Pivot - Jen Psaki at Code 2022

Episode Date: September 24, 2022

Former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki speaks with Kara Swisher at Code 2022. They discuss Psaki's new career at MSNBC, the state of news, and her time in the White House. Recorded on September 8th in Los Angeles. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Support for Pivot comes from Virgin Atlantic. Too many of us are so focused on getting to our destination that we forgot to embrace the journey. Well, when you fly Virgin Atlantic, that memorable trip begins right from the moment you check in. On board, you'll find everything you need to relax, recharge, or carry on working. Buy flat, private suites, fast Wi-Fi, hours of entertainment, delicious dining, and warm, welcoming service that's designed around you. delicious dining and warm, welcoming service that's designed around you. Check out virginatlantic.com for your next trip to London and beyond, and see for yourself how traveling for business can always be a pleasure.

Hi, everyone. This is Kara Swisher with another bonus episode for you from my final Code Conference. It's my conversation with former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki. And while you're enjoying it, which you will, keep in mind that I have a whole new interview show out. It's called On with Kara Swisher. It launches in late September. Go wherever you get your podcasts,

search for On with Kara Swisher and hit follow. And now here's Jen Psaki. Let me talk about your, we're gonna start talking about your show and then talk a little bit about politics and messaging and things like that and what's happening, especially in this digital age. Yep. You describe your new job as a, quote, fact-based and thoughtful conversations about big questions on the minds of people across the country. Is that possible today? First, I'm like, that's a lot of words that were written in that sentence.

So let me start there. You may not have written them, but go ahead. Look, I think as I'm thinking about making this transition, which no doubt it is, I thought a lot about what I enjoy doing or what really excited me about my last job. And it feels different to people. I was at the White House going to a media company. But the thing I love the most was those days when you'd wake up, there was some story about some issue you knew nothing about. I mean, think about it. We knew nothing about COVID a few years ago, right? Most people didn't know a lot about President Putin's ambitions or his long, many years invasion of Ukraine. When you wake up and you write a list of questions or things you want to know more about on a note card or a post-it, that's what I did usually most mornings, and then you go find out more about it because you want to explain it

to people. I love that. That's what I want to do. Yes, I'm a Democrat. I'm not hiding from that and there's things I believe but what I hope to do is bring that passion for explaining things, debunking things, calling out BS when you see it for sure to my next job. So one of the things that's there was controversy about your job. I don't think you did anything unethical. And by the way, it was a low bar from the previous administration. So, yes. But this revolving door thing between government.

Now, it's happened many times. I'm going to talk about someone who's done it rather well. But you have generals on Twitter, you have CIA, former CIA, trolling people, you have polls, polls commenting politicians all the time. This is certainly not new, but it's certainly worse. So talk about that idea of, you know, people are worried about the revolving door of lobbyists around this. When this happens, is everyone is at one point i had an argument with the pr person for the former pr person veranda santas and i'm like i understand i've had arguments with her yes exactly so you're not alone but one of the things was i was like this is the longest running audition for fox news i've ever seen you're still not going to get it honey so uh but one of the things that was interesting is that's what it

feels like very performative in order to get somewhere, to be a pundit or whatever. Talk about that idea, because it feels that it's not government service. It's government service to move to TV or Internet or whatever, or podcast, whatever it happens to be. Look, I didn't experience it that way or live it that way. I mean, when I went and worked in the Biden administration, I had worked for former President Obama for 10 years on and off. And I felt like many people did in this country. Whatever your politics are, like the country needed to be stabilized in some way. This was an opportunity to play a small role in doing that.

I wasn't thinking about what was next or where it would lead or what would happen or anything like that. I actually don't think a lot of people who are out there on Twitter or other platforms from government are thinking about that in that way. Maybe I'm naive, but I actually think they're trying to figure out, sometimes better than others, how to communicate with people. And, you know, government doesn't always do that in a way that's modern or meeting people where they are or reaching people where they're consuming information. Right. So when you think about that, I want to stay on this for a second. Yeah. You know, when they have the cables where you're going to, and you're going to a lot

of, I want to talk about what you're doing there. But when you look at cable, I have, I've been having more and more problems with cable, largely because I go on it sometimes. And I'm often on panels, I'm not going to call it particularly, but I was on, I think Claire McCaskill was one of them who's always on, like one of them. And it was about a tech thing. And they didn't know about tech, but they were commenting on it. I was like, that is incorrect. That is incorrect. And then they often asked me to talk about things I know nothing about. They're like, come on and talk about the documents. I was like, I know nothing about national security. Yeah, you just come on

and talk about it. I was like, I know nothing about national security. I think I could say I think it's terrible, but that's about it. So what is... National security is terrible, all of it? No, no, no, no, no. Keeping it in a country club as Bill Barr. Oh, yes. Quoting Bill Barr, as I often do.

Which of the eight countries are the nuclear secrets from in the floors of Mar-a-Lago? But when you talk about this idea of how do you, when you want to try to communicate intelligence, a fact-based and thoughtful things, how do you do that today from government and then from media? Well, I think I can speak to what I enjoy most, right? And what I enjoy most and what I consume.

I mean, my family, TiVos, do you still use that word? Records, I don't know. My dad's almost 80, so he says TiVo, right? Who knows? We've moved on from that. Streams, right? I'm quoting my dad. All sorts of content.

What I enjoy most is when you know something, you learn something by the end, right? Even as somebody who has spent a lot of my career working in democratic politics, I don't really enjoy the back and forth where one person's saying one thing and it's like, well, how about you? Respond to that what I enjoy is when there are experts who can actually speak to the substance of what they know I'm not a lawyer I'm not playing one on TV no plans to do that I know a lot about foreign policy but I'm also not a general or state department I did work for the State

Department and I'm not going to play one on TV. What I do think that the best members of the media can do, reporters, journalists, anchors, is really dive into issues, go down the rabbit hole, learn as much as they can so that they can ask the informed questions and present information in a way that's accessible to people. You don't have to be a lawyer to do that. You just have to talk to the right people and explain it in English. Do you think the dialogue has gotten twitchy? I find it very twitchy and reductive. And I think that's part of it. And I think Mark was going to that. It's like, you have to be on one side or the other. You have to do this or that. You can't agree with people. Yeah. Twitchy. And the way I, when you say that, what I think of is people wanting to make massive predictions that are

unknowable, right? For example, we just talked a little bit about Trump and the documents in Mar-a-Lago. There's a lot of things we don't know right now, right? We don't know where those documents are from. We don't know who will be named as a special master. We don't know what will happen to him. So when people go on TV and they say, this is the end of Trump, that's actually, we don't know enough to know that, right? And I think there's a responsibility

of following these stories where they are and where they exist in the moment. And I think the best journalists or people on television do that. So you said, I'm a Democrat. Talk about being considered fair. I'm thinking George Stephanopoulos would be your template, presumably.

He worked for Clinton very clearly, was an activist for Clinton. He worked for him, an operative. How are you going to bridge that when you think about it? Because they'll expect you to say Biden rocks on everything, right? I will not. Although Dark Brandon is working well. Dark Brandon does rock. Look, I think that what I can bring to the table here is I have worked and advised two presidents. I worked at the State Department and traveled around the world with a secretary of state.

I've done three presidential campaigns. All of that is not irrelevant. It's relevant. I can tell people that's real, that's not. This is how it happens. This is how it doesn't. I also think that if I'm doing my job well, and I think people should judge me by what I do right just like they should judge anybody you're not immune to new information you can acknowledge when you're wrong you can knowledge when you saw something the wrong way when people you like did think something did

something the wrong way and you know hopefully people will judge me by that what I mean by I'm a Democrat is I'm not trying to hide from what my past experiences are right that wouldn't be very authentic, would it be? I mean, I very publicly worked for the last president. I also will be transparent about what I believe. I mean, I worked for Planned, I did some work for Planned Parenthood. I very much believe that women should have the right to make choices about their own health care. I'm not going to hide that when I'm on television. And I think people have a responsibility and should be transparent when they do have beliefs like that. But I also want to learn about all sorts of issues. And I will go into this, you know, with an openness, hopefully. We'll be back in a moment with more from Jen Psaki at Code.

Fox Creative. This is advertiser content from Zelle. When you picture an online scammer, what do you see? For the longest time, we have these images of somebody sitting crouched over their computer with a hoodie on, just kind of typing away in the middle of the night. And honestly, that's not what it is anymore. That's Ian Mitchell, a banker turned fraud fighter. These days, online scams look more like crime syndicates than individual con artists, and they're making bank. Last year, scammers made off with more than $10 billion. It's mind-blowing to see the kind of infrastructure that's been built to facilitate

scamming at scale. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of scam centers all around the world. These are very savvy business people. These are organized criminal rings. And so once we understand the magnitude of this problem, we can protect people better. One challenge that fraud fighters like Ian face is that scam victims sometimes feel too ashamed to discuss what happened to them. But Ian says one of our best defenses is simple. We need to talk to each other. We need to have those awkward conversations around what

do you do if you have text messages you don't recognize? What do you do if you start getting asked to send information that's more sensitive? Even my own father fell victim to a, thank goodness, a smaller dollar scam, but he fell victim. And we have these conversations all the time. So we are all at risk and we all need to work together to protect each other. Learn more about how to protect yourself at vox.com slash Zelle. And when using digital payment platforms, remember to only send money to people you know and trust. We're back. Now, more from Code. What do you think about the trend right now, CNN's in the crosshairs of this,

getting too centrist? There was a lot of anchors that suddenly, they felt like talking points because they all said the same thing. But the idea of we're going to be centrist, how do you look at that? And then at the same time, when you see some of the anchors, it's like, okay, that's enough.

And I'm not talking about Fox News because that's their business. That's their business is rage and enragement. Yeah. I mean, first of all, my business is not rage. Like I don't want people, one of my show launches next year to end the show and feel rage or burn, want to burn down their neighbor's house. I mean, there are things to be enraged about, but I want people to be informed. You know, I would say, Kara, that sometimes like I, there was, I think it was a

New York Times story, not to pick on the New York Times, but I'm going to for a moment, where the headline was something like, Republicans and Democrats both see democracy as a problem. It's like, that is lazy and also inaccurate. And also, you are not telling the full story of what's happening in the country. Sometimes, I think there is a desire and a forced effort to both sides things where it's like, and also when the president gave his speech last week, people were saying it was very partisan. I don't know, is it partisan to like say we shouldn't go have an insurrection on our Capitol or we should defend our democracy? That feels bizarre that we're calling that partisan. So I do think that in the age of Trump, we're still in it. We've been in it for a while. There's efforts by some networks, some reporters, some journalists to overly both sides things that I think under tells the story to the public about how problematic and how, you

know, out of the norm behavior is, you know? Well, I think the public is weary of the fighting, though, correct? I would say that. I think everyone's sort of looking, I often think, someone asked me why pivot works. I think it's because we disagree civilly a lot of the time. We agree too, but how do you then thread that needle in what you're making that you want to be fair, but at the same time, you're going to get hit with partisanship, and you in particular, because you just came off an administration. Yeah. Look, I think I will warrant getting hit with partisanship if every day I go on television

and I launch the latest attack on Ron DeSantis or Senator Scott or other people. That's not what I plan to do. When they do things that warrant that, I will call it out. That is not what I plan to do. When they do things that weren't that, I will call it out. That is not my, as much as I've worked in democratic politics for a number of years, that is not my passion. That is not my daily goal. It's to bring issues to light, explain them, and inform people, and hopefully empower people with information. So you're going to have a stream-only show. You're going to be a sponsor. Still be. It'll launch next year. TBD. Stay tuned.

I'm learning as well. I start on Monday. Okay. Feels like back to school a little bit. Okay. All right. Okay. I got some tips for you.

I have a notebook and a pen. I don't know what that has to do with starting a new job. It just makes me feel ready or something. All right. So what are you going to eat? It's been announced as a stream-only show. No. I mean, part of it, what I anticipate is that I'll start on Monday and I will do election analysis. I will be on a range of NBC

and MSNBC platforms, um, streaming and non-streaming over the course of the coming months with the election coverage, what's happening in Washington, what's going on with those documents and what I know about it. Um, and then early next year, a show will launch in TBD Unware and hopefully I'll learn soon. When you think about not just what you're going to make for the show, but when you're on the other side of doing that, how do you look, how does it look from the other side at streaming and the internet when you were press secretary? Government has been bad at communicating, although getting better. Trump was very good at it. He was to Twitter as, say, JFK was to TV or Franklin Delano.

It's not a compliment. That's quite an analogy. I know I did. I call them the greatest Twitter troll in history. But he was. He used it really rather well. How do you look at it from a political point of view of what's effective and what's not? Or there's a lot of noise around the Twitter versus?

Oh, tons of noise. Yeah. I mean, and tons of things that I think elected officials, political communicators are not doing well, right? I mean, you know, and we can, I'll come back to Trump, but I mean, one of them is with all of these choices, right? Communicating on social media platforms, podcasts, newspapers, et cetera, it's almost like people have become consumed by the process and the tactics. They're missing the point of what the goal of political communications is, which is like to be a little crass. It's to win, right? You want to win your campaign. You want to win policy and get legislation passed. And there's a lot of missing the thread on that, I think, with elected officials today. And there's a lot of missing the thread on that, I think, with elected officials today.

And there's a lot of, like, I see two problems. One is what people are saying. That's a big fundamental one, right? And how people are talking about things. You know, one of the mistakes that we made when I was in the White House back last fall was really getting focused on the process, right? What was Joe Manchin thinking, feeling? What was he eating for breakfast? What did that mean about whether legislation would pass?

So focused on the process and the sausage making and not talking about what the actual substance of the thing is and what it's going to do to make people's lives better. That's a huge mistake people are making. But there's also a huge tactical problem in Washington with communicators right now, too. Some of them are not using Twitter and other platforms the right way. But fundamentally, what a lot of people in Washington think right now is if you have an op-ed in the Washington Post, I'm going to begrudge them, not really, but just as an example, and you have a press conference in the Cannon House office building, a building in Washington where House members have their offices, you've had an amazing communications day. And you're press conference in the Cannon House office building, a building in Washington where

House members have their offices, you've had an amazing communications day and you're reaching the public and really you're not, right? So there's a lot of things that I think aren't going, there's some people who are doing it well, but a lot of things that people are not doing as well that I think would help government officials, elected officials, people in the White House, otherwise communicate more effectively. And then there's people using Twitter, like Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has zero power. But she seems to have power, correct? Because she's noisy.

Well, but she's a good example of where you're missing the thread. Not that I'm giving Marjorie Taylor Greene advice. She's not calling me, thank God. But like, you know, I mean, she's... That would be so funny. Wouldn't it be funny? That would be such a good reality show. Hi Marjorie, I've been waiting for your call. Kara Swisher is here to talk to you. That's what I would tell you. I'd loop you in. Okay. Is Marjorie Taylor Greene, and also a number of Democrats too, are missing the thread on what

the purpose of communicating is? It's not to get more tweets or like, or retweets or likes. Well, it is for her, but go ahead. Well, but what's the goal? Are you getting legislation passed? Are you winning things? My take? What's the point? She wasn't hugged enough as a child, but move along. Maybe, that's true. But it's missing the point of being an elected official and having power in Washington and having power in the country and making change happen. And I think you kind of lose the thread on that. At the same time, as I already kind of touched on, a lot of people are risk averse, right, in Washington about what

tactics they will and won't use. And there's like a preciousness about what platforms you will be on, what news outlets you will have your boss on or have elected officials on, and that's hugely missing opportunities as well. So I want to talk first, I want to get to that because one of the things that, speaking of dark brand, and they have gone a little more roguey. I want to talk about that. I feel like my spirit animal is like really alive there. Oh, good, good. But it didn't happen during your time. No, no, no. I was rooting on the outside. Yeah. Conversation of the press secretary, your approach to your predecessors, because what do you think the role is? Because the role of press secretary has been different over time.

Some people think they're there to inform the public. Others think they're propagandists. I think Joe Rogan called you a propagandist. He did, I know. And then thought. Can I just have a moment on Joe Rogan for a second? Yes, please, go right ahead. Is that for people who have kids here and they're going back to school, I was like really

in the back to school mode last week. My daughter's going first grade. I was like, she had enough food in her lunchbox. You know, will she be nice to the new kids? And a friend of mine texted me and was like, you're trending on Twitter, which by the way is like never a good thing, at least in my experience, rarely.

And I was like, Joe Rogan. I mean, I know he's a very popular show, but like, I don't think about that guy much. And so yeah, it was kind of this funny, I was really focused on the lunchbox. And, you know, there we are. So he called you a propagandist. Then he said Kyle MacKinnon, he was the best secretary, which was, I felt he lost a lot of when he was making the point.

But talk about the idea. Does it serve a civic function anymore, the idea? Because it's become, certainly during the Trump administration, it felt like it was constant political scores settling or whatever. And then you certainly brought a more lightness to it, for sure. How do you look at that function anymore? Is it a propaganda? Or is it to help the public understand what's happening?

I think there's a lot we can draw from on what's problematic about how people consume information by what happens in the briefing room. For example, you referenced Peter Doocy, my friend and all of yours. And, you know, he and I actually had a pretty good relationship. But every day we would have this back and forth. Yes, it became a thing. Right. And then on Twitter, it would, you know, Democrats would say, oh, you got him. You went after him. You got him. you went after him, you got him. And conservatives would say, you got her, thanks for holding you accountable.

I mean, that's an example of kind of how divided we are with information and how it's consumed, right? I believe they thought you got him. Well, some days I did. Yes, yes. But anyway. Did you like that? Did I like it? Yeah.

Well, I do think there's a certain rush in when you know somebody's wrong and you know you have the receipts and you're like, I'm going to pull out the receipts and I'm so excited about pulling out the receipts. Okay. So that is true. But, you know, I do think the purpose, look, I wouldn't have worked in government

as long as I did if I didn't think that most public servants are there for the good and that there's a reason, you know, your job is to try to make people's lives better, whatever you believe in, whatever your politics are. And for the press secretary job, yes, you're kind of a go-between with an administration and the press. But if you're doing it on your best days, you're also providing information to the public and trying to peel the curtain back, for lack of a better term, on like what's going on, what the president's thinking about things. And also load people up with information on what's actually happening.

And, you know, my goal when I was doing that job was to try to give people something to take away where they felt like they knew more. I didn't accomplish that every day. Some days it was just like a dumpster fire in there and you're fighting and whatever, but that was your goal. What also is true about that job is it has a huge impact of pushing decision-making to happen

because there's nothing that scares public officials or policy officials and government more than like, I'm gonna be asked about this in the briefing, so we really need a decision. Oh, I see, right, right. Or we really need an answer. And that is effective. And it also is efficient. You know, you get hundreds of questions from all over the world in the White House, and there's no real way to answer them. You go to the briefing, you try to answer as much as you can. So it still serves a purpose. Mike McCurry, who was a press secretary during President

Clinton and made it televised, he's this great, wonderful human, the best person who's ever done that job in my view. But him making it televised really does change the dynamic, you know, the conversations you're having. You become a personality. Well, but also the tenor of the conversation becomes one where it's performative from all sides, right? Yeah, because they're performing for the cameras. They're performing. And a lesson I learned the hard way is when you're asked a question 14 times, you have to answer it with all the context every time, right?

You can't be a human being where if we were sitting here and you asked me a question 14 times, I'd be like, come on, Kara, we've already answered this question. You can't do that in there because in this day and age, people will take the information, they'll put it on Twitter, and all of a sudden you're this flippant jerk who doesn't care about whatever it may be. Too many people are thinking about that all the time. But the conversations you have, the briefing is like a sliver of that job, and the conversations you have with reporters are much more... Behind the scenes, when they go backstage.

Constructive, substantive substantive deeper um because you don't have that performative component what was the most difficult part of doing that job especially in this when things become something on twitter right away you became a meme with a very cj on west wing vibe i think that was happening yeah it was i'm very i waited for you to sing she's much taller than me i cannot sing nobody wants that or needs that in this room this early in the morning. You know, the hardest thing for me was not the briefing. By the time you get to the briefing, it's kind of you know your stuff or you don't. And it's a test every day.

It is that you are often the front line on pushing people internally and when you need information and when you need answers. And oftentimes, this is one of the reasons I really, even though I was on the other side of it, respect and value the role of journalism, is the policy process is not up to where the journalist questions are, right? And so, but you had to be kind of that annoying nag internally who's like wandering into offices like, hi, it's me. We need to know how much that costs or how we're going to pay for it or whether we're going to send these weapons. And, you know, that was a constant challenging aspect. That's spent all the day. Did you ever say anything

you didn't want to say? Oh, God, every day. Every day. Okay. Many days. Many days. Like what? Well, I think that nearly every day I would end the briefing and think, I wish I would have said that more clearly, or that didn't really make sense. Or, you know, when you start a thought and you're like, where am I going with this? Oh, I'm talking, I have to finish my thought. That also happens. Um, what I learned, and I kind of touched on this a little bit, is that tone is so important in there. And, um, you know, especially when I, when I spoke with the president about this job during the transition, I mean, one of the things he said to me was he wants to kind of take the temperature down in the country. And I think people who know me well know that I can be, you know, hopefully, I don't know, funny or say outrageous or whatever. But, like, in that briefing room, it was so important, especially following President Trump, to be stable, steady, always be

respectful and calm in that moment. And, you know, I'm human. My family and friends would tell me there were days they could tell where I was getting annoyed. But you sort of, the days where I regret are the days where your tone is not meeting the moment of the topic you're discussing. Sometimes that's because it's the 10th time you're getting asked a question. And sometimes... So I want to finish on a couple of things. It's free speech versus misinformation. We've talked to a lot of people. They've talked about TikTok. They've talked about a lot of things. The power of tech and social media platforms has never been greater on politics. What do you think government's role in regulating that power should be? I thought Biden misstepped quite a few times in the tech thing, shifting back and forth, saying Facebook

was responsible for COVID deaths and this and that. How do you look at that right now, especially from inside, going outside? In human speak, not as a tech expert. I think it's crazy. This is an industry and platforms that have virtually no regulation, right? Very minimal, where most other industries do. I think there are dangers, and I've been outspoken about this, that we certainly see. I have a daughter.

I think of kind of what she's seeing and what she will see one day. That's of concern to me, even as a mother, as a parent. I think the president's view is sometimes you just have to ask him what he thinks, and he says what he thinks, right? And then he gets reeled back at times by people who are like, we're not quite there yet, we're not quite there on the policy. He does have huge concerns about the lack of regulation, the lack of steps that have been taken. He's put people in a place that are, he has, that are well known for that, but haven't been effective yet.

That's right. And Congress hasn't been effective yet either. And that is frustrating to many. And many of the people you've spoken to have expressed that as well. But, you know, that's how I view it. And I think when you have platforms where disinformation, misinformation is shared, there should be something done about it. At the same time, what is challenging as a communicator is that, you know, there are

huge concerns. A lot of the people you've spoken with have expressed them about TikTok. There are concerns within the government about the national security risks, about the potential for surveillance, given it's Chinese-owned. But it's also a huge hindrance not to use TikTok. I mean, we didn't use TikTok, really. We did a TikTok influencers briefing once. But, you know, the Department of Defense not to use TikTok. I mean, we didn't use TikTok really. We did a TikTok influencers briefing once, but you know, the department of defense doesn't use TikTok. There was a story about this this summer that was interesting to recruit. And that's a huge way

to reach young people, right? And when you don't use these platforms to your point, given how powerful they are and how much they reach people, you are taking yourself off the playing field. So there is a real kind of regulatory piece aside moral dilemma in some ways I think when you talk to a lot of Democrats where you know I... And Republicans. And Republicans too. You're absolutely right. And Republicans too. You know I last year deleted my Facebook account and I was like look at me I deleted my Facebook account and then you know what you realize? Not only do you not know what your boyfriend from high school is up to, not that that's so important, but you also are cutting

off a means of communicating and you're doing it like a statement. And then you're also not effectively reaching people. So it's a dilemma. We'll be back after another quick break. Support for the show comes from Indeed. If you need to hire, you may need Indeed. We'll be right back. quality candidates fast. Listeners of this show can get a $75 sponsored job credit to get your jobs more visibility at Indeed.com slash podcast. Just go to Indeed.com slash podcast right now and say you heard about Indeed on this podcast.

Indeed.com slash podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Need to hire? You need Indeed. We're back. Now, more of my conversation with Jen. Very last question, because we're going to get questions from the audience. Please come up for Jen. So this new pugnaciousness on the Biden administration,

using terms like semi-fascism, this new pugnacious tone, is it because he wanted to take the temperature down? He just raised the temperature. Well, here's what I think people are getting a little wrong about their analysis. You know, the way that the president talked last Thursday in his speech about Trump and democracy and the threat is how he talked about it when he ran against him for president. He made a tactical strategic decision that the country didn't really want the campaign to continue, right? Hence, he told me, he told all of us who are speaking publicly, let's take the temperature down because he wanted to ignore that guy. Yeah, let's kind of ignore that guy. And Marjorie Taylor Greene, her too. He did that

because he wanted to get stuff done. And then he got a lot of stuff done. And now it's like, okay, now we're at a point where we need to talk about what's at stake in winning an election. There's a tactical component of what he's saying publicly. That is true. But it's not a reflection of a change in his view. Because this has always been his view. It's just not how he's used the bullet.

Were you surprised by the reaction of Republicans? Because they couldn't be more. Their preciousness. There's like pearl clutching. Like, oh my God, he's so mean. And it's like, well, you know, you're not giving health care to people. That feels meaner. But as they like to say, fuck their feelings. Yeah, I mean, it's a little like the pearl clutching.

I like fuck your feelings. Yeah. He subsumed a lot of the dark branded meme. It was a very effective taking away Brandon meme. It was interesting. It was a very effective taking away. That's how we feel. I mean, he said he was unfit to run for president. It's not like he liked the guy until last week

when all of a sudden he decided he didn't like him. He just knew that if he goes out there and makes it about Trump, that is destabilizing to the American public. It would be harder to get things done with Republicans. And he got a lot of things done. But now, listen, it's time to talk about what's at stake, and I think he'll do more of that.

Okay, questions from the audience, please. Right there, go for it. Or you can give me a comment. I can take mean things. Go for it. I was going to have juicy here. Oh, yeah. Yeah, I'm by far the nicest person in this room by a long shot,

but I've got to say, you did such a great job in your past life. I have to give you a lot of credit. I really, really do. Thank you. So, this is a small world. My kids go to where you went to high school in Connecticut. Really? Go Cardinals. Yep. Go Big Red.

Go Cardinals. Big Red, yeah. Yeah. So, I texted him yesterday, like, do you know this person? It's at your photo. It's like, and they're twins. They're 16 and everything. Oh, she's the one that used to, like, provide excuses for why Biden would, like, trip and everything. Oh, she's the one that used to provide excuses for why Biden would trip and fall. And so kind of off the last point, and the things they said about the past president there, what do you do or recommend in a world that social media is there, but the respect for journalism or their own journalism is gaffes and everything.

The political system is almost being disrespected. I know you go into MSNBC, which you may not see a 16, 17, 18 or 25 year old for a while. If you were to rewrite how things are done, whether it's a press secretary, what would you do seeing how people consume media these days? Gosh, that makes me a little sad that that's how they know me, but it's fair. I understand. You know, I think you're kind of asking me about what to do about your kids who are only consuming things like on short form platforms, right?

Or would you just change things? So is it more direct communication with TikTok and things like that versus Peter at the, whatever he is, I don't know, Fox, I'm guessing. Yeah. Is it more direct because it just, institutions aren't being trusted, Washington Post, like all that stuff.

Do you go more direct? Yeah, okay. Sorry, I just want to understand your question. So look, I think that one of the things that prominent people can do, whether they're elected officials or running for office or their mayor or their dog catcher, whatever, is to really expand the types of platforms

they're engaging on. And we were talking about this a little bit. It's complicated, right? Because there are real concerns about TikTok and surveillance issues, et cetera. But I think one of the things that a lot of politicians do is they're too precious about how they communicate. And one of the reasons why your daughter, son, I can't remember, can't find substantive information is because a lot of people who are experts are not on these platforms. Some are, but I think there needs to be more engagement in different ways. Okay. Very quick. We're going to two quick more questions. Very quick.

Yeah. I'll ratchet up the questions to maybe a three on the not nice scale. So I'd like to ask you about local in particular and whether or not you felt that the focus on national cable, which, while important, doesn't have the hugest audience in the world, was something that you thought about and think about in your new role, obviously. Obviously, local news is in tremendous crisis, a lot of change happening there, and you were always extremely kind

with some local reporters, but that room looks very different from the way it would have looked when McCurry was on TV for the first time. You're right. First, I'll say, just so everybody knows, the White House doesn't determine who is in the seats in the briefing room. The White House Correspondents Association, a group of journalists, determines it. But what is very sad, to your point, is that a lot, I mean, obviously, there are a lot of local journalists, local news organizations that can't afford to have a Washington bureau. And you have to have a specific presence of a number of days in the White House, often to meet the bar. What we tried to do, but I think there needs to be more doing of this, and this goes to the question of like how you communicate, is really engage directly with local journalists and local news organizations.

It is still one of the most journalists and local news organizations. It is still one of the most trusted forms of news out there. My view is it's like an above all, like all of the above, that's what I'm getting at. All of the above strategy is what a lot of people need to do. There's nothing wrong with putting information out on Twitter or having a press conference at the Cannon House office building,

but you should also be engaging with your local news reporter, engaging with podcasts, engaging with a range of platforms, because that's how you will reach a broad audience. And certainly the fact that it's still the most trusted form of news, I believe, if I've seen the local stats, tells you how valuable it is and how much people should be trying to save it. Yeah, so here's the follow-up. We're going to go. Quick follow-up. No, sorry.

No, we have only time for one more question. I'm happy to talk afterwards if you'd like to talk afterwards. Thanks very much, Crawford Dopret from IDC. Hey, Jen, you've been through this whole process. In your mind, given where we are, what does recovery look like from where we are? Like, what does the solution look like over the next couple of years? I'm just curious. we are? Like, what does the solution look like over the next couple of years? I'm just curious. You mean a partisanship? I mean, I mean, partisan communication, how we, how the communication around policy, a return to decorum, not a return to decorum. What does that look like over the next few years? Well, that's a big theoretical question. I mean, it's a huge, important question, I should say. Look, I think there are steps that elected officials and politicians could take to better connect with the public, right? I've

touched on some of those. Another one of them is speaking in a way that doesn't make people cringe, you know? I mean, I think I always tell people, if you are figuring out how to explain something, call up your friend from college or your mother-in-law and explain to them. And if they're still on the phone, you're probably doing okay. And if they're not, then try again next time. But that is something that I think people could do. I think, again, people should take more risks about the type of platforms, the type of media outlets they engage with. You know, I don't know that that's healing everything,

but I do think that would help things. What I would say if I were giving advice to high school kids or college kids is read broadly. You know, I mean, I don't just mean books. Yes, I love books too, but read things you disagree with, read magazines, read newspapers. That is how you inform yourself, but also become, you know, a better debater on issues.

You know, that's something. And the last thing I will say is that, and you didn't really ask about this, but I thought you were going to. When people think about change they want to happen in the country, I'm kind of a believer that nothing changes until it does, right? So if you look back, you know, my first presidential campaign I did was for John Kerry. So if you look back, you know, my first presidential campaign I did was for John Kerry. We had to like find a slow bird for him to shoot to prove that like he respected the rights of gun owners.

Right. I mean, that was 18 years ago. It's true. He's not obviously. So, you know, there were in 12 states in 2004, there were referendums on gay marriage. Right. That's only 18 years ago. So whatever change people want to happen, it's like, oh, it's so slow. It doesn't happen. It doesn't happen until it does. You know, that's one of the reasons why I think policymaking is such an interesting thing in the country. Let me ask you one question. What Republican does it well, communications well? I have to say Ron DeSantis is pretty good. Why? Because you know what he thinks. He breaks through in a way that may be grating to people like myself, but it's clear and it's simple.

And people could take a weird, slightly dark lesson from that, I guess. Okay. On that note, thank you, Jen. We'll have more conversations from Code in the speed. Stay tuned.