviewing fox broadcast license. the last fcc was the one that didn't renew -- >> deepen the cycle rather than try to end it. >> i'm happy to apply the case law -- >> it sounds like you -- your targets have been basically among outlets that trump criticizes. even in they feel like everything they are doing is trust worthy, how do they persuade people is trust worthy, do you worry about that or you not really care about you

appear? >> i don't care how i appear. we finally got -- i don't know. i think it would be corrupt for me to say, well, you have to strike this percentage of wins for republicans and this percent drainage democrats and if i don't get that right balance i'm going to get hit for too far that way or too far that way. in my view that's the definition of corruption. what i told people is that everybody is going to get a share shake at the fcc, we are going the supply the law, we are going to apply the precedent and frankly that's a break from what we have seen. >> a lot of your career and i think what you wrote in ftc project in 2025, traditional republican sense that the regulatory agencies were out of hand, that they were seizing power to regulate things that they didn't have congressional mandates for and net neutrality is what you fought to keep approach of business and

innovation. in this, reaching quite a bit into private companies i would say specifically nbc, and, you know, whatever you think of that, that's the private business doing stuff in the private sector and your federal regulator -- >> your position is if a private company is engaged in discrimination based on race, the federal government has nothing to say about it. >> so reluctantly been forced into expanding government a bit? just sort of blanket. i'm trying to ask a sincere question. there's a cum of things going on. look, i'm not a fundamentalist libertarian. i don't think there should be no role for government but we are doing two things at the same time. on the one hand we are running

an agenda. although it's not getting enough attention. when it comes to the space economy, when it comes to permitting, we are deregulating ways that is going to unleash the private sector to build. at the same time we have other mandates that are public safety mandates, national security mandates and in my view the obligations that are more regulatory and we are going to be running both of these things at the same time but to say that you're a republican so you can only deregulate is not the way that approach it. >> just genuinely and seen very much as deregulatory and kind of reflects it? >> i've seen these stories before that say, well, he used to be very libertarian and now he's not but i'm not really sure what sort of the -- >> you don't feel -- >> everybody evolves but, look, i've been a commissioner for six years, you know, i always look at two things, concentration of power one, two, coupled with

harmful conducts. when you look at silicon valley and social media, lots of power and i think they used in discriminatory way. i don't think that reflects the current marketplace but they weren't exercising in discriminatory way. market power with discriminatory conduct can, inappropriate fit. but for social media we have lots of power. i think they're abusing that power coupled together. i think it's appropriate for fcc to say let's take a look at section 230. the supreme court looked pretty strongly and you can explain how i'm wrong with as lawyer but regulatory agencies are not allowed to go rooting regulation looking for new mandates and force things on them. i think a lot of people think section 230, aspirations are

going to ultimately hit a legal wall. >> so title 2 is an example sets of regulations that for years did not apply to this thing called the internet and so the fcc was saying we are going to newly apply to the internet. that's a big leap. >> congress wants that. that passes issues? >> in title 2 there's not sufficient language from congress to do that. >> right. >> in my view new question of whether this thing should be regulated that way by the fcc. 230 is a different type of thing. 230 is social media content moderation is regulated by congress through section 230 and there's a question of how should that thing apply to social media so it's apples and orange. >> government agency into the business at these private

companies. >> well, i'm eager, section 230 that applies to social media and i'm happy to apply the law that congress set forward. >> i think that's really a really interesting case where starlink, obviously a great way to get broadband to people in rural areas and a lot of cheaper than rolling wires. i'm not familiar enough with the details how that got shot down on opinion whether it's partisan or not. seems likes you will be in a position to authorize it. a lot of people that's a pretty reasonable policy. i think musk has a lot of great companies. how do you -- is there any extra burden because of musk's huge role in government to avoid appearance in conflict of interest if the policy is supported before and not really casting doubt on it, how to you navigate that, opening up billions of dollars to a company?

>> to me it's the same as before. starlink or musk is pushing an issue and he's right 100% of the time with fcc we are going to side 100%. if he is wrong every, he's going the lose every single time. >> the last question here. donald trump was tweeting recently that -- that comcast should be paying -- i'm looking for the quote. vast sums of money because of program, what is he talking about? he said because -- he was not like i would say a legal brief. he said because of msnbc and it being bad that comcast should pay vast sums of money, is that an fcc issue? >> i'm not sure i'm tracking -- >> i'm not really tracking either.

trump tweeted -- >> if you can show it to me i can look at it. what's he talking about? >> if i can see the quote, i can look at it. >> it wasn't directed at you? [laughter] >> thank you so much. >> it was fun, it was fun. good to be with you, appreciate it. >> how do you communicate with the president actually? i'm kind of surprised -- media regulation didn't make it your way. but how do you -- how do you kind of like track communicate? >> standard practice.

>> you missed a great one. >> ly come back. >> thank you so much. >> appreciate it. it was fun. [applause] >> please welcome back cofounder and ceo justin b smith. >> thank you very much. this is just closing remarks, more ceremonial. i think after that interview anyone can potentially use a drink including mostly ben and the panel sees. thank you all very much for coming. those who came for the whole day or part of the time, traveled from a different city including

the gentleman that came from sidney for this event. thank you so much for coming. this is a very, very important and significant issue for our company. we work on it every day and i hope today's conversations reflect our desire and our commitment to -- if you're interested please let us know. strong possibility that we are going to turn this into a much larger event in 2026 and actually grow into areas like local news which we touched on a little bit today. so in closing, i do want to thank our friends at gallup for hosting us and jim for your comments and thanks the knight

foundation for their support. so to the speakers, ben, max, all of you, thanks again. please join us for a drink outside. [applause] >> a look at liv coverage coming up friday on the c-span networks. on c-span at 11:00 a.m. eastern we will have discussn on the trade relationship between the united states and canada under the trump administration. it's hosted by the amerin enterprise institute. ukrainian presint volodymyr zenksyy is in washington, d.c. and wille meeting with president trump. later in the afternoon president zelenskyy wi be in hudson stitute in trying to secure pee in ukraine and on c-span2

at 8:15 a.m. eastern. vice president jd vance will be speaking at the prayer breakfast in washington, d.c. and at 10:3n on the roll of u.s diplomacy in the middle east and the part islam plays in the politics and culture of the region. you n also watch these events live on the c-span now app or on leadership at c-span.org. >> saturdays watch american history tv ten-week series first one hundred days toics employer early months of presidential administration. first one hundred days of lyndon johnson's presidency. president lyndon johnson kept kennedy's cabinet in place.

early in his term he also declared a war on poverty in america. watch our american history tv series first 100 days saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span2. >> c-span, democracy unfiltered. we are funded by these television companies and more. charter communication. >> charter is proud to be recognized as one of the best internet providers and we are just getting started, building 100,000 miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most. >> charter communication supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers giving you a front-row seat to democracy. >> the senate agriculture committee held a hear to go discuss challenges facing the farming industry, witnesses and lawmakers highlht