Pivot - Trump's Latest Indictment, Strike Update, and Co-Host Savannah Guthrie

Episode Date: August 4, 2023

We’re starting off Scott Free August strong with TODAY co-host Savannah Guthrie. Kara and Savannah give us a look behind the scenes at how they've prepared for and pulled off some of their most notable interviews, including sitdowns with President Trump, Kamala Harris, Mark Zuckerberg, and more. Also: X will now let users hide their verified checkmarks, Hollywood writers and sudio representatives are expected to meet, and President Trump’s third criminal case of the year. You can find Savannah co-anchoring TODAY on NBC. Send us your questions by calling us at 855-51-PIVOT, or at nymag.com/pivot. 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 data, and a matching engine that helps you find 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. Hi, everyone. This is Pivot from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. I'm Kara Swisher.

Welcome to Scott Free August. And aren't we relieved because we have no more penis jokes to hear. And we're going to discuss that with him. He's going to have a little calm time during his time off and a little bit of deprogramming of that. In any case, my co-host today has plenty of experience co-hosting because she does it for a living on the Today Show. I wanted to get the polar opposite of Scott Galloway. Welcome, Savannah Guthrie. Thank you for having me, Kara.

I'm excited and scared of you. No, you're fine. Why are you scared? Why? Why? Because I'm familiar with your work. Oh, okay, good. Well, I'm familiar with your work,

and I think you're an excellent interviewer. One thing we're going to do is a little different today since he's away, besides not making dirty jokes. I don't think that's your forte. I'm not sure that's your forte. It's really not an area of strength. I want to give the audience a quick rundown of the big headlines we're following. Then we're going to talk about interviewing. You and I, I think you're one of the finest interviewers. We're going to go through some of your interviews and some of mine. We're going to talk and trade tips and things like that. So today, I'm going

to start with the platform formerly known as Twitter. It's now called X, which will now let paid users hide their verification check marks. Well, kind of. The company's About Twitter Blue page notes that even if you choose to hide your check mark, it may be visible in some places. In other words, it doesn't work. I don't know why they want to do this. I guess people are embarrassed to have it. I still have my blue check mark, even though I don't pay for it. If you have a legacy account, one that was verified before the blue subscription system, it should show the date you were verified to save you from the embarrassment. So, you know, you're not paying. So, are you still using Twitter? Are you? I still belong to Twitter. I'm on it. I think I lost my blue checkbook, checkbook, checkbook and my checkmark. I don't use it that often. I, when I was the White House correspondent,

I used it all the time. It was my news feed. Oh, okay. I loved it. I loved, I mean, I followed all of the reporters and we, you know, I tried to break news on Twitter. It was huge. And just more and more over the years, I don't. And I think largely because it's less and less of that, you know, less of a news feed.

Sometimes things are coming up, it's like hours later. And then also I just, I do feel that it's gotten so negative that, you know, I can get my news another way that doesn't feel like a punch in the gut. I have a legacy account and I still have a blue check. It was taken off and then put back on. I have no idea why, but I did not pay for it. I do. They don't want to mess with you. I don't think so. He wants to mess with me. Anyway, another story. Hollywood writers and studio reps are expected to meet today for the first time since the writer's strike began three months ago.

The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers extended an invitation to the Writers Guild earlier this week. As of now, it's not clear what they will offer the writers to get them back to the negotiating table. There's been no similar invite to the Actors Union, which is an early, which is the writers started first and had been striking for a while before the actors struck. Writers are asking for increased pay, contract changes, protections against AI. I have had impact from it. I mean, obviously, the actors and the writers and the studios are the most impacted. It's gotten a lot of attention,

and you guys have covered it. I've covered it quite a bit. The impact for us is we don't, a lot of the people we have for interviews now can't do interviews like Greta Gerwig, Natasha Lyonne. We had a bunch of people signed up that had to cancel and stuff like that. And you have a show that has a lot more celebrities. Yeah, we had a lot of gaping holes in our, and have had and will continue to have in our schedule because we have a lot of people coming on to promote their movies. I was supposed to sit down with Robert Downey Jr. for an interview and then the strike happened. So yeah, for Oppenheimer. So yes, of course, we cover it as a news story, but we're also feeling the effects of it as well. What do you do then? How do you fill it? What do you find a YouTube influencer or

something? No, no. I mean, it's the Today Show. I mean, they're so resourceful. We fill four hours of television every day. And, you know, we have a lot of stories that are in the can. The producers are amazing on the Today Show, but we miss it. We miss having those stories. And we like to cover Hollywood and it's fun to have a celebrity stop by. The writer's strike, when you cover it as a new story,

is that when you have a company that also has entertainment and stuff like that. Is there anything, what do you have to do when that happens? Our parent company is a member of the Producers Alliance, which of course is adverse to the striking writers or actors. And so we just cover it like a normal news story. We call them for a comment and we always disclose. There's always that. And by the way, NBC Universal's parent company Comcast is a member of the Producers Alliance or some such.

When you heard, I know the writers had said, you know, the writers, the actors said, oh, they're in the can for them. How do you disabuse them of that? Because I think that's like a weird, it's like we do things for clicks online. And so I'm like, no, most people don't. You know, people are always making allegations like that, whether it's a writer's strike or politics. And I think you have to kind of shut up that noise. I'm all for fair criticism. And I think you always have to be looking inward and saying, okay, are we covering this correctly? Are we giving it the time and energy it needs? I mean, I think one of our hours, the Today Show, just had Fran Drescher on for an extended interview. So I think we're covering it. I think we're covering it fairly. Sometimes you probably notice that the subjects of coverage don't always feel that you're fair. We're going to talk about that because I find that it's right there and they get to say what they want and they still feel it's unfair.

I have to ask you the critical question, Barbie or Oppenheimer, you have to pick one. Oh, gosh. Well, I know this is controversial. It may get you canceled. It is. Look, I saw them both. I had the privilege of seeing them both. I really loved Barbie. It was enjoyable. You know, I would say it's frothy, but it's not. It actually makes them- Substantive. Very, very, but also quite enjoyable. And I brought my kids, my boy and my girl. And reaction? And I actually, well both, they liked it. My daughter said she thought it was a little unfair to boys, which I thought was interesting. And I like, I said, you know, honey, I think the message of the movie is that boys and girls should be able

to be who they want to be. Yeah, yeah, that's amazing. And I think she was trying, I think that was the message. Yes, it was. She was also making fun of feminism. She, if you, I went and watched it a second time. And when you watch it the second time, there's a ton more jokes than you realize, you know, and digs and in a good way, in a good way. It's very clever and multi-layered. And people were saying, oh, sure, bring your kids. It'll go over their heads half of it. And I said, I think some of it went over my head. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Now, in a more serious thing, the biggest headline of this week, which I'm sure you're covering quite a bit, former President Trump's third criminal case this year. This is one of his alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

Special Prosecutor Jack Smith unveiled a four-count indictment on Tuesday, all of which focuses on Trump's election-related efforts. Not anything related to inciting the January 6th insurrection. Trump has called the charges, quote, fake. It's one of his favorite words and expected to appear in court today. Savannah, you had a big interview with his lawyer. I'm going to play a clip. And this guy's been a lot of places. And this is apparently the defense.

Let's play it. Well, I assume you're confident you can win this case. Absolutely. We're going to win. Would you, at a minimum, say you'd like to see this resolved before the election? I want to get to all the evidence. I want to have a chance to present our case to a jury. This is the first time that the First Amendment has been criminalized.

It's the first time that a sitting president is attacking a political opponent on First Amendment grounds and basically making a criminal to state your position and to engage in political advocacy. I've got to give you a little time out on that one. Yeah, we've never seen that before. Well, the indictment specifically says that the president has a First Amendment right to speech. He even has a First Amendment right to lie. It says it right here. Absolutely. This indictment is criminalizing conduct, not speech. No, it's

criminalizing speech for this reason. What the president saw in the 2020 election was all these irregularities going on, okay? Affidavits, sworn testimony, examples of instances where the rules were changed in the middle of the game. He had every right to comment on that and act politically. In a criminal case, what they would have to show is all of that speech was not entitled to First Amendment production. Wow. I've heard him say a version of this. This is John, is it Loro? Loro? Laura, right. So I want to talk to you about how we interview people. And I think you did a good job there. Nonetheless, he gets to say this, right? And stuff like that, which I think is outlandish, actually, what they're trying,

but they can try it. And how we get an actual story out of them. We're going to talk about some of our most memorable interviews. I want you to talk about this one. You did push back right away. Talk about what you knew that was coming, presumably, because you saw him say it before. Talk a little bit about what you were doing here. I want people to understand you're trying to be fair, and at the same time, you can't let something lie. It's a much more difficult situation than it used to be, for sure. about these interviews because it's a balancing act. You are there, you've asked someone to come on to share their views. And so it makes no sense to not let them share their views. On the other hand, you can't let statements that are demonstrably false or subject to challenge

go unchallenged. And so, especially in a live interview, you're making that judgment call, how much is enough? How long do I let this go before I jump in here and try to bring some facts and information to the table for that person to react to? So I let him say his piece. And then, you know, I was holding the indictment and it was just to say, you know, that the argument you're making has actually been contemplated by the prosecutor here. And this is not a First Amendment case. This is about conduct.

The longer version of that, he says, it's like, you know, conduct can be speech. It's like a filibuster. And then I interrupt again. I said, a filibuster is not illegal. Trying to send a slate of fake electors is. That is illegal conduct. So, you know, it's just really that balancing act of letting them respond to the questions. That's what they're there for. That's

what you ask them there to do. But also bringing up, you know, alternative information for them to react to. To react to. But, you know, a lot of lawyers especially don't want to come off there. One of the things that I think Steve Bannon talked about this and others is if you just keep repeating it, and Trump has said this to people, if you keep repeating something, even if it's a lie, it'll work eventually if you keep doing that. It's something I think about a lot, like letting, not, I have two things. One, people are like, oh, you platform this person. I did Chris Christie today, for example. And a lot of people don't like him, just you can't platform him. And I'm like, I can platform anyone I want. Like, I don't even like the word, you know? Yeah, I agree with you. What goes through your head? Is there a golden rule

you follow in every single interview? Fairness, precision, accuracy, preparation. That's the bedrock. That's the hallmark. Sincerity. That's something that I think about a lot before I approach an interview. I have to have my head on straight and know what the interview is for. It is to listen to information. It is to shed light. It is not for me. It is for the viewers. It's not to make me look good. I'm not trying to find some gotcha. Sometimes that happens. I find myself in those situations, but it's not because I'm showing off or because I want to get that person. Sometimes I say to our young producers who might send me a research note and say, oh, I think we could get him on this or that.

I say, does it matter? Are we dancing on the head of a pin here? Are we saying you should have used a comma, not a semicolon? Or is it something that goes to the heart of the matter? If you're going to go get into it with somebody, it better go to the heart of the matter. This interview you just played with John Laurel, this is a central issue to the case, this First Amendment. I'm with you on the platforming thing. First of all, it's a crime against grammar. Platform is a noun, not a verb. So I take offense. But generally speaking, I think that is what we're here for, is if the person is newsworthy and they are in a position to impact policy, they should be heard from and they should face questions.

And that is a service. Do you worry, though? I do. You know, when he was saying this, it was interesting because I was trying to think of what would I have done if I talked. These people won't talk to me because I actually might jump on them a little more. But I would say this is nonsense, what you're saying, or most people think it's nonsense. And you can make any argument you want, but it's, I don't, how do you resist saying this?

If you, I don't know what you think. Well, first of all, what I think in my own personal views are actually totally irrelevant to the job at hand, as far as I'm concerned, for what I'm doing. Our positions are a little different. So what I think is beside the point. Rather than say it's nonsense, I'd rather use facts. Which you said, the indictment is criminalizing content, not speech. Yes. And then I read another section from the indictment that makes that point explicit. And then when he brings up the filibuster idea, I point out the distinction of filibuster is legal conduct. Fraud is not.

Right, right. And so for me, it's just about facts. And I think when you really are wed to facts and you have marshaled the facts, and this is part of preparation, thought about them ahead of time, that is the antidote. It's not emotional for me. I mean, it's just not. It's about the facts. And honestly, I think it's, I mean, I have a legal background. I look at it as sets of arguments and counter arguments. I'm interested intellectually in what the arguments and counter arguments are on a side of an issue. And that's what I'm trying to bring out. The lawyers can be very dramatic in court, you know what I mean? And say, not nonsense,

but like say, you know, they aren't always doing facts. They're also playing to the crowd. Well, the lawyers aren't. They're totally different. They're advocates. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So what I'm saying is I'm using something that I think I learned in my legal training to dispassionately look at arguments and sets of arguments. But if I were an advocate, it'd be a different story. And yes, lawyers are quite persuasive. I mean, this lawyer, John Loro, was a pretty darn good advocate. He was very tenacious. Yeah. Right. Well, he has to keep repeating it. Does your legal background help you in that regard?

I'm curious. I don't have legal... I think so. I hope so. I hope... I think that's, you know, what I just said about kind of analyzing arguments, analyzing issues. I think it helps that way.

It helps also when covering legal cases. And there's a certain familiarity. You know, I've read one billion indictments in my day. I've sat in many, many courtrooms, not as a litigator. I was never a litigator. And, you know, I went to law school, I passed the bar, I briefly practiced. I'm like a fake lawyer. You know, I never passed myself off as a real trial lawyer. What was your big case? I didn't have any big case. I mean, I worked on the Enron case. I was at a big law firm and we had an Enron matter. We had one of the Enron defendants, but I was never, I mean, I'm not a real lawyer,

but the background is real. I mean, I paid, I just stopped paying my debt, you know, a few years back. So that's real. Yeah, that's true. That's true. Well, speaking of interviewing people who are often employ a lot of verbal antics,

I want to start by playing one of your Emmy winning interviews. This is a town hall with former president Trump in October of 2020, right before the election. Here you're talking about spreading conspiracy theories, something I know a lot about. Let's listen. Just this week, you retweeted to your 87 million followers a conspiracy theory that Joe Biden orchestrated to have SEAL Team 6, the Navy SEAL Team 6, killed to cover up the fake death of bin Laden. Now, why would you send a lie like that to your followers?

You retweeted it. That was a retweet. That was an opinion of somebody, and that was a retweet. I'll put it out there. People can decide for themselves. I don't get that. You're the president. You're not like someone's crazy uncle who can just retweet whatever.

That was a retweet, and I do a lot of retweets. And frankly, because the media is so fake and so corrupt, if I didn't have social media, I don't call it Twitter. I call it social media. I wouldn't be able to get the word out. And the word is, you know what the word is? The word is very simple. We're building our country stronger and better than it's ever been before. And that's what's happening. And everybody knows it. You know what else the word is? We're winning in a everybody knows it. Okay, we got a bunch of questions for you. We're winning in a lot of states. We're winning in a lot of states.

Wow. I just don't listen to that. Talk about interviewing him, because I have not. I have asked many times. I've even said I'd love to do it right at Mar-a-Lago in the lobby, just to make him feel safe, you know, which of course he wouldn't be. But he would be safe physically, but from an interview. Talk about your strategy going into this interview, because he shifted three or four times listening to it. It was really something. He's not really answering

your question, and then he shifts to something else, and then he's starting to do a stump speech right in the middle of it. And of course, he never answers your question whatsoever. Well, I mean, you know, he's obviously an interesting figure to interview. And, you know, I will just say that many, many people you interview will do a version of that thing where, you know, you start on one thing and then they shift the topic. And actually, you know, my husband does media training. So I sometimes will overhear these on the conference call. I mean, that's kind of what they tell these business executives. I mean, if you're very good at it, you would sort of answer the question and then pivot, to borrow a word, over to what you really want to talk about. So look, it's a common practice and an effective one. I think in that particular case, I mean, people ask me many, many times whether I planned to say that's what a crazy uncle does. No, I did not. Absolutely not. I mean,

I, it, it just, I was in the moment. It's kind of horrifying to me on the other hand. Really? Tell me why. Well, because it's so casual, but at the same time, my whole attitude in entering that interview, and actually I think most interviews is common sense, common sense. As a parent, you know this, you know, it's not emotional if you're being a good parent. It's like, why did you do that? Why did you say that? Oh, I didn't do it. I didn't write on the wall. Well, it's in red crayon, you know? Well, it wasn't me. Well, it says your name. You know, you're just kind of dispassionately stating the truth.

In the case of the SEAL Team 6 conspiracy theory, I mean, that's just one of those. I can't say to John Loro, your First Amendment argument is nonsense. It's not nonsense. I don't know if it's going to prevail in court, but he's got an argument. Telling me that SEAL Team 6 conspired to cover up the bin lottery, that is a lie. And so in that case, I said, it's wrong. Why are you doing that? And then I think it's kind of trying to go behind the not just did you do it? Was it right? It's just saying, why do you think it's okay to spread a lie? And then he said, I got to get the word out. The word is false. Right, right. And in that case, he uses that as an excuse to say terrible things by saying, The word is false. I wonder what will happen when you know that you're the president and you have a responsibility. That's all I was saying. Come on, you know, but you're not, this isn't something that happens without any ramifications.

No, not at all. So why do you do that? So when you interview him in particular, what is the strategy? It's really difficult. Well, what's difficult is that you want to be fair. It goes back to what we talked about. You invited the person on and you want to give them a chance to answer the question. It's their choice how to answer it. Sometimes you let the question go. You let the answer go. You have to trust that the viewer knows and can

understand that you asked a question and that question is not being answered. So sometimes it's a matter of that, you know, an egregious false statement. You want to be trying to call that out in real time. For him, I mean, you know, my general approach is to really try to know the issues, know what he's likely to say. I do a lot of, not just for him, this is really true for any interview. I do a lot of thinking beforehand about what my question is. I don't just write my questions. I don't just think of questions. I imagine the answer. I go through the whole process. I'll ask this. They'll likely say that. The response to that is this. The response to that is that. And I just try to go multi-level deep thinking about it. It looks a lot like anxiety. Yeah.

See, I have a total opposite. I do not. I do not do that. I mean, I prep and I have some idea, but the difficulty, I think, of Trump is the constant lies. And what you do is you spend your entire interview fact-checking someone, which is, I think, not a successful interview because you are on your back foot of always, not you in particular, but one is on their back foot of checking. And then it's not really what you're trying to accomplish there, right? No, and then it can really devolve into this over-talk and it happens. I hate that. I mean, you know, I find myself in these situations where I interrupt.

Yeah, you insert it, which I thought was fine, but... I hate interrupting. I mean, it's not my personality. If you and I were having a cocktail, I would try not to interrupt if you were telling me a story, but it's sometimes you have to. But at the same time, you're thinking about the listener's experience. If you're too overheated, if you're too over-torqued, if you're jumping on every last little thing, now they're starting to think you're the one with the bias. You're the one with the problem. I mean, you and I, we all get accused of that all day long from all corners of the political realm. So there's only so much you can do. But I think it's just a super delicate balancing act. How much to let someone say what

they have to say and trust that the listeners will see it for what it is. This interview I had with defunct social media platform Parler's CEO, John Mates, in the immediate aftermath of January 6th, I taped it on January 6th. I had a motion happen when I was a mile from the Capitol. I don't think I had out-of-control emotion, but it was very upsetting to see what was going on in the Capitol. Let's listen to that. Are you actually neutral? Are you seen right now as a right-wing publisher? All the people affiliated with you are more on the right. How do you change that? And tell me about the ownership structure. Well, today, everybody, a lot of people on the platform are on the right. And we have appealed to people on the right because they are, you know, primarily the victims of online censorship right now, the way I see it. You know there's no actual evidence of that happening, just them saying it.

There's also no actual evidence of it not happening either. Oh, my God. Come on. That's Loch Ness Monster talk. You can't say that, though. You can't say that. I would like to see evidence of it, just like I'd like to see more evidence of widespread election fraud, which, of course, you don't see in courts. Courts have already said that, too. I don't want to get into the election thing, but let's put it this way. People feel that they are being censored online, and they can't get their voice out.

That is, again, feelings are not facts, but okay. All right. They're over there. They've moved over there. People feel that they are being censored online. That is, again, feelings are not facts, but okay. They're over there. They've moved over there. They're hurt by something that Twitter's done, although they certainly can't resist it on many levels. So I thought my feelings are not facts was fantastic, I have to say. I have to say that was my favorite part, too. Yeah.

I like it. And it's the right response. I'm curious if you think that's too— I wouldn't see this on a network television thing, this kind of back and forth, or maybe you might. I would say the first part I wouldn't necessarily, but the second maybe, because he just asserted a fact. They are bullied online or they're censored online. You said that's not true.

Where's the evidence of that? I think that's what, I think for us, it'd be more, well, where's your evidence as opposed to saying it's not true? Show me some facts. But I think you're saying feelings are not facts is the right response, especially since he's asserted it as a fact and now he's changed it to, well, they feel that way. Well, that's fine. Then you should have said that in the first place. Right, right. Absolutely. I feel it. But that's, that's why I said feelings are not facts. He ended up getting fired after this interview. Oh, wow. Yeah, because of several things he said, including that he didn't feel responsible for inaccuracies on the platform at all, or that things were wrong. And he kept and I kept saying, you know, you have people who will kick you off for this, you know, either Amazon or Apple and stuff like that.

And he kept saying it like he felt no responsibility for violence and he felt no response, which was interesting that he said it. I was sort of surprised. Well, there's a lot of candor there, I guess. Yes, I guess. Yeah. Yeah. People tend to do that with me. I don't know why, but he did actually get fired in the wake of this. I don't think I caused it. I think he said it, right? So is there someone you wouldn't interview? Because I mean, I talked to, of all people, so opposite from you, Piers Morgan, and he said he wouldn't interview Marjorie Taylor Greene, for example. I don't know if I would either. Not because I don't like her, for one, and I'd be happy to say it, but also the persistent lies are almost impossible. It's an

impossible interview, like that kind of thing. I know Leslie Stahl did, and she is a friend of mine, and she got some blowback for that interview. Do you think about that at all? All the time. I mean, the list of people I don't want to interview is long. I'm not naming names, but I do think about it. And I also just, you know, I think about it also in terms of our show, what's good for our show, what are our viewers interested in, you know, and then also whether it's valuable, whether it's worth it. You know, sometimes every once in a while you have these like cultural stories that are kind of really controversial. sometimes every once in a while you have these like cultural stories that are kind of really controversial. And it's like, do we need to be in that game? I don't know. Sometimes I, you know,

we have been. And yeah. And sometimes I do interviews that I wish I didn't have to do. Honestly, I wish I didn't have to, but I know it's my job. So what am I going to do? Sit around and cry? They write me a paycheck. I cash it every two weeks. This is my job. Right. But would you say absolutely not to someone if you can? I would. And I do feel in this moment, I feel supported by my bosses. And I think they've listened to me.

Because I wouldn't say no for a stupid reason. If I said no, there would be a rationale behind it. Because I understand that I'm rationale behind it because I understand that I'm an employee and I understand what my job is. But if there, so if there was something that I just didn't feel I could do morally or journalistically, I wouldn't do it. It's not worth it. I had that situation and I'm blanking on who it was, but it was a right-wing figure

at our code conference. They had just done something virulently anti-gay. And I just, I said to Walt Mossberg, who was my partner, we were supposed to do it together. I said, I cannot sit on the stage without lunging across and slapping, give him a slap, you know what I mean? Or something, I wasn't going to. But that's the right call because in that case, you're also, you're saying, I can't be objective. Well, then that's right. That's exactly the moment you step aside. Although sometimes if you can, even if you're not object, I see that that's the interesting thing is I show my opinions a little more. Right. And I think sometimes when they're like, when they, you know, it was sort of the famous Fox Fair and Balanced. I don't know if there's so such thing. There's no such thing. I don't think they are. But that I don't think listen, I think one of the things that listen appreciate is they know exactly where I'm coming from. Yeah, for sure. And I don't hide it. And I think sometimes when journalists

are like, I'm completely objective, I'm like, you're not. And not just politically, but where you came from, where you're born, everything else. Yeah, I mean, it's aspirational. That's the thing, of course, you know, it's aspirational, but I cling to that aspiration. I can't say, and I'm sure, and that's the other thing, we all have so many detractors that depending on who's listening, they could probably come up and marshal all kinds of evidence where they think I'm biased this way or that way. You know, I just have to carry on. And I'm not a perfect person. And like I said, I'm definitely interested in fair criticism. Yeah. Have you ever had a moment where you're like, I just can't do this and then burst out? I don't think I've ever seen you do that. I think you're quite controlled in the interviews, which is what I like, actually. I try, you know, I really do try to be professional. I mean, I'm inside. If you had a soundtrack to my internal dialogue, you'd run screaming.

I'm the opposite of you, Kara. You know what I love about you? You're like, that was great. I loved that interview. I crushed that. You and I were talking about our graduation speeches. You're like, oh, yeah, the kids were loving it. We could not be more opposite.

I mean, I sometimes cry of my stress before an interview. Oh, my internal dialogue is a terrifying place. They should make a horror movie out of it. Oh, really? Yes. Oh, God. But when push comes to shove, it's time to sit down and get down to business. And that's the job. Yeah, yeah.

My friends joke about it. They're always like, Kara's always like, oh, that's really great. Someone asked me, oh, how'd that go? I'm like, it's fantastic. They're like, do you ever not say it's fantastic? I said, when it's not fantastic, but it's so often fantastic. I don't know what to say. That's what I love.

I mean, I don't know if it's offensive to say this. I just, you're like, you have some, that's, it's like a, it's a good, you're like men. Yeah, I am. I am like men. That is true. You know, it's like men, they're always like, damn, I'm so good. Yeah, I know. And then women are like, why are we like this? You know, it's like men, they're always like, damn, I'm so good. Yeah, I know. It's true. And then women are like, why are we like this?

It's true. It's true. So I'm going to get my inner care up. Unless you live in Barbie land and then you're really good. Yes. Them all clapping for each other. Oh, I loved it. I know. I know. The high Barbie. All right. You're not afraid to interrupt either.

I did interrupt that interview and I thought it was appropriate. But you're not afraid to interrupt. Let's play this clip of you and Kamala Harris, Vice President Kamala Harris, in an interview. You landed after her first year in office and one month before the Ukraine invasion. Let's go into that. I am often in the situation room with the leaders of our military and our intelligence community and, of course, the president of the United States. And on the subject of Ukraine, I will tell you that the president has been very clear and we as the united states are very clear if putin takes aggressive action we are prepared to levy serious and severe costs period and i will tell you that part of the the posture that we have taken is grounded in the respect and the value we place in sovereignty and territorial integrity. And in particular in this case, the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. Of course.

And I'm sorry to interrupt, but it is less than clear because 30 minutes after the news conference, the White House press secretary had to actually clarify the president's remarks. Savannah, I'm being clear with you right now. Yes. Okay. And so if you're interested, I'll continue to be clear. Oh, wow. Testy. Testy. It got worse then. Yeah, it did. I remember I was kind of was fascinated by it. Talk about what happened there. And she was trying to do cleanup, right? And of course, she also said, I'm in the room. I'm very important. I know of what I speak. I think that was that whole wind up that she was doing there, which I would have probably in that moment said, I know you're important. Got it. Let's go right to the question. She probably thought you were trying to do a gotcha with Biden, right? Now

you've had to clean up for Biden. What went through your head during that? I mean, honestly, I thought she'd get right to the cleanup because, you know, she's coming in the day after. It was a big deal. I mean, and later in the interview, I mean, it really gets into it. And I say, you know, I'm sorry, let's be clear because right now there's 100,000 Russian troops amassed at the border and people are hanging on your every word. So we have to be clear. troops amassed at the border and people are hanging on your every word. So we have to be clear. You know, I thought she would just right away say, I said, is what he just said a green light to just take a tiny nibble? Like don't go a big of a tiny nibble because that's what it sounds like. I thought she'd say, of course not. And then we'd be off to the races. This whole wind up,

I mean, I let it go. That's one of those things where it speaks for itself. Right, yeah, true. So I let it go. But then when the answer, then I was waiting for the actual answer to the question. When the answer wasn't clear, it said aggressive action. Well, that's, I mean, that was the issue.

Well, what counts as aggressive action? Right, right. You know, What's aggressive enough for us to respond? So that's where it got. I have to tell you, again, I don't enjoy these moments of confrontation. This is not pleasant for me. I don't like it. I don't like how it makes me feel. I don't like what people, especially partisans, say about me afterwards, although I try not to look at it, you know, but sometimes it has to be done. I mean, that was a very, again, that's where it's like, that's a fight worth having.

Is it okay if he does a little something over in Crimea or over in the Donbass, but a full scale of Kiev is not okay? That's what the issue was. And that's what we were grappling with. Right. Let's be clear. And she was doing cleanup. So it was probably irritating for her. You know, I mean, they had to send her out. Yeah, correct. But if you're going to clean up, like, to me, I'm like, I mean, it's not me. These are hard jobs. But I'm like, sweep it up and move on. Yeah, exactly. I've been like, of course not. Next. Yes. Yeah. And so when she said when you were waiting for that moment, because I could hear I could hear you waiting while she was doing

her wind up, which it was long. That wind up was when she's a lawyer. She likes. She likes to be a lawyer. I've been in that situation with Vice President Harris. She has a lot to say. But when she said, if Putin takes aggressive action, we're prepared to levy serious and severe costs, period, which is unspecific and specific at the same time, right? Which I was probably poll tested, etc. of what exactly she was going to say to you. The problem with that response in that moment was, what is the definition of aggressive? That was the very issue we're grappling with. Biden says, it depends on what it is. And then she says, if it's aggressive action. So I'm saying, well, what counts as aggressive? Is any incursion aggressive? That's what the whole debate was about. So, yeah, that's happened. So, do you feel that was a successful interview? I think it does. Well,

I think she's in a bad situation herself, like she's been put in a bad situation. At the same time, she can't go out on any limb either and be more specific. Well, I don't know, maybe she could have said that he can't set one foot. He can't put one toenail into Ukraine. That's what I thought they'd say. Right, right. And did you expect that or not? I didn't know what their position was going to be. But if you're coming on and you know that there's been a controversy, the president made this statement. The White House had to clarify it 30 minutes later. And the next day, the vice president's doing the Ryan Robin on all of the networks. You know, she's going to be asked. To me, I would have thought they wanted, they're here to dispatch this one once and for all. Of course not. Y'all are reading

into this too much. Putin can't set one tiny fingernail into Ukraine without getting the full throated response of the U.S. That isn't what we got. So do I consider it a successful interview? I don't know. I mean, the issues were litigated. You know, she got to say her piece. I don't like that. You know, I never like, I mean, I don't like the confrontation. I mean, I don't want to do boring interviews, but I'm not trying to entertain. I'm trying to get the info. Right, right. That's true. That's in that case. What was the fallout from that? I don't know that there was any. I mean, there was, I don't think there was any from the White House or, I mean, people talk about those interviews.

I have learned finally, I don't have a thick skin at all, as we've discussed, but I don't read, I'm not reading the comments. You know, I'm not, there's people that'll say, oh, great. And people, they'll say, you're the worst. And the people who liked the Trump interview would have hated that Kamala and vice versa. And, you know, people are, there's a lot these days now where people say, oh, you're so biased. And what I find is often it's, they're not from the Pew Institute looking for some bastion of neutrality. They want your bias to match their bias. Yeah, that's true. A hundred percent. I

refuse to talk to anyone who doesn't listen. Like I won't, you know, without listening. And a lot of people do that now. That's what I love about you. And next time somebody's, you know, mean to me or gets, I'm no, I'm going to say, call Kara. Kara Swisher is my representative in this matter. All right. We go to a quick break. We'll be right back with a whole bunch of stuff around tech because Savannah's done a lot of tech interviews. Fox Creative. This is advertiser content from Zelle. When you picture an online scammer, what do you see?

For the longest time, we'd 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. Thumbtack presents the ins and outs of caring for your home. Out. Indecision. Overthinking. Second-guessing every choice you make. In. Plans and guides that make it easy to get home projects done.

Out. Beige on beige on beige. In. Knowing what to do, when to do it, and who to hire. Start caring for your home with confidence. Download Thumbtack today. Savannah, we're back. Let's talk about Facebook and meta, whatever they want to call themselves. Both opportunities to sit down with the top brass there. Let's start with your interview with Sheryl Sandberg, someone I know very well and someone I've interviewed many times too, setting the scene. It's 2018. You're asking about Cambridge Analytica and the day the company gathered from Facebook. Very controversial. People feel that it was overblown. At the same time,

it was indicative of the problems we had with Facebook. Let's listen. This first came to Facebook's attention in December 2015. That's two and a half years ago. And only now is Facebook taking these serious steps that you've announced this week. What is the reason it took so long? You could have done all of this two and a half years ago. You were right that we could have done this two and a half years ago. So why didn't you? Because we thought that the data had been deleted and we should have checked. You are right about that. What we're doing now, we thought it had been deleted and we should have checked. You are right about that. What we're doing now, we thought it had been deleted because they gave us assurances

and it wasn't until other people told us it wasn't true. But here's what we're doing. But why go on Facebook with someone who's already violated in spirit, if not in the letter, Facebook's principles? We had legal assurances from them that they deleted. What we didn't do was the next step of an audit and we're trying to do that now.

We thought the data had been deleted. That's why. But that doesn't mean you don't tell the users, hey, this was stolen from you. Yes, you're right. And we should have done that. We should have done that as well. Because it feels like Facebook was trying to get away with it. I don't think that's true.

But of course, you're right. Well, that's a Cheryl special. That's a Cheryl. You're right. You know what? I agree with you. That was classic. I think you did a great job there. I remember paying attention to this. I thought it was one of the much better interviews with these people. Talk about this. What's the trick here to get her off? She's obviously talking points. She's like the Olympic talking points person in Silicon Valley. You know, I haven't thought about that in a long time, but I was thinking about it as we were getting ready for this today. What's interesting is, you know, she was there to fall on the sword, clearly. She was there to say, you're right, we did it wrong. And so I think, you know, and that's fine because that's what her purpose was.

But I think my approach was, well, you can't just say, I'm sorry, and it's over. Oh, that's a Facebook special. That's another, I'm sorry. So I think that's what that exchange is really about. Well, she said, we should have. Well, why didn't you? And then I think it goes back to the common sense thing where at the very end, I'm saying, it almost looks like you were hoping you could get away with it. And I think sometimes it's- I like that. I love how you, I think this is very Kara. Just call it what it is. Sometimes there's like too much politeness or illusion to, and I think it's more effective and an opportunity for the person being interviewed if you just

flat out say, this is what people think. They think you did it on purpose, and you didn't do anything till now because you were kind of hoping no one would ever find out. Is that true? And then it gives them a chance to answer that criticism. Yeah, and then she goes, let's move fast forward to now. She wanted to get you off of it. Pivot. Pivot. Let's pivot on this. When she is doing this, I'm curious what went through your head when you're right about that. I've had her do that to me. And one of the things I do to get her to stop is I'm like, stop saying I'm right. I know what you're doing here.

It's super manipulative. So stop doing it. And so I often call out and some things I do with, and at Silicon Valley, people are very talking points. And you've interviewed lots of business leaders too very talking points I actually point out the talking point right before they can do it uh in the case of today with Chris Christie I said you have four answers to this question you have three answers I've listened so I put him on notice that I've listened to everything he said and then secondly is I'm not interested in your talking points because you've already that's the way you answered every time. I would like a different answer

or a different word. That's my favorite, Kara. But when she was doing this, I want to know what you were thinking when she was saying you're right about that. What was going through your head? Do you remember? I must not have been surprised, but I think what my goal was to not drop it. Like apology is the beginning of the interview, not the end. Right. Very good point. That's an excellent point. That's what I, I think that's what I was thinking. So it's, you still have something to answer for. Thank you for the sorry, but we still, it's like if you were in a relationship and you got in a fight and the person said, you know, I was wrong for doing X, you'd say, thank you for saying that.

I feel like we still need to address how it is we got here. Well, people often use the sorry as an excuse, right? I know. Well, there's no worse than I'm sorry that you feel that way. Yeah, I'm sorry. That's not an apology. That is not an apology. But that's on your relationship podcast.

I could feel your annoyance when I was watching this. Oh, really? Yeah, I could. I could tell that you were like, oh, come on. You could see it. That's physically, yeah. I don't feel that way, but maybe I could. I could tell that you were like, oh, come on. You could see it. That's funny. I don't feel that way, but maybe I was. Yeah, I was watching because I was watching all these interviews because I was going to do some of my own. They're, of course, not talking to me anymore. That's their new policy is that. I guess that's a compliment. interview and I talked to her PR person, someone I've known for years and I really like, and I ran into him at the dry cleaner in the Castro. And I said, all roads lead through Kara Swisher for

Sheryl Sandberg's redemption. And he's like, she's not going to do it. And I said, all roads. I said, she wants to come back, has to go the highway through Kara town. Well, I love it. And I, you know, but as I told you, like one of the first times we text, I texted, I said, I will never do an interview with you. Yeah. Okay. Here you are. And here you are. I know, but we're not really interviewing. Yes, that's true. That's true. We're chatting as colleagues.

Yes, that's true. That's true. That's true. In this case, it's really interesting is when you do that. But I do think I'll tell you one very quick story. And the similar thing is Barack Obama when I interviewed him. And he's super smooth, obviously, and very talking points. And one of the things that happened is they cut my time. And you know that when they cut your time. Doesn't that suck? Big deal.

Yes. Time is the hardest part of those interviews. Exactly. If you had forever, you could do it. Yes, exactly. Which is why I make these interviews long. And so they cut my time and they gave it to like a YouTube star,

which made me even more furious, right? Because I was talking about very serious issues. Apple had just had this issue around the phone that they were trying to decrypt and everything else. And so it was an important time and I was doing an actual serious interview. And at the beginning of the interview, what I did is I leaned into him and I said,

listen, they cut 10 minutes from my interview and you tend to talk a lot and you talk in paragraphs and I get it because you're president and everybody listens to you and nobody pushes back, but I'm going to interrupt you and you're not used to it. I know you are, you're on your sixth year and you don't get interrupted every, I'm going to interrupt you quite a bit if you keep yammering on. And he goes, and he goes, I know. And he goes, this is before it started. And we were very close to each other because we're in these chairs. And he goes, I heard you were obnoxious. I go, yes, I am. And then we went and then it started. And it was really interesting. But he was much more pithy. Like I put him on notice that I didn't want. it was an interesting thing. But speaking of which, here's somewhere I didn't talk a lot. We're going to play an interview I did with Mark Zuckerberg. I've done many.

Not the sweating one, which was where he sweat too much. But when we famously talked about content moderation, here's the clip. Right, so I'm Jewish. And there's a set of people who deny that the Holocaust happened. Yes, there's a lot. I find that deeply offensive. But at the end of the day, I don't believe that our platform should take that down because I think that there are things that different people get wrong.

I don't think that they're intentionally getting it wrong. In the case of the Holocaust deniers, they might be. It's hard to impugn intent and to understand the intent. But I just think for as abhorrent as some of those examples are, I think the reality is also that I get things wrong when I speak publicly. I'm sure you do. I'm sure a lot of leaders and public figures who we respect do too.

And I just don't think that it is the right thing to say, we are going to take someone off the platform if they get things wrong, even multiple times. So what we will do is we'll say, okay, you have your page. And if you're not trying to organize harm against someone or attacking someone, then you can put up that content on your page, even if people might disagree with it or find it offensive. But that doesn't mean that we have a responsibility to make it widely distributed in newsfeed. Oh, that was quite a moment. And here's why. Here's why. This is what I did. When he said, I don't think they're intentionally getting it wrong. First of all, we were talking

about Alex Jones, and he moved into Holocaust deniers. And I kept, internally, I was like, oh, no, sir, don't do that, dude. And he was using it because I'm Jewish. And there's, you know, he was trying to say, even I as a Jewish person can talk about Holocaust deniers and let them say what they want to say. And when he said, I don't think they're intentionally getting it wrong, right then in my head, I was like, you fucking idiot. That's what I thought at the time. Like, how? What? What? Like, and I didn't, and I normally I would have said, are you kidding me? Are you? You cannot be saying this. Of course, they're intentionally getting it wrong. They're malevolent players. There's a difference between someone who gets it wrong and someone who's a malevolent player. I

could have gone on there. I didn't. I remember saying, control yourself, Kara. Let him talk, because let's hear what he has to say. so everyone understands how incredibly nonsensical his argument is. Let him lay it out in all its terribleness. And so I said, I did put in, in the case of Holocaust deniers, they might be because I wanted to put a pin right there, you know, that they're malevolent. And then I later went back and said that. And so he later had to clarify his remarks because I knew that it would blow up like a Roman candle. I left that interview as fast as I could, and we got up as fast as we could before they realized what had happened, you know, with it. He clarified his

remarks later saying, I personally find Holocaust denial deeply offensive. I absolutely didn't intend to defend the intent of people who deny that. I remember thinking that was one of my best interviews because I didn't say something. I know. And it's true. And you said enough in that moment. So no one could say, oh, Kara, you just let this nonsense go unchallenged. No one could say that. But it is true. I mean, you allowed him to complete his thought. And again, I always think this is a good Latin phrase from law school, res ipsa loquitur. It speaks for itself. Res ipsa.

You know, it's like, this will speak for itself. And sometimes the best thing to do is get out of the way. Get out of the way. It's interesting. Do you find yourself when you're in interviews like that? Because I always interject. I'm a very interjected person. But in this case, I thought, you must understand that this person running this company doesn't know what they're talking about, I was right. And he did it later. And so we, I think I wrote a column later called The Expensive Education of Mark Zuckerberg,

which was expensive for us, not for him, which was interesting. Do you ever find yourself wanting to jump in and then not doing it? You're very controlled in interviews, which I do like. I do watch you because of that. I, you know, I don't have a particular occasion that comes to mind like that where I'm thinking, oh, just let's let this go. But I'm always very mindful of being fair enough to let the person say what they want to say. They did not sign up for a debate. They signed up for an interview when they came on our air. And so even though sometimes it does feel like I'm debating when you start having to go back on facts, it's always that balancing act and it's really delicate. And

sometimes I'll listen back to some of these clips and think, I really let that go on for a long time. That was maybe too generous. And then sometimes I think, God, I was a little hot headed and over torqued. I could have, you know, still too much. You know, I was a little hot-headed and over-torqued. I could have, you know, it was a little too much. You know, I don't, I'm critical of my technique, but I know what I'm thinking in the moment. And sometimes, you know, I'm trying to give them a chance to say what they have to say. 100%, that's what I say. You'll be able to say what you think.

It just doesn't mean it's going to come off well. And I do think one of the good things about, what I do like about your news is they're longer and they're more substantive. A lot of stuff on TV today is so short and reductive. It's interesting, but I do think these more longer interviews, I do trust the listener to know these things. We tend to dumb down or think our listeners are stupider than they are, and they're not at all. All right, Savannah, one more quick break.

When we come back, we'll talk about some of the more emotional interviews we've done. Cara can be emotional. As a FIS member, you can look forward to free data, big savings on plans, and having your unused data roll over to the following month, every month. At FIS, you always get more for your money. Terms and conditions for our different programs and policies apply. Details at Fizz.ca. Savannah, we're back. We've talked a lot about getting people to reveal information, advance a story, and sometimes about getting them to reveal and process emotions.

I want to talk about, I don't want to say regular people because we're all regular people, but we, the people we often interview are pros just like we we are, right? And they know the game and everything else. Your interview with the parents of a Louisville bank shooter, which I thought was really, I love this interview. I hate to say I loved it, but I did. It was very moving earlier this year. Let's play it, and then let's talk about it. There's no comprehension of him doing an act like this to others. So our issues are around the minutiae of little things like, man we didn't see that. If you know even little things like as men we don't always verbalize things to each other, but I think I'm going to pull the parachute out of that answer and walk away from it. I do want to say, though, I had no idea. And even when he was telling me that he was sort of in a

crisis, we thought we had it handled. We thought it was being managed. He does not fit the profile. He wasn't a loner. He had a job. He had a girlfriend. He was successful. And he only had anxiety. He only had maybe panic attacks. That's it. What happened to you is unthinkable, but you also did lose a son. unthinkable, but you also did lose a son. And your son also did a terrible thing. And I just wonder what, how you deal with that. It would have been bad enough if we had just lost our son, but for him to take others with him, it's just, it's beyond what we've taught him. The way we live, we're always saying it's beyond what we've taught him.

The way we live, we're always saying, do no harm. He didn't do that. Well, this was a gut punch, Savannah. And especially that question where you are clearly yourself emotional, which was appropriate. When you said you lost a son, but he also did a terrible thing. I wonder how you deal with that. I thought that was one of the most perfect ways to ask that question. Talk a little bit about how you got this interview and how you approached it, how you approached it. Well, first of all,

I have to say that the Sturgeons are incredible people and incredibly courageous to sit for an interview like that. And, you know, unfortunately, we cover a lot of school shootings. I've been to too many to count. And, you know, it's just common practice that after these shootings, you know, our bookers, producers, for all the networks, for all the newspaper, everyone, they'll always put in a request to speak to the family of the shooter, it is almost never even answered. In this case, after a few days, they responded. And we spoke a few times before. You and them. Yes. Yes. I talked to them about what it would be like, what they were hoping to accomplish.

I always tell, I mean, if I have a conversation before doing an interview, I'm very upfront about this will not be easy. There will be hard questions. You just have to know that. I never want someone to feel like, oh, she led me down the primrose path. I thought this was going to be a cakewalk.

I mean, I'm like, the things that are hard, we're going to talk about, but I promise you it'll be fair. I promise you you'll get an honest conversation. And so we had those kinds of discussions. And honestly, I was kind of afraid myself to even do it because I felt like, gosh, I just kept thinking about the victims, you know, and they did too. The Sturgeons were like, we don't want to do anything that will hurt them and make it worse. At the same time, something's got to change. This can't just keep happening. And if we can add our voice and explain what happened to us so that people understand this is how it happens. It can happen to anyone. If it could

happen to us, it could. I mean, they really were better parents than most of the parents I know in terms of being on it and paying attention. So I was really nervous about doing it. I mean, one of the things, one of my, my approach was one of the, I think the first question I asked them when I sat down is, what makes you nervous about doing an interview like this? And it gave them the opportunity to say, we're so afraid of hurting the victims. That's our biggest fear. And then, you know, the moment you just mentioned, and there was another, I felt like I have to ask, you know, what they did, ask about Connor. You don't want, talk about platforming. You don't want to raise the profile of someone who did such a horrible thing. So I felt like it was important to just state the fact you lost a son and your son did

something horrific. And these two things can coexist. And how do you hold those two things in your hands at the same time? Right, I thought this was, it was not, it was gripping and also terrible. It was a terrible thing to listen to. One of the things that I think is difficult, I don't know if I could do an interview like this. It was because I would think of the victims

almost the entire time. And at the same time as a parent, you brought that here, I think, whether you realize it or not, right? Like, can you imagine putting yourself in that situation? It's hard to have empathy for them, and you did. You managed to do that, which I think is difficult, I would say. I think as a parent, I mean, you're a parent too. That's just so part of the fabric of who we are. And I think about myself as a parent of a child who was shot. And I think of myself as a parent of a child who did something horrible. And, you know, they also were particular, you know, there are different scenarios and different situations where it's harder to have as much empathy.

These were parents who, by all accounts, really did the best they could. The minute that he even expressed feelings of having a panic attack, he stayed home from work. She got him a therapist appointment. They joined the therapist appointment. They spent the whole weekend with him. You know, he had a roommate, he had a girlfriend. They just, it never, they never thought he had guns, you know? So it was, I think, a valuable perspective So it was, I think, a valuable perspective that they brought. And I think they were, I don't know. I don't think she ever, sometimes I still, you know, will keep in touch with people I've interviewed just to check on them, see how they're doing. I don't think she ever watched.

She couldn't bear to watch. But I think she felt like something's got to change. And if it means I have to be courageous, then I guess that's where I'm at now. And then the last question on this is, so many of these interviews, they sound the same, right? They ultimately, and you get people used to them. Is that ever a worry of yours? to have. But in the case of, for example, heartbreaking parents who are in grief because their children have been the victims of school shooting, I mean, I hope we never get numb to it. I think it wouldn't be right, though, if somebody wants to tell their story, I don't think it would be right to not let them share their grief, let the world see what they lost in particular. It's unfortunate if people shrug it off or say, oh, I can't watch that. It's too much for me. It's too sad. I mean,

my view is if that person in their grief has the courage to tell the story, then we better have the courage to listen. And I don't know if it makes a difference. Everyone's different. That's another thing you hear a lot in our business. You're like, oh, it's awful that you talk to those parents. It's so exploitative, you know, blah, blah, blah. I mean, some people say no way. And some people say yes. Some people want to speak.

I don't know. I think I'd be the kind of person if something like that happened to me, I think I'd shut that door tight and say, go away. But other people want to speak and they have their reasons. And that's not, our job is to ask them if they want that opportunity. And I don't judge whether it's right or wrong that they do it. I think it's mostly people chasing people. That is not okay. I mean, we don't do, I mean, you know, generally, as far as I know, we don't, we really, we're not here to further traumatize people who are in the midst of incredible trauma. Absolutely. I did an interview with one of the Sandy Hook

parents and I decided to take a different, rather than talk about the tragedy as many years on, was to talk about the, the, the focus on, on social media, because this kid's picture was all over the place. He couldn't get the social media people to take it down until he sued them for copyright. And I wanted him to talk about that because I was like, let me just show you a tactic this guy is using. And in showing that is that this is what he had to do

to get people to take down horrific pictures. And I decided to go in a different direction. I thought that was successful. Well, it is. And it's also, I mean, it's a different facet of his grief. And it's valuable to people. I don't think most good-hearted people have any idea what some of these, especially in the Sandy case, what some of those families have had to contend with. Which I thought it was people were like, I never heard about that. I was like, that's what I was going for. Like, you've heard the tragedy.

Now hear actually what it's like on a day-to-day basis. All right, last one we're going to play is one of, I can have feelings, Savannah. I can. One of the more poignant interviews I've done with Monica Lewinsky, which I think this is my favorite interview, largely because I wanted people to reevaluate her. I think she's had a lot of grace. And I know she made a mistake when she was 20, but she was 20. Who didn't, right?

And she made it on a big scale. But of all the people involved in this, she's the only one who hasn't dropped a dime. She hasn't taken advantage of it. And I've gotten to know her, and I like her. I now consider her a friend after this interview, where we talked about alternate endings. Let's listen. The name of your production company is Alt Ending. What would your Alt Ending be if you had to rewrite it? Oh, gosh. Again, back to maybe the boring or the banal, my Alt Ending would have

been I left my internship, I went to graduate school, got a PhD in forensic psychology, got married, had kids. Yeah. So. You can still have all the endings, you know. Yes, I can. And I, you know what? This one's a good one. I have had, the last seven years for me have been nothing short of a fucking miracle.

And so I feel like, all right, well, if I've had one miracle, I could have another. So, and I have as Pollyanna as my mom can be at times. I think she prefers sanguine, but she's always saying, you never know what or who is around the corner. I know. Well, you can look out for my next boyfriend. All right. I know some people, but they're not going to be assholes. You're not going to have a bad boyfriend. My therapist says, we just need to find you a kind narcissist who's a little less broken than some of the others. There'll be no bad boyfriends for Monica Lewinsky.

I thought this was really great. When she said, you know, except for my Brenda Vaccaro voice, I was sick. And I thought being accessible to her was really important. And I was surprised when she started to say that. It really affected me emotionally. Like when she said, I could have had kids, I would have had a career, and none of this was available to her because of what happened. Again, she took responsibility for her part, but for the most part, she was taken advantage of by everybody, not just Bill Clinton, but the whole, the media, the, the,

everyone who had every side of it. And I just felt like it was okay to be a little emotional in this one. Yeah. Well, first of all, I teared up listening to it. And I just felt like it was okay to be a little emotional in this one. Well, first of all, I teared up listening to it. And I know Monica a little bit too. And I find her to be extraordinary the way that with her intelligence, but also her wisdom and grace and never shirking her responsibility and her role, never playing the victim, you know, but just marching forward, I think valiantly. And, you know, I think that it depends, you know, in a news interview, you know, that distance and objectivity is obviously required. Sometimes I feel this way about, for lack of a better word, like a celebrity interview or something that's a little softer. For me, the goal is connection.

like a celebrity interview or something that's a little softer. For me, the goal is connection. And that's what you accomplish there. You connected. And in connecting, it was revelatory. And therefore, that's the mission of the goal. I mean, that's the mission of the interview. That's how I feel sometimes about these celebrity interviews. It's less about like, and what's your next project or this or that. Sometimes it's just about connecting because you can see something in the way that if you click with the person or you share a joke or a laugh or whatever it is, it's revelatory.

You learn something and that's for the viewer. I mean, that's, again, goes back to the, it's always about, you know, we're doing this for someone else. We're not doing it for ourselves. We're doing it because someone's listening or watching and they want to learn something and come away with something.

There's got to be some value added. And so for me, I like that approach with Monica. It's appropriate to the interview. And it was revealing. Yeah, I sometimes fear wanting to like someone. You know what I mean? And now I've sort of shifted. After that, I shifted.

It's like, if I like them, I'll say I like them, like, and I don't care. Or if I don't like someone. It's okay to like people. I know, I know it is. I know, but I also don't like people. And I think it's okay to say I don't like you, you know what I mean? But even before an interview, or change my mind, because I think you're a jerk, that kind of thing. And so it's, you know, it's an interesting approach. And I really thought this was an important one. Okay, my last question, then I'll let you go, because I know that you've been working very hard all day. So this is a long day, right for you, right? Last question. Any absolute favorite interview? I mean, I have one, but it's so weird. Go ahead. I want it. You're gonna cut this out.

And that's fine. A long time ago, there was a man on trial in the death of Michael Jackson, Dr. Conrad Murray. And I got an interview with him. For some reason, he agreed to an interview while he was still on trial. The jury was about to go out. So it was just after the jury comes back, then you can air it. So maybe it was a day or two before the verdict. And I do have this legal background, but as I confess to you, I'm not a real lawyer. I'm a totally fake lawyer, but I learned that case

backwards and forwards and he never took the stand. And so I got to do, we did a three-part interview and I mean, we went through every fact and it's the closest I guess I'll ever come to doing a cross-examination. And I kind of enjoyed it. So it was sort of the moment I was the lawyer that I never got to be. Alternate endings, Savannah. Alternate ending. I love that.

We're leaving that in. My favorite amuse was Steve Jobs, always. Because he always gave as good as he got. And I always, he was an adult. And he never, even after I gave him a hard time, he was just great. He was like, okay, that was good. And a lot of these people that feel upset,

I'm like, oh, come on, you big baby. Well, you know what? I think it makes them look good when they're fearless. Right. Well, he answered the questions is what I, and when he lied, he said he lied. Like when I asked him questions a year later, I'm like, that was a lie.

He's like, yeah, I lied to you. You know, I kind of was like, okay, okay. We know where we are. Anyway, Savannah, I have so much regard for you. We'll be back on Tuesday with more Pivot and guest host, Teddy Schliefer. We've got a lot of people coming on. So it should be a really great Scott Free August,

but you've started it off perfectly and I really appreciate it. And I will read us out. Thank you, Savannah. I'm honored. Thank you. Today's show was produced by Lara Naiman and Taylor Griffin. Ernie Enderdat engineered this episode.

Make sure you subscribe to the show wherever you listen to podcasts. Thanks for listening to Pivot from New York Magazine and Vox Media. We'll be back next week for another breakdown of all things tech and business in this scot-free month of August.