Here's Where It Gets Interesting - How to be a Good News Consumer with Jessica Yellin

Episode Date: August 2, 2021

In this episode, Sharon sits down with long-time journalist, author, and former CNN Chief White House Correspondent, Jessica Yellin to tackle the topic of the media and news. In an era of the 24-hour news cycle, we are constantly bombarded with new information, analysis and opinions. Luckily, Sharon and Jessica are here to teach listeners how to cut through the noise and discern what is actually news. Jessica gives an insider’s look into the faults she sees in today’s media, while also reminding listeners the essential role the media plays in our society. Sharon and Jessica believe the media has the ability to inform and empower the American public. Listen to find out how they believe this is possible. Spoiler alert: it starts with you!  For more information on this episode including all resources and links discussed go to https://www.sharonmcmahon.com/podcast Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hello, friends. Welcome. Thrilled that you're here today. Also thrilled to be chatting with Jessica Yellen, who is a highly respected journalist. She has her own platform where she promotes this idea of news, not noise, because there is way too much noise. Maybe you've noticed. Maybe you've noticed that there's so much noise vying for her attention, and it's sometimes difficult to get to the actual news. Her perspective on what the news media should be doing, I found very useful to listen to. You guys know if you've been following me for a while that I have my fair share of criticism for the news media sometimes. So it was great to be able to pick Jessica's brain, hear the wisdom and experience that she brings to this topic.

Let's dive in. I'm Sharon McMahon and welcome to the Sharon Says So podcast. I am so excited to have Jessica Yellen with me today. I told my husband I was going to have you as a guest on my podcast and he was like, that is fantastic. My husband is a news junkie and probably consumes eight to 10 hours of news a day. He loves it. It's been a passion of his, but he was very, very excited to have you come on today. That's so sweet. If anybody listening is new to Jessica, she's one of those journalists who graduated from Harvard, but also has just a really illustrious career as

a senior White House correspondent. You've been doing this for a while, just a very experienced and respected journalist. And you have just decided to make some waves in the business of news reporting. So can you tell everybody a little bit more about your background, flesh that out a little bit, and then tell us what you do now? Sure. I spent, as you said, all this time in the mainstream media and TV news. And I had this insight that there is a large part of the audience that just doesn't respond to the way we tell the news. They're interested, but they dislike the negativity, the partisanship, the conflict focus. And I thought, what if there were another way? Long story short, I figured out that the only and best way to do that would be to leave and do it on my own.

And I now do the news at Jessica Yellen on Instagram. So I have my own little news outfit that I run through this Instagram account, the news you need to know why it matters and what you can ignore. I call it news, not noise. I love the idea of like what you can ignore. Yeah. Uh, cause we can't care equally about all the things. This is where a lot of people feel frustrated. It's like, I can't care equally about all the things. This is where a lot of people feel frustrated. It's like, I can't care about 600 things equally. And one of the problems is it all gets flattened out to seem like it all matters the same amount. Yes, correct.

And so you get a five-minute segment on some massive new deal to change car emissions, which has a real-world impact on our life. And then a five-minute segment on Ted Nugent saying that he has never felt so sick while he has COVID. And while the second story might be funny because Ted Nugent originally denied that COVID was a thing, it's not important to your life. That's noise. Sometimes if you're outside the business, you need curators to say, you don't need to spend time on that. That's like the us magazine of news. If you think it's entertaining, okay, but it's not your meat and potatoes. Here's the stuff that actually matters. And I think that in our 24 hour cycle, the media doesn't

do that well for consumers and you need people to help point and direct. That is really well said. You know, when you're watching cable news, watching the 24 hour news cycle, a lot of times you have to sit through the stories that are noise. You have to sit through the five minute segment about whatever to get to the things that are actually interesting to you or actually impact your life. So how do you sift through the news and the noise? So I have a really specific lens and my lens is, is this a story that will A, directly impact your life? Like car emissions changing. Yeah, that has an impact on your air, your car, all those things. Is it a story that expands your knowledge of the world or your participation in our culture. And if it

doesn't fit into any of those categories, it's not news. So there is a space in news for obviously political stories in an election year. Yes. Anything that helps you understand international relations, Biden meeting with Putin. Yes. Their culture stories, sort of, you know, language and art. All that is news. But the stuff that's noise is this sort of, it's the froth on the top of the ocean. It's like the week and a half before the Mueller report came out, the news every day predicting when the Mueller report would come out. We don't need prediction news. When it's in, let us know.

Before then, that's just talk. And my larger sort of impetus in doing all this is I really felt that there's a part of the American public that's not getting informed because we're telling them too much noise. We're telling it in a way that turns them off. And this is decreasing participation in our elections. And my thought was, if we could just re-engineer the way we talk about this stuff, I bet we can engage a lot of these people and make them feel informed. The last thing I'll say, I don't want to monologue,

is I did a survey and I found that there's a huge part of the news audience that feels less knowledgeable after watching the news than before. Because there's all this jargon and all these ideas thrown out without much explanation or clarity on next steps or on what you can do. And that makes people feel intimidated, naive, and disempowered. And I wanted to see, is there a way to invert that?

I can definitely confirm that from the people in my audience who feel like what even is a G7? Right. You know what I mean? And so there's pictures of it. Like, why is the queen involved? Right. I feel like I should care, but I don't know, like if I even want to Google, you know, I think there's also a lot of anxiety around the news where people don't even want to Google for things because they don't even know if they want to go down that rabbit hole. I wholeheartedly agree. And that's why I think what you do is so important. I also know that in part, the news designs stories to compete for your anxiety. So it's not just that the world is scary, but the news tells the stories in a way that will maximize your anxiety. Yes. So my thesis is we're grownups, right? We can handle scary. We want the information told

clearly in a way that's not designed to freak us out. And both you and I are proving that this is true, that there is an audience that will come when you say it in a way that makes you feel calm and confident in your knowledge. You can handle the big bad stuff. You know, one of my beefs with a lot of cable news is exactly what you were just saying. It's the prognostication of like, we're going to have Bob on and he's going to tell us the 42 things that could possibly go wrong. Right. None of those things have actually gone wrong. You know what I mean?

And am I supposed to worry about those 42 things? Like, what if the wheels fall off the plane? Am I supposed to care? You know what I mean? Like, the amount of prognostication I feel like increases the anxiety dramatically. And it's always worst case scenario. You know, we always say the plane that lands safely is not a news story, right? The plane that crashes is the news story. And that is a

reality about news, right? We cover the crisis and the unforeseen, but there is a way to do it. And what we're talking about now is how do we approach telling these stories? And it's not just the prognostication, it's the prognostication of the worst possible outcome. We don't sit there predicting like, what if it all goes well, how much will that improve the world? That's considered like a soft story or a kiss up story. We could do the bad and the good or just cover what's happening. One of my least favorite stories is I would be at these summits, G7, NATO, whatever. And people would say, Jessica, what's the mood in the room? And you're like, I don't know. I'm at a massive conference hall and they're like a mile away in

a private meeting we'll never get access to. What do you want me to say? So it's all about like feelings, emotions, touchy stuff. Like, what if I just give you information? Here is what they're discussing. G7's economic alliance. NATO thinks security alliance. So when you hear G7, it's a bunch of the world's powers talking about how we make our economies work well together. And when you hear NATO, it's a bunch of the world's democracies talking about how do we

protect one another from threats like especially Russia. And that actually is much more useful information than talking about, do you think that Trudeau and Biden will be best friends after this meeting? You know what I mean? Like, maybe, but that's not the story. The coda to that is the reason we spend so much time on will they be friends is because those stories get more clicks. The audience has a responsibility to click on the stories that give you substance. And sometimes it is hard to know. How do I know if this story is going to give me substance? Right?

Like it's hard to know until you've clicked on it. Well, I think the headlines sometimes tell you like bromance on the rocks Biden to address ransomware with Putin. You tell when you're clicking what you're kind of headed into. Good point. Pick the headlines that seem substantive and not like the us weekly of international relations. Exactly. And I also think, tune into your body. How is your body reacting to this headline?

Do you feel triggered? Or do you feel sort of intrigued? Or a little intimidated? Like, I don't know what that means. Lean into the intrigued, I don't know what that means. Lean out of the, oh, something just grabbed my chest feeling. Or emotionally manipulative headlines that are trying to get you through conflict and amp up your anxiety. The stuff that you might back away from because it feels a little intimidating is

where you could actually learn. So lean in. That is really wise advice. I sometimes will take screenshots of how a variety of news organizations are covering the same story and post those and talk about the difference in adjectives that they use. For example, when we were talking recently about the stimulus package that was passed, some news organizations characterized it as help is on the way. And some news organizations characterized it as monster bill was jammed through. Right. Right. And like both are designed to elicit an emotional response because they're infinitely more clickable than just a completely unemotional factual statement.

The word rammed through or jammed through or whatever it was like that is clearly designed to manipulate my emotions to be aware of what's happening is the first step wow that is interesting the way that they characterize that and then it gives you when you take notice of that over time it gives you a better window into what this news organization is trying to do. What is its MO behind the scenes? I'll tell you one thing that we also, you know, when these news organizations do is rotate headlines. So they'll try both headlines on the same story, both of those that you suggested and see which gets more traction. And I think that some are able to target different headlines, different audiences.

That would make sense. I have also noticed when you open up their app and it's a story about, say, unemployment numbers, normally I've noticed that they would then have their second, third, fourth tier stories underneath the big headlines. Now I've seen a few organizations move to pulling old stories about the same topic to put underneath like unemployment numbers and then pull other old stories. And you'll click on and be like, this is a three month old story about unemployment. What is this doing here? Oh, that's interesting. I think what's happened is they've moved that up. A lot of news orgs used to do, like, other times we've covered this story at the bottom of the article link. Yeah. The Times and the Post have been doing that for a while.

In theory, you could see it as more context. Like, here's where we were on this three months ago. But it also falls into sort of, like, feeding that algorithm. Like, if you're interested in this, maybe you're interested in these things. I don't mind them including other historical information, but maybe label it so that people get that. Yeah. To me, it seemed misleading. Like this is happening right now, you know, like simultaneously we, you know, unemployment has fallen to its lowest level pre-pandemic. And then additionally, rampant unemployment, the subsequent old stories they were running almost seemed misleading.

This is one of those areas where when we're in the news, we think everybody understands our unspoken language. It's just a link to recent coverage. But not everybody knows what recent coverage is and how recent recent is. And it's another example of the way we need to work harder in the media to create context around what we're doing and explain not just the exact thing we're doing this minute, but the larger environment this falls into, why we're framing it this way, and what within this really matters to you today and what you can take in over time

if you have extra time. I'm Jenna Fisher. And I'm Angela Kinsey. We are best friends. And together we have the podcast Office Ladies, where we rewatched every single episode of The Office with insane behind the scenes stories, hilarious guests, and lots of laughs.

Guess who's sitting next to me? Steve! It is my girl in the studio! Every Wednesday, we'll be sharing even more exclusive stories from the office and our friendship with brand new guests, and we'll be digging into our mailbag to answer your questions and comments. So join us for brand new Office Ladies 6.0 episodes every Wednesday. Plus, on Mondays, we are taking a second drink. You can revisit all the Office Ladies rewatch episodes every Monday with new bonus tidbits before every episode. Well, we can't wait to see you there. Follow and listen to Office

Ladies on the free Odyssey app and wherever you get your podcasts. and listen to Office Ladies on the free Odyssey app and wherever you get your podcasts. Can you talk a little bit more, having worked at a variety of major news outlets, can you talk a little bit more about journalistic standards? Where you think they are now, maybe where they used to be, have they changed over time? I think a lot of people don't even understand what journalistic standards are. Could you shed some light on that? I'd love to. So I've worked at most of the major news organizations. The thing to know first is that the serious news outlets work very hard to get it right. And no matter how cynical you are and how critical of the media you are, and I have been critical, the people who show up as reporters every day get paid not that

much, to be honest, unless you're the top anchors, live extremely difficult lives and work really hard to get you information because they have a mission-driven mindset and they care about this. And what they do is they go out and they interview people and they look through documents and they care about this. And what they do is they go out and they interview people and they look through documents and they try to verify information, then check that information and frame it in a way you'll understand. And they do it as a service to help you learn about your world. That is the truth. Most of these news orgs require two sources on big stories, meaning, let's say you tell me some tidbit and I trust you because you work in the White House and you know, I still have to find someone else to say that that's also true.

So that's a verification. Usually that's sometimes changes. That is what reporting looks like. Two sources on a piece of information from reliable sources. And we judge what that is. What happens increasingly is that the AP posts something or CNN posts something and we haven't verified it, but we'll go with it. And I, you know, post stories from news outlets and I report what they're saying sometimes. And you sort of say, CNN is reporting X. Now we do that because if I'm NBC, I know CNN is a legit news org. And if they're reporting something, they've verified it or we're trusting that. The problems are twofold.

We've gotten so lax about reporting each other's information that if somebody does get it wrong, it travels like wildfire. And then it's very hard to put it back in the bottle. So check when they're saying, who reported it? Are they saying, we've confirmed it or somebody else did? Number two, look for how much information and detail is in there. Anonymous sources are just the way things are now. I don't discount a thing if it's from anonymous sources because everybody expects to be anonymous.

But look for the opinion. Look for how much information is really there versus analysis from the news outlet. And the biggest trend that's changed lately is how much personal point of view opinion is in each piece. I would be happy to have a conversation with you about that. I think that's legitimate. I do think there's a place for that. The news, I just think you need to understand what you're seeing and it should be separate from the hard news stories. I think that a lot of people don't understand the difference between analysis editorial type articles and hard news stories. First of all, some news outlets are not very good at labeling them. They don't clearly say editorial or analysis until you read to the bottom of the article where it's like, this analysis was provided by Jessica.

They are pretending that this is hard news. And then it seems like, well, you just misled me. This is just Jessica's opinion. Do you know what I'm saying? Yeah, I do. And I have like another way of looking at the same thing, just like any business where there's people on Instagram who do beauty shots and then people who do information and inside of any space, there's different ways of going at things. And inside the news, there are just like straight ahead, hard news stories. There's analysis stories and there's opinion. And anybody who's a news consumer is smart enough to hear me say that, put it in their thinking cap and re-approach the

news looking, is this a hard news story? Is this analysis? And is this opinion? And to empower ourselves as news consumers to know that we're smart enough and able to discern the difference. Part of the responsibility as a citizen in democracy is discernment. We can be mad at the media all we want, and we can blame them and say this is theirment. We can be mad at the media all we want, and we can blame them and say this is their fault. But part of it is the audience's responsibility to show up with a thinking cap and a will to discern. And I want to empower everyone listening to, instead of being mad that they're doing it the way they're doing it, assume that they're trying to do their best often with the major news orgs and that you have

to bring your smartness to it. Your smartness says, is this just a story that's telling me Biden met with Putin today and they talked about these things and this happened? Okay, that seems pretty straight news. This is a story that says things didn't go as planned between Biden and Putin. I'm smart enough to know that's a take, right? And then on the editorial page, there's somebody saying, here's why the failure of the Biden-Putin meeting will have consequences for our future. And there's three buckets. And now we can go into the news looking for which bucket this falls into and come out of it feeling less abused by the media, less angry and more empowered. I love that. I love helping people discern what they're looking at, because I do feel like if you have some of that kind of understanding, then you leave feeling less abused as you were saying.

What do you say to people who feel like the mainstream media all has an extreme politically left-leaning bent? What would you say to those people? I would introduce them to some people who are extreme left-leaning and listen to what the extreme left of this country thinks of the media. The far left of this country thinks the media is extremely corporate centrist

and bought into conservative economic values. That is a number one. So get out of your filter bubble, listen to what other people are saying. Both sides are mad at the media. Number two, the media is not left or right. The individual reporters are mission driven, I believe. And the organizations are profit centers and their businesses. And you have to think of them as businesses. And that doesn't mean that they're up to bad things. That means they're optimizing for financial success. And I would encourage people to start thinking of the news orgs less as political actors and more as media businesses trying to make money.

I think that if you look at their coverage of taxes, if you look at their coverage of the debt, if you look at, you know, the extent to which they support establishment party candidates, there is no question that the media orgs are somewhere in the center of our political discussion in the way they frame stories. And they're pissing off people on both sides. So interesting. I would love to hear more about what you feel like the media could be doing better. Like if you had your Jessica Yellen magic wand, fix it, Jessica. What would a fix look like? I would explain more, you know, what we were just saying. So today, Biden's meeting with NATO. NATO is an alliance

of democracies gathered together to support one another's national security. They're especially organized to protect us from Russia. Now, at this meeting, what we think will happen is X, Y, and Z. So taking that beat to explain the thing brings more people into the conversation. I would also focus on ways to kind of like help people understand actions. So now what will happen after this meeting is everybody will go back home and then they'll try to pass this thing through each of their legislatures and it may or may not pass. We'll follow up when that happens. We don't do that. And instead it's like crazy conversation, high stakes, drama, drama. Now we're going to commercial break. And you're like,

what happens? And then you come back on and the next story is about, I don't know, some kid who, you know, rescued his school with a bake sale. People want to know like some sort of conclusion, what happens next? Where do we go from here? So it feels complete and they know how to engage again. This is a much more visual thing where like disheveled, older, messy men can be on air, but women have to like have a certain look. Perfect, coiffed, hot, young, perfect. Let's like make more diverse the kinds of faces and voices that get in the news and more diverse who decides what counts as news.

That has a lot to do with, you know, who's in charge and all of that. Who is making these decisions? Who decides what stories are going to be in the nine o'clock hour? Is it the producer, news director? Who decides these things? In news organizations, you always have a, or almost always a morning meeting, an editorial meeting where you talk about the stories of the day and everybody kind of discusses what's going on. Then there's, you know, management and the upper management selects, here are top stories X, or number two is Y, this is Z. And then like,

there's a menu under that of fun, randoms, whatever, grab bag, depending what the outlet is. Like if it's a TV channel that's 24 hours, each hour has its producer, its lead producer, and they kind of put together what's called a rundown. That's a mix of the top stories and then that grab bag. And they'll check the hour before and the hour after to make sure it's not identical. But the anchor will weigh in and say, you know, I really want to talk about this, or maybe they already set this thing up, but it's an ongoing conversation that's framed around what management generally says are our biggest stories. And of course that shifts throughout the day as news breaks or things evolve, you have to be super nimble. It's always

changing. I described sometimes working at a 24 hour channel. It's like a fighter pilot scanning the horizon for incoming bogeys. What's coming, what's coming. And as it comes, you grab it and add it in and dump something out. So interesting. I don't think people have any idea what goes on behind the scenes. I think they really do think it's just some people typing made-up stories at the computer. I'm so saddened to hear that that might be a perception. I mean, I cannot emphasize enough how damaging and dangerous that is for our democracy. The press exists here to empower citizens to be informed. And I don't need to tell you that that's why you do what you do. Any kind of like gross cynicism about the media, I believe is fully misplaced. People who are reporters go to work to get you news that's

hard for them to get you because they think it matters. And there are people in Ukraine making up fake things that they circulate on the internet, but that's a different thing. And we have to be discerning again enough to tell the difference. One question I always have for people who say that they, you know, refuse to watch the news or they don't consume anything from the, anything from the major news outlets. I'm always like, and so who are you getting your news from? Is there like some alternate team of worldwide reporters that you would be getting your news from? Well, they're getting it from Alex Jones and OWN and their alternate news networks all over the place. And some of it's good. I mean, I think that people learn a lot with some of this material on YouTube and Instagram, but yeah,

there's a ton of people getting information from not legit sources. I believe it's the media's job to call balls and strikes and you might not like it the way we do it, but that is our job to see the facts, tell you we're informed about this and tell you how different this is from anything that's come before. Do you care or not? It's up to you. Do you like what I'm saying or not? It's up to you. People are finding different places to get that information. And a lot of those other places aren't checking their facts. We're living in a world where people are in their bubbles. People also, I think, grossly underestimate the importance of the media. Literally, where would we be? You know what I mean? Someone needs to report these facts. Right. And so when people

say like, who are they to give their analysis? Like, why do I need their analysis? I disagree. That's why I say analysis does have a place because Dana Bash has spent 20 years covering Congress and she understands how the place works. She understands how it's supposed to work. She understands how it's changed and the dynamics. And so if she's weighing in to say this is highly unusual and it seems to be breaking the rules, I want to know that from her. What I don't want is to know that from some rock star or pop star who's weighing in and knows nothing nothing or some upstart on YouTube who thinks, you know, the media is being outrageous, but they don't have any context. This is why I

do think analysis matters, but from seasoned experts. So my preference is I say experts, not pundits, but if you're an expert, I'm interested in your analysis. about pundits, but if you're an expert, I'm interested in your analysis. I think the world has too many fake experts, people who are on YouTube saying they know what they're talking about. And in reality, they absolutely don't because what they're saying is completely not based in fact or reality. You know, like I spent quite a bit of time being like, actually, nope, that is not in the Constitution. That is not a thing that can happen. I strongly dislike this growth trajectory of fake experts.

And a real expert knows what they're an expert on, and they know where the limits of their expertise are. Do you agree with that? Absolutely. expertise are. Do you agree with that? Absolutely. And this is again, where the audience's discernment comes into play, because I'm not going to say anybody you find on social media is not an expert because you're there and I'm there. And somebody is going to say, well, how can I tell that you're legit versus somebody else? And I'm like, it's your discernment. Listen, does it sound like we know what we're talking about? When we talk, if you Google that, do you see legit sources backing up the same things? Okay.

Do you check us twice and find that we're right twice? Okay. Maybe that's a good sign. It's a little bit on the audience. Like, of course there's fake experts. That's the world we live in. Okay. Like we don't have to be traumatized

or victimized or abused feeling by it. We just have to take like a little pride in ourselves and confidence that we can tell if we spend a tiny bit of time trying to assess the difference. How do you know? This is another question I get a lot. How do you know what is a fact? So there's two ways to go at this. The one is the mechanics, and I'll tell you how we discern that. And then the existential question, what is truth? So the mechanics, and I'll tell you how we discern that. And then the existential question, what is truth? So the mechanics are, somebody tells me that, let's say the White House

is going to propose a $1.5 trillion compromise. I heard it from one person. I call around, you call inside the White House, you see if you can get two people to confirm that. You call allies of the White House to say, hey, what do you know about this? Because I wonder if they're just spinning me. Are they trying to plant this? You call opponents of the White House, you know, Republicans to see what they're going to say about what's going on. And then you put that whole picture together and present the information in context, which is officials inside the White House are floating the concept of a $1.5 trillion compromise because they think it's the only way we're going to get infrastructure done because they want to improve roads and bridges. Allies say this might be just

a trial balloon. Maybe it'll happen. Maybe it won't. They're trying to feel out whether there's support for this. Republicans on Capitol Hill say no go. It's a trillion dollars. They're not going to do 1.5. No deal. That's the story. So that's how we get there. That's how we present it. And that's what gets to you. Is it a fact that there's a $1.5 trillion bill? They're playing with the notion, right? Some of this is ephemeral. And what I'm obliged to do is represent to you the conversation around it and why this conversation is happening and what matters. There's a different kind of fact, which is, is this person dead or not? Did 14 people die? And if you want to get that kind of fact in a story, we rely on law enforcement or officials. We report and you

attribute. So the Orange you know, Orange County PD says 14 people were killed in that shooting. If it changes, we see Orange County PD corrects and says, well, there's different kinds of stories and different kinds of, quote, facts. And then there's the existential question of like, what is truth? You know, there are certain facts, sides will dispute. You know, the Supreme Court comes down with a decision and a ruling, and let's say they roll back Roe versus Wade. Some people are going to say this is going to cost women's lives, and some people are going to say this is going to save fetuses' lives, right?

And both could be true. Which truth do you want to go with? That's more contested. That's a great way to put it. I think that makes it really clear. That is a great way to put it. I think that makes it really clear. That is a great way to put that. I have really enjoyed chatting with you. I could probably ask you like 25 more questions, but I will let you go for today. And I would hope to chat with you again. Can you tell everybody where to find you and what you are bringing to Instagram every day?

You're so kind. I bring news without noise. I tell you what stories matter today. I do it up in stories. During breaking news times, I do a video every day distilling the most important story in the news. Not just what happened, but like why this matters, how to think about it,

why the media is covering it the way it is. I interview people on what is inflation? Where did it come from? What do we think is going to happen? Why? And, you know, therapists about how to be less anxious. So all kinds of things. I even interviewed a black dermatologist last week to talk about beauty standards and changing plastic surgery standards based on race, which is really fascinating. at jessica yellen on twitter at jessica yellen and the website is news not noise and i have a novel about the news if you want to learn more about what happens behind the scenes in the news it's called savage news i love it thank you so much for coming today what a pleasure to chat

with you and thank you so much for your incredibly valuable insight oh thank you for having me and for what you do oh my pleasure thank you so much for listening to the Sharon Says So podcast. I am truly grateful for you. And I'm wondering if you could do me a quick favor. Would you be willing to follow or subscribe to this podcast or maybe leave me a rating or a review? Or if you're feeling extra generous, would you share this episode on your Instagram stories or with a friend? All of those things help podcasters out so much. I cannot wait to have another mind-blown moment with you next episode.

Thanks again for listening to the Sharon Says So podcast.