Hi, evybody. Thanks for being here. Its great to moderate a panel with three of the Outstanding Young jonalists covering politics. And when i say young, i dont mean to slight their experience, but theyre all young to me. I also cant fail to observe the big picture here and place sort of in context. The problems were about to talk about. The last te jackie and i were together, we were traveling in israel in the west bank with an organizaon called peace players, which tried to bring israelis and palestine together through basketball and seein the ghastly events that are unfolding inhat part of the world right now, it makes me be thankful that our problems are onhe scale that they are. Nevertheless, we do have problems, and one of them is how journalism treats this moment of peril for democracy. And so. Well, let me kick it off this way. The role of journalism in our democracy is embedded in the constitution. Um, and throughout all of our careers, we have had embedded in the ethic of our line of work, something that was not always true in the history of the country, which is that we have a press that strives to be nonpartisan, that does not choose between Political Parties, and that tries to fairly present the choices that voters face so they can make their decisions. But january six was a bit of a pivot point that dramatized and made clear to me, and ill ask my colleagues that we do have a serious threat to the functioning of our democracy. And so i wanted to ask each of you just to say state briefly your view of these questions, and then well get into the some of the how and why do you believe that democracy is under threat at the moment . And if it is, is is it part of the responsibility of the press to be partizans for democracy . How do you let me start with you . I believe it is because the polling tells us that it is. And i know well get into the role of the media later a what these troubling poll numbers say for the media. But what youre seeing is not only a decline in faith, in journalism and in the role of the media and free press, but in democracy itself, and those are running parallel. And i would go back even further. Jon, i know you want to be brief on this, but i would i want to share an anecdote from 2016 from a journalist whos in the generation, i would say above me, lynn sweet. We were in a cnn studios, opposite studios. And i came out i didnt really know her. She didnt really know me. But we were both feeling that something was changing vy profoundly about our industry and how we were perceived by the public. And she said to me, hey, you come here. And she pulled out a New York Times and started marking it up and she said, listen to me, im on my way into my sunset in this career. But were in a dire moment right now. And this is on you and your generation of journalists. And she said, i want you to speak very plainly to the american public. Ill give you an example. Social securitentitlements dont use words like that. Dont use words like discretionary and mandatory spending in the budget, say, before we had social security, if you were an old person who didnt have family to take care of you, you would probably just die and there would be no safety net for you. In any event. My point, john, is that i dont think this started on january six. I dont think it started in 2016. I think weve had a very long runway to get here, and its partly strtural. Largely structural, and we can get into that. But of course, john, i believe democracy is under threat and i believe we should be full throated in our support of demoacy at all times. But i also believe the press does too much of talking to itself about this. Its not our job to just state these things. We have to convince people about the values of these principles through the work we do to do more reporting, more listening, more engagement with people. So were not just blandly stating we support democracy, but we can bacit up with our actions. And i think the vigor of the press has become a real troubling aspect of american democracy and the lack thereof across the country. I used ttravel to state capitals when i started as a journalist, 15 years ago, 17 years ago, full time, and thered be 50 to 60 people in most of these state capitals. And now you go there to many of these same places, and there are between five and ten people covering state government. Im sure i your own local municipalities there may be one or two or zero people covering whats going on in a local community or state government. And soemocracy is clearly under threat because those in power are not getting the same scrutiny they deserve. And theres also a lack of shared understanding of the countrys history. Cics is something thats almost non existent in many schools in this country. And so its fine for us to state it. We should be proud to state our support for democracy. We should be unflinching ihow we describe what Democratic Values are and those who go against it. Speak up about it, tell the truth about those who are trying to erode democracy. But i really worry that if we just stay talking to ourselves and feeling good, that were saying we support democracy and we fight for democracy or democracy wont continue to exist in this country because well be an Establishment Group in the press and in the Political Class that feels very self satisfied and the rest of the country unmoored from democratic principles because theyre not being taught and theyre not in the press. Thll just continue to float away. And that selfsatisfaction we might find from stating ts will just be that something thats pretty useless. Jackie yeah, i mostly agree with everything that was just said. I want to be a take it a step more contrarian than what bob said, which is, yes, obviously we are we are partizan for democracy. But that is not to say that we dont question our imperfect democracy. There is a reason for why distrust in government is so low the way that we have seen democracy utilized and exploited. I guess, in recent years has resulted in in my minoritarian rule, really. Were seeing that right now in the senate and in a lot of different institutions where one or two people, Tommy Tuberville or matt gates, can completely hold up the entire process to a point where things are fairly broken in washington, even, you know, going back, i was ive been thinking about this for a few days now. You know, if i were an embed covering alexander hamilton, you know, i could imagine myself asking, pressing, why did you make the Electoral College . What exactly woke mob were you worried about so much of overthrowing the government that you felt like you needed to put in a buffer between the institutions in the us and the people and the popular vote and even going back now, i think you know a little bit about moving up to the civil rights movement. That was something that was completely missed by mainstream white media. It took years of repetition and advocacy. See, to some extent for black press, small, black, local outlets to raise issues with, again, our imperfect democracy for there for it even to rise to Mainstream Media coverage. So i think theres a fine line between, you know, toeing our our institutional line and being sort of blind to these founding principles and that our north star really at the end of the day, should always be, you know, trust but verify, question everything. And yeah, i think, you know, we all we all to a certain extent, miss january 6th because of, i think, our focus on the institutions rather than understanding this institution or movement that propelled it has what propelled a lot of what were seeing right now in mainstream politics. Th you raised an issue that i think is important, which is to try to define what the problem is exactly. Theres one way of looking at the threat to democracy and say its about the losers accepting legitimate defeats in their election in the peaceful transfer of power and all the things that go into that, counting ballots accurately letting the electorate participate, and then living with the results. But in this moment, i think many people are looking at long standing features of our system. And regarding them differently because of the questioning of Election Results. So you mentioned the counter majoritarian elements of our system, the Electoral College, the composition of the senate, the rules of the senate. Should we, heidi, cover those things as much, if not uivocal, to the controversies about Election Results . But as part of thisarger threat to majority rule, the United States unequivocally, yes. And this is getting into part of the broader landscape of whats wrong with the media today. Part of it is, i think the founders envisioned us as representing you, the people asking questions to power on behalf of the people. But over time, a lot of the Media Coverage has come to be about covering the Political Parties themselves, access to the Political Parties, and scoops this just in hot take newsy scoops that put you position you ahead of your competitors and get you that kind of esteemed position. And within again, like bob says, your industry and your peers, whereas re having a crisis, weve all agreed listening to these previous panels of der fundamental understanding of civics in this country and people who dont understand and have never heard basic facts. For instance, about how skewed the reprentation has come to be in the senate, which the unders envisioned as a cooling saucer. But now is is is very misrepresentative of the broer population per capita. These are things that we should not take a position on, but these are things that we certainly need to illuminate the publics people are not understandinwhy when you look at both republicans and democrats, why washington isnt representing people like me, thats how the question is is asked a lot of times. Right. So theres the theres the hot take problem in that and the competition to get scoops. But i also think john, that the structural problem is maybe even more consequential. And that is, you know, probably many people in this audience came up in an era of news where you had these storied evening news anchor gatekeepers who everyone trusted when it came to accuracy. And we were all kind of listening to the same information, even though that period was a period of great tumult, right . In the 1960s, early 1970s. But there was still a lot of faith in media thats kind of where you saw the trend line start to trend down. And i think that that that what thats been replaced with, there are some really good aspects to that, right. We have now dital media, linear television, much more voices like jackie said, when you have diversity in your voices and in your messengers, thats good for democracy, unfortunately. I think whats replaced it also is a bit of a circus tent where you have journalists, pseudo journalists and even anti journalists, people who are openly anti journalist under the same tent that is called the media. You have individuals who have opinion programs running alongside journalists. Journalist asked to go on opinion programs. You have a public that was used to hearing news during the day and then opinion at night, but then that kind of blood in together. And so who in particular do you think is anti journal. I age withouome pele are but how woulyou identify the group of people who are i mean, a lot of the fox eveng news hosts come for us all personally. Right. They feature us in their news programs. So thats from the right. Yes. I mean, were seeing n in the polling, i think, less trust among and we can talk about this, too, among Young Democrats as well. But this is overwhelmingly coming from the right. And so that i think is is now giving way ta system where you are what you eat and you can choose your media diet. And so were all in these little silos consuming only that which tastesnd feels good to us and not which gives us all of the proper context. So i think your pop your first question was your question here was about whether we need to cover these broader kind of system problems or debates that we need to be havg in society. And my answer to that is we need to put a heat shield around investigative journalists who can take the time to provide the public with that kind of context, and then just pray that they listen to us because so much has happened now with the estimaon of the media. But let me ask you a question about how we do this. If everyone on this panel has agreed, we suld be partizan for democracy, the question is, how do you do that . What language do you use . Give me an example. Well, donald trump, as president , we honor donald trump lied all the time, but thats pretty much all he does. We got pressure in the media t use that word and some people resisted using that word. You have to consider if youre a very blunt in your language, do you alienate part of your audience or do you state it in a different way . In the afterth of the election, much of the media got comfortable using that word, saying these are lies about the election. How broadly should we take that approach to things that we know are n true . Ill just give you a very small example from the legislation that the new speaker laid out this week, about eight israel. He said only in what they proposed to pay for the aid to israel by cutting irs tax enforcement, which in fact would not pay for anything. It would cost the government money because that money is used to to collect taxes from people who dont pay what they ought to pay. We know that thats not controversial. How do you see that question . What what rms should we use and how diplomatic should we be in coverinthose stories . Well, respectfully, ihink words really matter because journalists are now under intense pressure and we are competing with people, journalisms not like the law is. Theres no ery way for urnalism. Anyone can be a journalist if you have a phone or you have a an x account or something else, yo can become a journalist because youre sharing information. Use the term partizan for democracy. I wouldnt use the term partizan. I would say im an advocate for democracy, a defender of democracy. But to me, the word partizan has a Political Parties in democracy, a party. I would say im okay, thats fine advocate, but im just trying to make the point. Yeah, words matter. I woulnever use the word partizan because people saying would interpret it. Im sensitive to this all the time because my job is to engage constantly with the voters. And if they hear im a quote, partizan for anything, why would they think about me as a journalist who can come at something with vigor, but also an opportunity to listen if they hear the word partizan . So i wouldnt use that word. I would use the word lie if a republican lies or a democrat lies called a lie. And when it comes to Something Like the aid to israe words matter respectfully, for example. And jon probably wouldnt have done this if he was tv talking about this. But if i was on tv talkingbout the aid to israel proposed by speaker johnson, i dont just make a blanket statement that its not that its going to add to the deficit, because what are you going to do if youre a republican here . Youre going to go, where does that come from . I would say i would attribute it directly to the Congressional Budget Office evaluation of the legislation, which says that this proposal by johnson, the new speaker, to tie aid to israel to cuts tthe irs budget, it does it could ballo the deficit, according to the cbo analys. So youre attributing something to credible source and the cbo so people know the information. Im saying about how this adds to the deficit advocate it by a conservative saker is not my opinion. Its not something im just coming up with. But its based on my reporting and my analysiof the cbo study of the bill. And were wading through waters now if were not constantl thinking about how language is loaded for many people, that were n going to break through with the very people we need to connect with Pew Research Shows and its new latest study about Media Consumption that this whole country is watching far less news than it was just five or seven years ago. Dramatic, dramatic slip in the news. Well, where are they goingo hide his point . Theyre not just always going to know wherer just to social media. Ere are new alternative media sources and its on us to recognize were in a fiercely competitive environment for peoples attention and our credibility comes is intertwined with the language we use. But doesnt that if you, in fact, are editing your language because youre concerned about how it. No, i didnt say that. Not about concern. Its about being accurate to a point where people can really hear it. My my question is, doesnt that put you in the posion of being yourself a pitician . That is to say youre your mindful of the effect th youre words are going to have, even if theyre. Not the words that y would use if you were talking to a friend or a Family Member that, in other words, i dont think you should use casual language when youre professionallyeporting. But i also think mmy call something a lie thats not being a politician. People dont like the word lie. But if somethings a lie,ou have to call a lie. Well, i mean thain thacase and partizan my point and partizan, can have a respectful disreement. I think tha term and i understand i you and i believe have the same position on mocracy. s under threat, needs to be dended. We need to be forceful advoces for it. Buyoure right. I wouldt wouldt say im a politian, but i am i am careful because i represent cbs news and i want to have the broadest possibl audience. So, yes, i think i dont use always the language i might use with my brother or sister in privatover dinner. But but just to pursue it for a cond, im why why would u then use. The word lie about the Election Results as opposed to saying 70 courts rule this or that and theres no evidence of this or that. Why would you why would you get to the point where you say, okay, i am going to use the word for that . Well, ill give you an example from the real world tomorrow on cbs sunday morning, i have a piece on democcy and about election 2024. If you want to watch tomorrow morning on cbs and i spoke to James Fallows from the very effective. In the course of the scripting, we have a standards and ethics process at cbs news and its about how to frame what did trump do in the post 2020 period . How do you frame that in script . So it comes across as accurate and as forceful as possible without entering into territory where it could be pulled apart by someone who wants to question cbs news. So if youre going to say, what did trump do . He did try to overturn the 2020 Election Results. It was obvious in all of his public statements he was trying to do that. He he says he was trying to get an accurate count and that he actually but he was right. But he was trying to overturn the result. That was a factual thing that happened. He was also trying to block the certification of the 2020 election, blocking the certification, and i believe as a reporter is a fair phre to use where you get into tough territory as a journalist and you might disagree with this, john, if cbs wants tsay trump tried to, quote, subvert. The 2020 election and use the word subvert, trumps now facing five ongoing trials, two of them relad to his efforts to overturn the 202election. If youre going to use a word like subvert because his cing ongoingitigation on this, you often have to put the word alleged subvert because subvert implies in some of the the word in the definition intent intent. And hes bn prosecuted for possible criminal intent. Whats not under question, if you put aside the ea of subversion, which you may say is accurate, i may say is accurate, but hes facing criminal charges that are ongoing. But to say heblocking the the certificion. Thats tr. Witht question. And that fact that he tried to overturn is true with that questionbecause those were actions. So, you know, if you describe actions he took versus anything that implies intent, youre in a clear editorial zone. Now, this is an area of debate. Theres no right or wrong answer, but these are the kind of choices im activelhaving to make as a journalt and how we frame things with language to be as tough as possible, tget as close as possible to the truth without being in a posion where youre vulnerable to say youre implying intent if you cant actually prove it. Well, let me im going to go to heidi in a second. But but i just want to make a point, reinforce the Point Roberts just said, which is that. Nobody makes rules for journalists that tell journalists what to do. All of us approach our job in the way that we see fit. And people a going to make different judgments abo about different aspts of this. And, you know, one question i have is, if you say that, you know, im going to do x and not y, because i think pple are going to question me if i do x. How do youquare that with the fact that people are going to question you whether you do x, y, z or q . And so im going to put that on the table. Go ahead, heidi. I think we need to both. Right. We need to be extremely vigilant about accuracy in e language that we use. But we also need to be more forceful about the language that we use because were not dealing were not dealingith two parties. And the old paradigm of heres what one party told says and heres what the other party says. Were dealing with a faction of a party that is discarding the norms of democracy. And i dont think its good enough for us to just ate that we have contextualize it for people and tell them why that is a fa label to use. Again, getting back to the issue of civics, this is now part of our role is to explain civics to to the public and contextualizing what that means in the past, wed use words like stnch or hard liner, right . And now and i wrote this down, anticipating this question. Heres how i would contextualize using authoritarian. Anthis has not just to do with january six. Is has to do with t entire experience of the previous administration, which is inciting political violence, considating power, demanding loyalty, demonizing the media, immigrants, scientists, judges. And then the issue of selfenrichment. We do see these as hallmarks across the globe of authoritarian rule. In fact, theres a through line between what was happening wi authory and leaders in brazil and the philippin as well as in terms of tactics like using facebook. I dont know if yoall are aware of that, but facebook was a major means of spreading misinformation by leaders in her countries as well. So im going to say accuracy is its never beenore important, but to your point, derek, queson previously about contextualization is so importanright now because each one of these things individually ght not stand out to the public, but it needs to be all woven together fothem to understand. I remember Madeleine Albright beinon set coming up after her and her using a quote from her book about fascism a warning, which is that if you pluck a chicken, one feather at a time, nobody will note. Jackie, let me go back to a point that related to our earlier discussion of what you raised about the counter majoritarian elements of our system. We we see that the donald trump is leading a movement that itself through the postElection Results in 2020, january six and since has attempted to overturn the results of the election. Could you have seen a series of other elements that also are in different ways from different parts of the same party, trying to negate majority rule, things like states have votes on expanding medicaid and then the legislature nuifies the actions that voters took or voters in florida voting to return Voting Rights to exfelons, people who lfilled their sentences, and then the legislature passing a law to require them to pay money before they could do that. You weve seen some the new speaker, some members ofhe senate on the republican se say that democracys not a good thing because, as mike johnson said, democracy is to lbs and sheep deciding whats for dinner. And so the not the whole notion is that majority rule impils inherently the rights and existence of the minority. How do we cover the fact that this threat, while it theoretically could exist on both sides of the spectrum, is in practice coming from one si of the spectrum. And i was i talked to Richard Haass not long ago, the former republican Foreign Policy advisor, head of the council on foreign relations, and asked him to sort of summarize the stakes in 2024. And he said, if were going to preserve democracy in the United States, biden st win the election. That has to happen. And when i interviewed biden, i said, are you comfortable making that argument . Because it sounds kind of crazy toay were in a democracy. Voters have a choice, but only one of those choices is going to preserve the democracy. How do we handle that . Well, its certainly confusing, right, because we all were taught in history growing up that minority rule and minority power were necessary just to some exten so that, you know, our government wasnt very quickly putting into place these radical changes that that, you know, the minority that might not be be good for the country and that would throw us into tumult, especially if, you know, president would only be in power for four years and we would go through these really dramatic swings. But some of the things that the framers obviously did not anticipate, two things, mainly werehe rapid and diverse population growth that weve seen in the u. S. And the deeply entrenched and polarized two party rule. And so what has happened, i think what weve really seen is one party trying to stem or curb some of what weve seen with this this populous asian growth through minority rule. And it has essentially, you know, brought the government to a standstill at some points and in some respects. And its now used to undercut these like long standing principles tt that are society has operated by. So i mean, even this is just fresh in my mind right now. You know, the the motion to vacate this arbitrary rule that was passed by the house gop conference, the the Majority Party in the house of representatives, where it only takes one member to oust the speaker of the house. Its crazy. Its its not a and its you know, thats something that i think the majority of republicans would agree on. But the way that they passed the rule, theyre not going to be able to get rid of this rule right now in order to to at least stay open and avoid the situation that we were just in for the past month. So i think covering it, it does require some ground in history and making sure that we can contextualize it. And it also, i think, requires understanding the ways that democracy has and the constitution and where it has its weak spots and and where, you know, our government and institutions can grow and maybe improve. I mean, even with our january 6th coverage, it ultimately led us to and it led congress to this debate over, you know, making a tweak to the electoral certification process that we wouldnt have another situation where Vice President pence would, you know, be fearing for his life because he was going to make the final decision to certify the election and making sure that there was something some sort of law rule put in into place where the vic president does have the final say in in who ultimately ws an election. And that, of course, was, as everything has been recently in congress, very controversial and a contentious debate. And that is largely because of of the again, the growth of the minor in in our government. But but how would you answer that question of, you know, richard, it says to preserve democracy, if joe biden has to win, if u if you think hes correct in that, how do we cover that . How do how do we say that or shou we say that . I think wanted to jackie, just mention we need to have an understanding of history. And john is nudgintoward the point that we really have to grapple with what the Republican Party s become. And i was just paging through a fedays ago david remnicks book, lenins tomb, which is such an eyewitness account of the collapse of the soviet unn, it really made me think about what were covering now with the republicaparty. Its not the soviet union, but were watching a transformation or historic ift inside of the reblicanarty. And i think theres no easy fix here, john, in ter of addressing what this means for democracy, how we frame this all up. But we have to really process that. We are in a convulsive, historic moment i began my career covering the Tea Party Movement in 2009, the repuican party broug it in. In 2011, i startedo get to kn donald trump. Why he was birther. He was questioning questioning whether president ama was born in this country, a racist campaign against an incumbent esident about his own birth certificate. What happed . A yearater i2012, mitt romney, the republican nominee, embraced tmp in las vegas, accepting his eorsement. And then after they se in 2012, they decided to have this auto pepsio change the partys position on aboron excuse me, immigration. What happens in 2013 . The base pushes back on the huge immigration push. The bipartisan immigration bill. And then in 2014, i start to get to know donaldrump again as hes comi to run for president in 2015. Everyone ignores it. Ultimately, th accept him. They embrace him. He wins the predency in 2016. He shatters almost every norm in republican in politics. Heakes t repubcan par a party now. Now that on trade issues, on onomic issues is essentially where the Democrat Party was in thmid 19s. And ita total upheaval. And so democra is something thats sustained by some sort of norm of democratic governce and the rule of law. And i remember sitng with trump on octob, midoctober of 2016, flying from canton, ohio, to laguaia airport and i said, are you going to accept this election . Heaid, well, ill never lose. Ill never lose. I saidwhat you might lose . And he said he just would not accept the idea that he could ever lose an electio and thought at the time it was odd. And we wrote about it in the Washington Post. But its just to your point, john. Yes. Many pple believe President Biden is the best person for american democracy to survive. And that often comes from democrats, not from republicans, but inside the democtic pay, theres a huge questi of whethenow President Biden can beat President Trump. Should former President Trump be the nonee . I was just interviewing dean phillips, this congressman from minnesota whos running against President Biden for the nomition. You have the no labels gro hovering out there. Cornell west rning as an independent. Robert f kennedy junior nning as an independent. And so its not as easy for the press to just come out and say biden equals democracy see, when democrats inside the party, independent leaning left, people are having their own questions about biden. Well, im speaking on the assumption that thats a general election choice. Im obviously the democratic party, but its not like its not going to be a general election choice because you have two independent candidates and Robert F Kennedy jr and cornel west. Well, right. Sure yeah, but that is the general election, right . I mean, and theres an editorial role to make endorsements. I mean, we have the Washington Post editorial page. You have columnists. I dont think news organizations need to take a political stand on an election, buyou can lay out the stakes for american democracy in vivid detail and say if trumps the nominee, this republican nominee has been participating in schemes that have been lled criminal across the board to overturn the last election has still not accepted defeat in the last election and was part of what many people testified under oath was a criminal conspiracy to undermine and defraud the United States. Thats fact. And i think you can say tt without saying biden is best. Well, let me go back to one word choice yoused. You describe Trumps Campaign or initial emergence as racist. You talk to donald trump, he says on the least racist person in the world, why . Why are you comfortable using that word to describe something that is not a because he was skeptical to facts because it was. Ths true racist can imply intent but he was questioning the first black president s love of country patriotism andrigin of birth. And at the Washington Post, we use the term ract to describe the birther credential. When i was there and i am comfortable using it now because i agree with you. But my only point is there there are analytical judgment calls that you make that makwords acceptable. And one of the questions that we have is, when do you use that discretion is because. Right. And at times, if you can understand intent, you can use racially charged as a phrase thats often used in journalism. Yes, racially charged campaign, a racially racially charge, but if theres literally no proof of something and it has its racially charged, if youre making a false statement, a lie about someone and it has an origin to do with their ce, its some extent or their origin or their ethc origin and s fair to use the term racist. I mean, again, these phrases are uncomfortable. The word lies comfortable. We dont ve to throw itround the word racist, but you havto call somhing. What it is. And i agree, its always a conversation in newsrooms about where exactly to go and how to do it. And its an imperfect process. How do we we in both print, television are facing declining audiences, difficulty for news, judgment, news organizations across the board, shrinking local news, footprints. In your view, does it matter if we call sothing racist a charged, or if we Say Something is a lie or something that lacks evidence . Does that a difference . Does it is it is it going to persuade or not persuade . I dont know that its group of people are not persuade. I do know that i take you back to my original kind of posit position on all of this, which is what bob just did, was contextualize his use of that word. I dont think we can use words like that if wereot contextual. Losing it and giving examples of why were using that language. But to your brder question about how should we cover this as a choice between democracy and trump, i think we need to fundamentally change the way weve covered electns around the horse race paradigm, which is heres what the polls are. Heres where the polls, our reader, viewer and trumps up day and hes is. Yeah, boy hes really consolidating the base and heres the demographic numbers of like who he and who he doesnt. Thats important. But its not everything. And i think this cultures kind of build buildup of really just focusing on this just in data, whereas this moment that fails us in this moment and what we needo do is if were going to e the language like i just as authoritarian playbook for instance, we need to contextualize the fact that whereas in 2016 trump was making comments lock her up and everybody said harding hurt her in this election, theres an actual platform that you can call authoritarian. Its called project 25, 20, 25, which really envisions the unitary executive theory where you have a lot of consolidation of power underneath the president. Anthat includes defunding the justice department. The fbi, quasi independent agenciesike the fcc, oversees television and digital, which was, you know, a known thorn in the side of President Trump as well as just bically throwing out the bums of cil servants and bringing in the swamp like the swamp, deep state swamp and throwing them out and bringi in people who bona fide loyalists to the president. Now i think thats a hell of a lot more imptant to cover than the latest poll. We have a lot that were contending with to get over that hump. And probably a lot of people would be, you know, shooting darts and arrows at me. Right now. Im far enough along iny career. I dont care. I think its really important in this moment to change our language and our approach to coverage. But weave a lot that were up against in our Business Models where were all especially with the linear television, speaking to specific audiences that want hear specific things and to tune in to hear the things that that feel good to themnd so im not optimistic that everyones going to do that, but thats my opinion. Well, let me just say i agree with your characterization of those plans to overhaul the federal govement. I have personally sitation in calling that authoritari, but i would just say to the point that bob was making about, well, you know, when you use evidence or when do you apply your analytical judgment to use a word, if you ask the people who are hatching and advancing those plans, they will say that they are replacing members of the deep state who are attempting to subvert the will of the people who have elected a given government. Now, i happen to think thats completely b. S. And i dont mind saying that, but people do have to make judgments about how they describe it. And and you made a point that is that is resonant with me, which is that the further along you are in your career, the more that you have seen the more free you feel to describe things as you see them, as compared to, lets say, how i would have felt at a much earlier point in my career when i had many more decades to go. I think we need to establish that. And not just me using the language, but this is where you bring in yr experts and this is why were at such a perilous moment, is because so many of ose experts have been diligent allies. Like if you go back to covid, the doctors were attacked. So who am i supposed to call now if i cant call a doctor to tell you, hey, you better wear a mask. This thing is dangerous. But to your point, i would i would call historians. I have a piece running in the next couple of weeks based on misrepresenting nation. I wont go too far but misrepresentation of media, medieval era common law that relates to the supreme courts decision on dobbs leave it at that. I brought in the historians and if thats what we need to do, then thats thats not a hard thing to do to establish our use ofhat language. Jackie, let me go to the issue of platforming. One of the controversies in journalism is do you provide a platform a megaphone for people who are going to say things that you believe know to, be untrue . This is relevant to the cerage of trump. It seems to me you must cover the republican nominee for president if in fact he becomes a republican nominee, which i also know hes going to say a t of things that are not true. How do we deal with that . And ould there be rules on what gets platformed . I dont mean across journalism rules. I mean in your own mind. Should the how do you think about the issue of what should be platformed and what should not. Im going to answer that question, i promise. Ive just been like squirreling up some notes here. Good. And i want to add a little dose of optimism, which is that the system is currently working. Just so everyone knows. I mean, donald trump is facing 91 criminal charges and is on trial in three, four, three, four different civil criminal, five, five cases. So, you know, its not all doom and gloom here and, you know, the a lot of i mean, its i think that we all need to sort of likadjust the way that do really covered democracy back to your initial point because of the postsoviet era way that we are seeing authority aliens now gain power. It used to be done militarily and now really since the cold war, youre seeing authoritarians do it through democratic elections and then sort of shooting gaps in their democracies to slowly amass and accumulate power first, you know, making the police force a personal military, then, y know, hacking confiscating voting machines. So, you know, we are keeping tabs on how all of those things are adding up. But in thavein, i dont think that, you know, theyre not every democrat would say joe biden equals, you know, democracy right now were hearing and uprr of democrats who believe that that joe biden has essentially given netanyahu the green light for genocide in gaza as Israeli Forces are continuing their ground offensive invasion. So i do think this is where its really just sticking to. I know i snd so conservative and antiquated, but just sticking to the facts and Holding Power to account, questioning every decision ths made and getting as many voices as possible, as many accurate, factual well, you know, fact based voices, which which leads us to the platform question, which its as heidi and bob have both stresseits about its all about context. You gone are the days where you can just slap up a headline that says soandso said this, and now needs to be, you know, trump. Trumespouses unsubstantial tweeted lie of you know Election Fraud for 15 hundredttime at Campaign Rally like that tha that is the bare minimum the media has certainly evolved and grown since the 2016 campai when i think we were a much more rse race focused National Press apparatus. But i think that the like platforms are also is a problem. I think, you know, giving voice to ptforms necessarily shouldnt have a huge amplification is a is an issue with the press a larger issue with the pre. Its the of local news. Its the death of litera rates, literacy rates and News Literacy rates in schools around the country. In addition to low, you know, civic rates is is atrocious. And thats largely because of the death of local new and i think if we had less reporters all covering the speakers race, you know, theres no need for 100 different reporters from. However many different outlets to be covering the same incremental minute by minute thing thats happening on catol hill. I think whats much more important is putting people out there to tell, you know, different stories, harder to to scrape stories and digging up new things about peop who dont want whatever youre digging to be publicly revealed. That is far more important. And so i think we can in part solve this issue of the loudest voices, which has created this whole perverse, you know, system that incentivize is the the the voices, political to reallyay the most outrageous an act and inaccurate things as poible because they know its gog to get them Media Coverage clicks and dollars. Its this kind of horrible cycle. If we had more journalists around the country and in different places covering different stories, i think we could alleviate that issue. Bob, with me, im glad that jackie raised the optimism point. And let me ask you about that. If youre somebody who believes that, you know, Donald Trumps conduct in office and the things that he says are harmful to democracy, you have seen in 2018, 2020, 2022, voters react to that we have seen jackie indicated the legal system pursuing accountable for donald trump without civil unrest. We saw local elections midterm elections in 2022 without violence with all but in one or two cases the losers conceding the election not trying to fight and overturn the results. How do we in the media exaggerate the scale of the threat to democry . Is it more resilient than we have portrayed it . Its resilient. I think the media needs to do to answer your question about platforming as well, what is platforming . To me . Platforming is when in 2016 the Cable Networks put Donald Trumps rally on for hours. Oftentimes just showing an empty lectern and microphone, waiting for him to come and then giving him an hour on televisi to talk without without critiquin without reporting. Thats providing someone with a platrm from without the necessary reportorial construct around it. That would give it context. My argument at 2016, as a reporter remains my argument for 2024, which is trump is actually undercovered. There needs to be re accountable journalism o trump. I know people are exhausted by trump, including news organizations, but who here could tell me whats dona trumps new immigration proposal for 2025 that he came out wi this week . Could anyone here tell me . See, thats the problem we have. Donald trump came out this week and said his he is going to push for mass deportations on day one. Mass deportations eeping across the country. Hes echoing exactly what steve bannon has been saying for months now. Trumps adopted it as his position to have an enormously disruptive immigration policy being proposed by the republican frontrunner. But it clearly doesnt land with th educated group. And thats not th any disrespect for any of you, becausits not being covered in a serious way, because trumps not seen, in a sense, as a serious person, even though hes a very serious political figure, and he could well be the next president of the United States. And were all still trying process in this country. What does itean for an incumbent president to lose, not accept the election and then run for president again . Can you imagine in 1984 or 1983, three years after 1980, jimmy carter hasnt accepted defeat and is running around the country and say hes going to run agn in 84 for vengeance. Its impossible to. Imagine, imagine in 1995, in november of 1995, george h. W. Bush going around the country, fusing to accept bill clinton and saying hes gointo run in 96 to reclaim the white house. Its so outside of the norm of history, and we do need to cover the legal stuff, because who is even keeping tra . U have a criminal case in georgia. You have a criminal case at the federal level in washington on january six. You have a criminal case in florida on the federal level, on alleged mishandling of classified documents. You have a civil case in new york o Trump Organization and a 250 million fine. And you have a cminal case in new york about the alleged hush money payments trump made in 2016 to try to subvert campaign fince laws. I use the word overt subvert and allege there, john, but yeah, well, just let me just pursue the platforming. So you do think that it is we have somewhat exaggerate the threat, but that was my original question. No as or no. I think democ christie is under grave threat and i cant tell you i cant even go up to peoe anymore. And it has changed so much, john, and even five years, if i approach a person in public and say, robert, cbs news the instant and not because its about personally, i hope, but instant aversion whether theyre republicans or democrats, no one wants to speak. No one wants to communicate. I mean, the tragedy of this country, t real tragedy, i think, of democracy is so many people. I mean, it actually get them to be candid with me. They often tell me theyre not even being candid with their own partners or spouses about their own positions and thr own politics. So even in the home, people are isolated and democracy and the problems facing it are exacerbated. And in this isolated culture a society we now have where evyone lives on instagram and their phones, no one talks to their neighborr even their Family Member. So how can we expect to have any kind of civic fabric if we cant even have it in the family that lives nextoor . What is this also, go back to language that i havent commented on. The wholeanguage discussion, but youre saying and i thini have some, again, contrarian views on this, i dont think weve exactly read of the threat to democracy, but i think when the media ts defcon five on eversingle thing, it contributes to the news fatigue that were already seeing. And i thinthat in order to communicate with people and to the trust the coin of the realm and what we do. Ats our currency. And that that means that in order to go to where people are, i need to neutralize my language or or rephrase something in order to communicate something. Then im fine doing that. I would rather have someone engage with someone and have a alog and be able to reach someone. If tt means tailoring what im saying a bit to them, because i think the facts at the end of the day are more important than the than the the the media or the, you know, the way that were communicating that that message. And i think thats where things get so lost. I mean, all of these different outlets and these different ways of engaging that exist now, you they facilitate certain type of language cable news. You can have to say what you mean in 2 minutes on twitter. You have to say what you mean. And however x, whatever the site formerly known as twitter, we have to write in print, copy. You only have a certain amount of of letters and so or words and so it does it cuts down it infringeon the ability for nuance. And i think it has led to also in addition to news fatigue, its led to people being scared to engage in dialog because of fear of being accused of antisemitism, of being accused of being racist. Theyre all these words and these labels that are have been so easily thrown around. And that is why i think we have exhibited a lot of caution when it comes to to using such. Such, you know, whats the word . A very forceful, strong language, jacki, just quick followp that when you go to high, how large do you thinks the universe of people who are persuadable depending on t language that use . I ask that because my suspicion is its quite small that that the there is no language that you could use, for example, as a member of the Mainstream Press talking to segment which is not insignificant within the Republican Party that subscribes to say the qanon theory, i dont think whatever language u use would ma a difrence,ut do you think there is a large segmenof the audience where it does make a difference . Well, that is a question that management and business folks at washingt post have been studying for a while. And its why we he, i think, come out with a lot onew different products. s also why i think if you probably noticed that weve been pairing a lot of our hard ne with, softer news. So, you know, eat your greens and get your sweets to, you know, how many of you subscribe hereo the New York Times . Because they also have and spelling bee i mean those things are efctive to drawing readers in and us minded coastal elites or you know at least that is a lot of the view of some of the people that were unable to reach might laugh at that. But i think that, you know, we all should be taking seriously different ways to different audiences. And it be small. But i think connecting with in the first place is a good is a good start. I mean, i thin developing relationships with the however you c. I used to write a newsletter and i found that actually we drew in a lot of types of people because at the top of our newsletter we had sort olike a colloquial, casual way of engaging with people, whether it was an inside joke or a personal tidbit or something about my dog, you know, at the end of the day, everyone is just a person and they want to connect with you. Anso if you can find a way to connect, then you overcome at least that first barrier to being able to at least have a further dialog with them personally, as somebody who spent ten years writing politics for the New York Times, i value the New York Times cooking app much as the political coverage. But how do you let me let me let you close from a question before i go to audience questions, and that is, how do you grade how well journalism is rising to meet this moment. Look, i dont think that we lack for cnkite and brokaws and our generation. I think its the the terrain that were working on is extremely perilous. And a lot of it to jackies point about language and tha kind of like some of the hyperbol language that were seeing, well, wherdoes that come . Its not in generally the story newspapers or evening newscasts. Its on the 24 hour linr Television Cable news circuit where its 24 hours and you need guests a you need content and the most explosive thing is what gets the headline and what gets mocked up and put out. And digital. So i think that ther has be a sweet spot between being very careful abouhow we engage with thoswho we cer and those who we want to inform in order to geinformation, because thats our first job, is to get t information. But then the second part of that is accurately portraying the information. And i think again,hat we are failing to meet the momt if we dont contextualize for t public what that information is and what it means in a broader context of history and whats happening in terms of the platforms of the two parties and whats happening all throughout the world in terms of democracy. So to get back to your question, im going to go to the t poll there where the numbers are not good for us in terms owhat whether they think were biased or whether were were lding to participating in polarization. Again, this is a really difficult not thats been tied and its going to take quite some time to unravel it. It has to do also for profit journalism. This country that they have make money for us to be journalists an they havent figured out yet in aigital age how to do that. 360 newspapers in the country have gone out of business just since 2019. There are a lot of people want to be journalists. They want to be the local face that you trust because the polling us that while people may not trust the media broadly, they trust their local news reporters. The problem is thats all going away now in the vein of being an optimist, what wereeeing are some exciting things like nonprofit newsrooms trying to get their brea and trying to get out of the gate here, which could be a very Good Development because if you look at the rankings by reporters without borders, i think it is on freedom of the press globally, the countries that do the best by the way, canada is like 15 and were like 45. So whats the difference there . Like whats going on in canada thate dont have here . There are me hallmarks, including disclosure of who each media outlet is owned by Public Disclosure thats required a strong central nonprofit broadcast platform and the nadian broadcast corporation politicians. We didnt get to that yet. And i want to say one more thing on that. But politicians who dont call us fake ns andll just end on this study because i think this says a lot about how we got here as well, which is Cambridge University in 1999 said, hey, whats going with this increasing tendency for the public to view the media as liberal whats happening here . And they commissioned a 20 year study which studied both rhetoric by politicians and content and being p out by those news organizatio. And what they found was that while the content hat changed so much, the rhetoric had become extremely negative towas the media. Look, even even jefferson, who wathe strongest advocate for the media apparently once he got intoffice,ecided he didnt like newspapers. Some newspapers in particular as well. So this is not new that politicians bill clinton had an and hiary clinton. It famously tense relationship wi the media. So this is not just a republic can republicans viewing us as liberal phenenon and this has been happeni but it kind of went on steroids during the 1990s with the dn of again, linear television, Newt Gingrich and the house made this a big part of the plank of the Republican Party in george bushs Campaign Slogan was annoy the media, elect george bush right. That was kind of like playful. I covered his n, george w bush, and he used to playfully call us the filter. But at happened between then and now was just a real explosion again, which ill end on my interaction. Lynn sweet in 2016 warning me that, you know, were not in kaas anymore. L righ guys,ere almost out of time, but we got some audience question. m going to pose them to just onof you and ask for a quick answer to see if we can t as many through as many as poible. Bob merry asks the question, are young people pursuing carrs in journalism . Is it still viewed as an enviable patriot and civic minded career . Is. There should be more opportunities, but unfortunately, sometimes news organizations are shrinking, not hiring as much. But i am heartened to see so Many College Students and others are looking to join the journalistic ranks and to participate jackie. Adrian has a question is the american electorate curious engh to seek out Accurate Information or is there already enough content for people . But they read only what they want to hear . I think confirmation bias is a big issue, but i also want to get back to this idea of News Literacy. I dont think its a matter of curiosity necessarily. I think that seeking out Accurate Information is something that everyone could use. A 1 to 1 course, and its something that shoulbe taught in schools. How to how to verify what youre being taught, what youre learning, what youre seeing, what youre hearing, how to use google, how to u these databases that we use on a regular basis. Lexisnexis s j store things that that i had access to growing up in school at a really great public school. But i know that a lot of people around the country now dont have access to you. I dont think we can necessarily put this on an individuals curiosity. I think it needs to be fostered and nurtured and cultivated. Jennifer asks idi a recent Opinion Survey of 25 couries shows the least trusted our government. Government leaders and journalists. How do you change that to gain more trust . How do i change it . You personally. Look, i think we need to be very transparent about how we come to our facts. Like Daniel Patrick moynihan said, you are welcome to your own opinion, but you are not welcome to your own facts. The problem is, in this country that we cant agree on basic facts. Basic facts are challenged, so we cant get to that second stage of having a discussion about what is the right path forward. So me personally, i want to be more accessible to anybody whos reading my material. I want them to know how i come about. The information that i have. I want them to know that before i publish an investigative piece ive given the subject of my piece a week, two weeks. Ive had several conversations or ive been completely shut out by that person who doesnt want to talk about it. And i want them to know that its gone through a process of being picked apart by a team. Standards editors as the first row of death by a million cuts and then the second one by our legal team. Because when im being viewed under the same media tent as a twitter account named cat turd that has four times the viewers or the followers that i feel is better than kanter. Thank you. I ink we need to be very trsparent. And that i thats my personal commitment. All right. Weve got three more. Ill take the last one. Bob, carl asks, do y believe modern journalists are doing an adequate job right now, of Holding Current politicians accountable for their words and des. I think everyones ting to get the most obtainable version of the truth to get as close to that as possible. I think ere is exhst. And in our Business People are leaving re than come in and it seems at tim due to the the way the ldscape is evolving at such a rapid pace and often in an uncomfortable way for people. I think the challenge for so many journalists and Holding People to account is that politicians now so much to avoid even a conversation with journalists, whether theyre republicans or democrat. We need to have more engagement politicians to answer questions. Too many politicians wt have news conferences. They wont engage wh reporters. The hallways candidates wont. They want to go to reporters they like or they want to go to parties and outlets, or they dont want to do anything except issue a press release. And that give and take is really eroding by the day. On capitol hill, on campaign ail. And its a shame because at the end of the day, it doesnt really matter for us, but it matters for you because youre nogetting the full spectrum of what peoplshoulde answering. Jackie margaret was to know, how do you democracy . Oh. Thats a. You are on the spot. I now. Small d or big d, small d. Just the peoples power. Well said. And the last one from ann is for me. And its. How you distinguish between lies told to the american puic by current and past president s . Look, i think lying i inherent to the quest for votes in office by politicians and think all politicians to one degree or another, engage in it. And thats always been true. Its a question of degree and. I do think that because of the particular circumstances of the moment and the the Political Movement that he leads, donald trump is in a different category than any that weve seen before in our government. You know, we were the question arose before about is the press how do we keep the public believing the press is liberal . I dont think thats possle because the press is look, compared to the media and voter in the country. And thats that goes with the territory. The kind of people who go into jonalism and why they go into journalism that places them in a little bit different cegory. But i thinkhat that being the case and we have to do the best that we can to, um, uh, test whoeveever is running for office and then fairly represent. How it is that theyre doing. Um, and think that if youve been watching this stuff long enough as i mentioned earlier, you can with increasing confidence, see patterns and an understanding of how pieces fit together. Um, and i think that in this particular moment moment it is incumbent on the, uh, uh, journalism, um, business, at least the part of it that values whats true and what isnt to make plain, um, whos telling truth and who isnt. And thats an imperfect. Each of us, each of us approaches it differently. But think the best you can hope for is to have wellintentioned people exercising their judgment and, uh, conveying to their to the best of their ability whats accurate to the american people. And with that, we thank our fantastic panel