Pivot - Twitter Competitors, Lab Leak Theory, and Guest Mehdi Hasan

Episode Date: March 3, 2023

Kara and Scott discuss Tesla’s “Master Plan 3,” and TikTok's new time limits. Also, the world of Twitter competitors is growing with Jack Dorsey’s new app Bluesky joining the ranks. Plus, the COVID-19 lab leak theory got a heated boost this week. Friend of Pivot Mehdi Hasan joins to help us definitively decide whether or not Kara’s Chevy Bolt is sexy. You can find Mehdi on Twitter at @mehdirhasan, and you can find his book “Win Every Argument The Art of Debating, Persuading, and Public Speaking” here. Send us your questions! Call 855-51-PIVOT or go to 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 from Los Angeles. How

you doing, Scott? Wow, from LA. What are you doing in LA, Kara? I mean, by the way, I'm in London, but what are you doing in LA? I'm here in LA for the Upfront Summit, hosted by Upfront Ventures, and I'll be interviewing, among other people, Jamie Lee Curtis and also the head of Universal Pictures, Donna Langley, together, about her, about her Oscar thing, about the Oscars, essentially. And then I'm interviewing Mark Benioff, which I can't believe it's worked out so perfectly because he turned in really good earnings yesterday. So we're going to go back and forth here. And then I'm appearing on The Lovett Show, The John Lovett Show.

And tonight, he tapes it at a comedy club. And then some other Xerius and Sundry, L. Lovett show. And tonight he tapes it at a comedy club. And then some other Zarius and Sundry LA type things. He's the Pod Save America guy, right? Yeah, he's a great guy. He's a friend of mine. He's good. It's a fun show. He does it. We should try it sometime. He does it typically at a public venue

and it's really fun. A lot of drinking and stuff like that. It's fun. I like it. Yeah. Well, good. I'm glad you're there. Where do you stay when you're in L.A.? What do I – oh, I stay at Brooks.

I stay at Brooks. She always has a beautiful home. Yeah. She's – Brooke Hammerling is a friend of mine, and she's – I stay at her house. I don't like hotels, Scott. I'm not a hotel person. Really? I can't avoid it.

Unless they're really beautiful. Like, I stay at the White – You have to barely host a hotel or stay at the Waldorf. Those are two. LA is a great hotel city. It is. I have stayed at beautiful hotels here. That is fair.

But I prefer to stay with friends. I like that. I like it better. Anyway. Get my car. I drive around. Anyway. But it's freezing.

So it's colder than DC, which was a little bit of a shock. But we'll see. We'll see. Anyway, what are you doing? How's London? Speaking of cold. I'm back. I'm jet lagged,

which means I'm an even bigger asshole than I usually am. Good, good. Consistency. It's good to be with the dogs. You know, kids are all right, but it's really good to see the dogs. You are the worst.

I'm intervening. I'm calling British whatever it is you call it. I went to this concert last night. There's this great club called Coco, and it's such a unique concept. Of course, it's a members-only club because I'm very fancy, Kira. Yes, I know you are fancy. And it's such a unique idea. They took essentially like a Soho House kind of zero bond kind of club idea,

and it butts up to a really beautiful concert hall. Oh. and it butts up to a really beautiful concert hall. And so you have your fun, aspirational dinner with other hotter, more interesting people, i.e. everyone other than me. And then they have this member's entrance into the venue and you see this crazy concert with a DJ, but you're in your nice, safe, older person balcony. It really is.

Literally. Hello, Mr. Elite. Man of the people, Scott Galloway. Oh, I have no desire to be that. Anyways, it just amazes me how basically the economy, the market is totally morphing around what I call the 1%. And that is, you know, I think of Disney. Disney used to be everybody bought those stupid books with A, B, C, D, and E tickets and waited in the same line. And now you have the Fast Pass. Well, that's not enough. If you can afford $5,000 or $6,000, you get a VIP tour with some really high EQ person from Wisconsin who bypasses the entire line and gives you a hand signal to take the ride again if you want.

And the whole world, and this is, there's, you know, it's great to be in the 1%, but I think it's kind of a negative looking forward indicator. Prime means the revolution is coming. The whole world is being optimized for the 1%, and these members clubs are popping up everywhere. There's, in New York, there's Soho House, Zero Bond, Casa Cipriani, Five Hertford is opening there. And it's just slowly but surely, everything's going Iowa for Android. They can't take a restaurant? They can't take going into a restaurant and waiting their turn? No, I guess not.

When you say they, who's they? 1%, like mostly, I mean, because restaurants, I was in New York last weekend, as you know. And it was hopping, I have to say, everywhere. It's packed. It's packed. But it wasn't just the 1%. It was all over the place. Now, if you're in Manhattan, you're probably in the 1%. No, I wasn't.

You may not feel like it, but you're in the 1%. No, no. Oh, Brooklyn? Brooklyn's the 0.1% now. I'm just saying, it was young people. It was all young people. Yeah, down with the regular folks in Club Coco. It did not feel like Club Coco. It did not feel, it was a brewery. It did not feel like Club Coco. It felt like most people could walk in. Anyway.

My $28 hamburger down in dirty Brooklyn. My hamburger was not $28. But nonetheless, I don't roll like you, Scott. I roll a little less. You roll larger. You just like to put on this facade that you're a woman of the people. I'm not a woman. I never say that.

Not once. Not once do I say that. Oh, yeah. I'm educated in America with an excellent education, and I've worked hard. Educated in America? That's the most elite thing in the world. I mean, I'm just saying, I've gotten all the advantages of being- Didn't you get all these medals from Georgetown and go to a private school?

I mean, anyways. I did. Will you try? You've been very insulting to me lately. I'm not insulting. This is how I express affection. You need to dial that back, Mr. Coco. Anyway, today we'll talk about Jack Dorsey's new social media app.

Also, the COVID lab leak debate is back. And we'll speak with friend of Pivot, Mehdi Hassan, about how to win arguments with your friends, enemies, and podcast hosts and others. But first, Elon Musk's latest master plan. I call it the master baiting plan. The Tesla CEO unveiled a five-point plan for, quote, fully sustainable earth on Wednesday. Thanks, Elon, at the company's first live stream investor day. The so-called master plan, through whoever, was short on specifics. And honestly, it read like Bill Gates' book from two years ago and many other people's books from many, all the sort of glom together.

What was missing from the nearly three-hour presentation? Any new product updates, such as plans for a more affordable electric vehicle. Any new vehicle models at all. Any information that robo-taxi fleet he promised us during his last master plan. Tesla shares fell more than 5% in after-hours trading following the event. I mean, let's have heat pumps. Oh, good idea. It's happening already.

We already had several people at Code like that last year. And, you know, lots of people. There was nothing fresh in this master plan for the universe. It was very weird. I watched it and it seemed chaotic. And, you know, I'm glad he's talking about it, I guess. What the event did reveal, though, is Tesla does plan to open a new factory in Mexico. Great. And they're way ahead in manufacturing. The Cybertruck is expected to ship at the end of the year. We'll see about that. Engineers are planning to cut assembly costs by 50%. Sounds great. And Elon says they're developing a humanoid robot. I felt it was Master Plan 2, which he promised a high-density urban transport. And all he delivers was the Las Vegas Loop, which has a

single-lane tunnel. I think it's just a lot of hand-waving, I'm sorry to say, even though I like the topic. Yeah, I couldn't help. And granted, I look at all of this through a biased lens because I don't like the man, but I felt like the thing in the room that we weren't talking about was Twitter. He struck me as a CEO who's been distracted with other things, and he got a bunch of notes and talking points from his comms and IR person and got on stage and kind of winged it. It felt to me like all icing, no cake. I mean, past presentations, he's gotten up there with new products and kind of done what I feel are very compelling things, and this just felt like a lot of jazz hands.

This felt like a CEO whose promise has gotten way ahead of the performance, in my view. Yeah. And the other thing, I'm really on to this notion, and I'm thinking of writing a book on it, is we talk about— Didn't you just write a book? Didn't you just finish a book? I'm trying to finish a book right now. By the way, advice to anyone out there, never write a book. Never write a book? Don't you just finish a book? I'm finishing it. I'm trying to finish a book right now. By the way, advice to anyone out there, never write a book. Never write a book.

God. It's both, I know. It is like, ugh, every day. I don't know if I'm gonna make it. It's such a slog. I have March 31st as my deadline, we'll see. But go ahead. Yeah, my agent said, what's a reasonable deadline?

I'm like, I don't know. When we colonize Mars, don't ask me. So anyways, but this notion that we're so focused on the emissions from fossil fuels. And it struck me when he was up there saying we can have a world without fossil, we can have a world that's all electric and it won't cost us a fortune, kind of portraying himself as a savior by reducing carbon emissions. And I would argue that Elon Musk is an enormous coal-fired plant of a more dangerous emission, and that is an economy that rewards grabbing people's attention regardless of how damaging or divisive the things you say are. That's a really good insight.

And I think this guy is literally the biggest coal-fired plant in history. And that is this guy is literally the biggest coal fire plan in history. And that is his own needs, an economy that rewards attention over why you're getting that attention has resulted in a level of rhetoric and a desperate need to command the news every day that quite frankly, it's not productive, it's divisive. And whether it's weighing in on Dilbert or accusing a former head of safety who he didn't like of a sex crime with his PhD thesis. Those are noxious emissions that are damaging to the world. Oh, I like this metaphor a lot. So, I'm all on this thing because if you think about it, Biden's climate bill claims that we'll be able to reduce emissions in the US by 40%. Would it even be possible if and when we recognize how dangerous the emissions are from an attention-based economy, would it even be possible at this point to reduce divisiveness, polarization,

and teen depression by 40%? No. Could we even do it? No. So, you know, so while he's off talking about this Jesus complex of saving the world from carbon, I'm not, I think we should be worried about climate change. I don't think, you know, I think we're addressing it, and that's not to absolve us of making the requisite investments.

But I think we have a better chance. I think the most dangerous emission in the world is this emission of rage. I would agree. I think, look, of all the people who have changed the course of history in terms of getting us to electric, he's the keeper, right? He's the catalyst. The catalyst, no question. And that is his great, I met some people at this event last night, this dinner, some people who knew him pretty well.

And one of them thanked me for being so tough on him. I'm like, I wish you would focus back on this stuff and in real time, real time and actually do it rather than waste his frigging time. I said, he's ruining his legacy, which is this. But a leader talking about this stuff is a great thing, always, right? Especially the people follow. And now it looks like he's just masturbating, Master Plan 3. Master Plan, stop it. Tomorrow belongs to me. I will build some master plan.

None of these ideas are fresh and new. One, like literally it was Bill Gates's book, who he spends a lot of time insulting, by the way, who's probably doing more in terms of investing and focusing on it. But Elon's got a particular ability to focus people on this. He's got to run this company, which is really remarkable. Tesla's remarkable in manufacturing, et cetera, et cetera. It's obviously overvalued. But nonetheless, it's way ahead of everybody else. And like, he's now humanoid robot. Okay, sure. Like, why? Like, focus on making Tesla better. Focus. And one of the things, I'll say one more thing, then we got to move on, I got out of Hertz yesterday, and you can pick

whatever car you want now if you're in their whatever gold circle. And there were lots of Teslas. I didn't want to get in one. Honestly, I was like, I'm not using a Tesla. But there was the Kia Niro, there was a Chevy EUV, and I was getting into the Kia Niro because I wanted to try it, right? They didn't charge it at Hertz. They didn't charge it up. It was down at 94 miles. I was like, hey, why don't you charge this fully so it doesn't lose the charge so I can use it? And they're like, well, you should go to your hotel and do that. And I thought, what is wrong with you people? I would have totally taken it, but I didn't know. I'm not staying somewhere where there's a charger and I didn't want to hunt around and everything. It's just, we've got to get on the plan here. And this guy could do it. And instead, he's doing the rest of this. And tomorrow, after all this, Master Plan 1, Master Plan 2, he's going to say something stupid about, I don't know, Beyonce. Well, then he'll be dead when he does that. But it's just, he's such a waste of space at this point, given his promise.

It's one of those. Anyway. I love Hertz. I bought a car from Hertz because I find that buying a car from Hertz is like marrying a prostitute. It may look good on the outside, but you have no idea who's been in it or what they've done to it. All right. Okay, fine. I have not been in a rental car.

in it or what they've done to it. All right. Okay, fine. Whatever. I have not been in a rental car. One of the nicest things about my life is I have not been in a rental car location or desk in a decade. I either take an Uber or have a nice man pick me up in an internal combustion car getting four miles to the gallon.

Yeah. I do not. I like it. Several of my friends were like, why didn't you take an Uber? And I was like, I like a rental car. Anyway. You go to the thing and you rent the car? I just go.

I get to the bus. I get on and I don't have to wait. I don't wait in any lines. I just get it. Anyway. Anyway, moving on. TikTok now has time limits for teenagers. The app will prompt users under 18 to enter a passcode in order to spend more than 60 minutes on the app.

For users under 13, a parent will have to set a passcode in order to extend watch time, and then it will only be 30 minutes. TikTok announced the change on the same day the House committee voted to advance legislation that would empower President Biden to ban the app. Are those changes good? I mean, sure. Sure. Yeah. I mean, what's not to like about this? They'll put the passcode in. It won't stop them. It's the stop sign, right? I spoke at a WPP event in Miami. I saw. And I went on this rant about, it was just so funny. You would have loved it.

The woman running the event kept looking at me. So, at first, I talked about Walmart being in the Bible Belt. And she looked at me and she's like, they're here. They're like, stop talking. And I start talking about TikTok and she's like, they're here. They're like, stop talking. And I start talking about TikTok. And she's like, they're here. Stop talking. Oh, wow.

And I went into my whole TikTok should be banned trap. Oh, yeah. You love that. And so one of the nice people from TikTok, dude, they just couldn't be nicer. They came up and they gave me a TikTok backpack for my kids. What? Yeah. Oh, nice.

And we were joking. Like, is there a listening device in here? Like, back to the thing. Ah, there is. And by the way, I just want to be clear. Every person I've met at TikTok is lovely. I would like them all to get really wealthy. I would just like to see their wealth created as a function of a spin to American investors.

Yes. You've made your opinion clear. Yes. Yeah. But look, yeah, I think they're doing anything they can to try and spread Vaseline over the lens of the greatest propaganda tool in history. And I don't doubt it's the right move. It doesn't do anything to address the fundamental problem. Yeah, yeah.

And you know what's weird? I now believe, and I'm trying to find another academic to do the actual hard work or research here. I believe it's been happening the last few years. And it's almost impossible to come up with the attribution, but Jonathan Haidt spent a better part of a decade to find that correlation does equal causation when it comes to social media and teen depression. I think in 10 years, someone like Jonathan Haidt is going to find that the poor feelings, the cynicism, and the general negative outlook that young people have in America is largely driven by social media that the algorithms like to elevate.

And also, I think they're going to find a lot of it came from TikTok. And we'll never know if it was intentional. It was before TikTok. Facebook was doing this. Oh, no, they're all guilty of it. They're all guilty of it. But one has it as a motive for geopolitical purposes and the others just have it

as a profit motive. Yeah, OK. Now, in terms of the ban, civil liberties and digital rights groups are pushing back. Some bring up First Amendment rights and Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo says the ban on a single company

would be short-sighted. Any reaction to that, Scott? Yeah, look, I don't. Michael Bennett is now calling for a ban. I think this is really, just the more I think about it, spending time on TikTok and what I see, and it's just, I don't even like to go. I think a better argument or an easier way to get done would be like, well, let's just look at trade policy. What does China, of our media assets and companies, what does China allow into China? I had lunch with the most interesting guy.

This guy named Jamil Anderlini. He's the new editor-in-chief of Political in Europe. He's such an impressive young man. And he kind of ran me through a history of the rise of Xi Jinping and what's going on with the CCP. And it is frightening. I mean, it is really how many people have been imprisoned, how they're basically this guy's kind of become the Putin of Asia. And I would be very I'd just be shocked if they didn't have full blown strategy meetings around. Oh, my God, we found found the ultimate hypersonic missile,

the ultimate defense shield, the ultimate offensive weapon, and it's called TikTok. I would love to have this thing as a geopolitical weapon. Anyways. Very nice TikTok, the ban, but teens will blow right through that stop sign. We'll see. You think so?

Because of the compelling addictive nature of your terrific product that could be a greatest propaganda tool in history. And it also makes Scott feel bad. Anyway, let's get to our first big story. Jack Dorsey is back in the social media game, but this time he's inviting others to play. The former Twitter CEO launched his new app, Blue Sky, in the iOS app store this week. It's an invite-only beta. A review from TechCrunch shows that on the surface, it looks a lot like Twitter, but under the hood, Blue Sky does something

different. It runs on an open source protocol, which gives developers the chance to build their own social media apps with their own algorithms and moderation policies. It's pick the kind of thing you want, essentially. You know, pick your own social media network if you don't want any Kanye, if you want lots of Kanye, whatever. It also lets users move freely between different apps. That's drawing comparisons, not all of them favorable to Mastodon, another social media network built on a different but similar network. What's he doing here?

What do you think he's doing? Everyone thinks it's not being discussed as monetization. What's the play? If anyone can make an app on this protocol, someone could just make one without ads. My MassDown runs on donations, for example. Blue Sky started as an in-house project at Twitter while Jack was in control, and it got $13 million for R&D, I think mostly from him. So what do we think?

You know, I don't know that much about this. In general, I'm just a big fan of competition. I love the idea of multiple players coming after Twitter's launch. Jack Dorsey, you have to give him credit for being a genius product guy. But where I go is an odd place. And that is I go to corporate governance. Just another indication of just what a feckless board Twitter is. Let me get

this, the CEO and the founder gets to go start a competitor. I mean, I don't like non-competes, but when the CEO who's made billions- Yeah, I think he's still an owner. Yeah, you're not supposed to go start a competitor. I just can't believe the board never thought to put in a non-compete for the founder and the CEO. Yeah. But anyways, I hope there's a lot of competition. I love, I'm super happy and enjoying my investment and involvement in Post. And the weird thing is- This is Post News. Post News, yeah.

And it's just a much cleaner, friendlier, more benign, more informative place to have a dialogue around news. And what's strange is I'm really fascinated. I have been so addicted to Twitter for the better part of a decade and purposely not spending. I've reduced my time on it about 80%. I took 100% off for 60 days. Now I'm back to about 20%. And you make some observations. One, it's really good for your mental health not to be on it. And two, I can't get over. I'm kind of back to, I looked up some people who are fairly controversial, but interesting. And what you realize is you forget, you don't realize how small Twitter is until you're off it. And that it's the same people who believe that the world is that world, and it's not. And they're talking to each

other, and they think that the ratio or the number of likes is an indicator of veracity or truth in the world. And what you realize is it's a small group of people literally screaming at each other who are under the impression that this tiny nation called Twitter is the world. It's not. When you go back to it, it just feels remarkably small. I would agree. I only do it every now and then. I just did a big trans rant because I'm kind of getting pissed at the New York Times coverage of trans issues. But that's neither here nor there.

And then I put it on post, of course. But there are plenty of competitors, speaking of which, former Twitter staffers are behind Spill and T2. Among the frontrunners, insiders point to co-hosts, Hive Social, Discord. There's Post. And now Kevin Systrom will be interviewing at South by Southwest. Artifact, which is more news-focused, but there's a social element to it. Discord has 150 million active users, raised nearly a billion dollars across 16 rounds. Mastodon, about 1.3 million active users, a little smaller, raised less than $100,000 in 2021, according to some reports. Hive Social, by the way, is about a

half a million. Active daily users raise less than a half a million dollars. Flipboard announced this week, that's still around, by the way, that it's joining the Fediverse. That's what this is called. Mastodon users are able to view their feeds in the Flipboard iOS app. So that's kind of interesting, this Fediverse, which is kind of a weird word. So what do you think is going to, is anything going to break out? Because you do want to break out. Or are they going to remain small like this? I don't know. I feel like I'm too close to it because I'm an investor in one and I have a bias against

Musk and Twitter. I don't have a feel. I'm curious what you or Casey thinks in terms of an honest. I'd love to see Walt Mossberg break all these down. Because whenever I read reviews of his tech, I found he was just a genius of being dispassionate. Yeah. This is good. This is not good. Yeah, this is good. And I can't do that with these things. I'm too close to it. What are your thoughts? What do you think the good money is on? I don't know. I think it's all over the place. You have to settle in one suburb, I guess.

I think they're all going to be small, right? And Twitter could have been the one, right? Of course, it could have been. It always remained so small. And then it got ugly. And now Masterplan runs it. So it's not good anymore. And by the way, Twitter could use some work under the

hood. The site experienced at least four outages in February, according to the organization Netbox. That's compared to nine outages in all of 2022. Putting the technical errors aside, see, this is what I'm talking about. It's there, Scott. The problems are there. Discourse is still rubbing some people the wrong way. Comedian Hassan Minaj deactivated his account on the air this week while hosting The Daily Show. Elon didn't make Twitter terrible. Twitter has been terrible for years. He's right. I would agree with him. You and I have talked about this a lot. He's made it terrible-er, you know, kind of thing. But it's just stressed the things that have been bad

about it he's sort of doubled down so i don't know if there's not good people aren't going to just scatter to the winds and in these different things and if there's one and the one is probably instagram and facebook will continue to be for the vast majority of regular people the place where people are but again i don't know how you could figure out where everybody goes, right? It's like a small town that scatters to the winds, essentially. If you think about it, you're trying to disrupt them. Clay Christensen would say, and this is what we're trying to do at Post, you focus on a niche or an area that's not covered well and start to kind of, you know, climb up the leg, if you will, until the incumbent sees this great white and its torso is halfway in the great white's mouth. But anyways, I think the strategy that I think is the right one is to try

and find responsible, fact-checked, great news organizations and say, let's try and work together to develop another source of cash flow through micropayments. I mean, I really, in my book, I'm talking about this. I really do think, and I think I got this from you, the original sin of the internet was that they built such amazing ad technology and they built such shitty micropayments technology. And if you had said at the very beginning of the internet, all right, how are we going to finance this thing? Either through advertising or through payments, where every time you get great content or something inspiring, you either sign up for some sort of membership or you pay one cent or two cents. I'm not sure that we automatically would have assumed it would have gone advertising.

Yeah, not necessarily. And it's been so terrible for us. Yeah, not necessarily. And I was having a conversation with a woman we know who was running this great news startup that's on primarily using Instagram. And I'm like, I love you. I love your business. The problem is whenever you're dependent upon Meta or Google for your business, you ultimately get fucked. Every one of them. Every one of them.

I don't care who you are. You never hear of someone saying the last decade of partnership with Meta has been great, said no company or individual ever. I'm hopeful that we move to a point where people are sort of used to, in a very elegant way, saying, there's all these Reuters articles. And most of them are free, but occasionally there's one that's more in-depth and it says, okay, this is 25 cents. And you're like, click here. And to me, that just is a healthier model. Anyway, we'll see. We'll see what shakes out. I think it's very hard. People are very addicted to the anger on it, on Twitter, and they're addicted to the movement. It feels like it's moving, right? There's a reason I put the trans thing up there. I wanted certain people

to see it, right? But I put it over on post. I put it over on another one. And I think probably if I had to guess, it would be Instagram will regain its status in some fashion. I'm spending more time on Instagram. I've noticed that. I'm embarrassed to say it, but I've noticed it. Yeah, it works well. I know under the auspices of I'm going to regret asking, what is it about the Times coverage of transgender issues that's bothered you? Oh, well, it's not just Times coverage.

Gosh, I would. Do we need a bigger boat? We need a bigger boat. But I wrote a very long thing. Look, the coverage that they have been doing of trans people is over and above the actual problem. of trans people is over and above the actual problem. So, you know, the obsession with this topic, including with Dave Chappelle, like, remember when I said, you know, Dave Chappelle, he can joke about it, but why an hour and a half? Like a powerful person talking an hour and a half about a topic brings attention to it. And there was a great piece, and I'll do it very quickly,

great piece in the Washington Post. I think they're doing about this, it was called, The State is at War with Our Family, Clergy with Trans Kids Fight Back. It was about a Missouri bill. It was so fair and even-handed about this family. controversial to gin up political advantage. And this piece was really good, and I wanted to celebrate it. Because I think the right's entire game is to get fair-minded people to think it's a fair fight so they can do what they want, which is to restrict transgender healthcare, period, for everybody. And in fact, there's now a whole spate of new state bills restricting transgender healthcare for adults. That's their game. That's their actual game. And so, I don't mind writing about like, let's reconsider J.K. Rowling. Sure, you can do that. What's happened at the New York Times is there was a whole spate of these stories, let's reconsider, but lots of them. And when a big company like the New York Times does it, it sets the agenda,

right? And I don't say they shouldn't write it, but suddenly, like, it's the biggest, detransitioning kids is the smallest mathematical amount. People, you know, I mean, it's the smallest math. It's, I'm like, why don't you write about poor kids? You know, they did, but like, this kind of focus from very powerful people there is irritating. So, what happened is a bunch of people wrote a note who worked there complaining, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And then it got into the typical, we don't have advocates here at the New York Times, and anyone who did it will be warned for signing this letter, which I always hate, like that kind of stuff. But powerful news organizations never see themselves as advocates too by over-focusing on alleged crises, where none of the numbers actually

bears out the excessive coverage. And they think they're being fair, and they wear it like a shield, but really they want control of the people that work for them, right? And there was a quote by Astrid Herndon, as a Black journalist, I've seen how charges of activism can be used to discredit journalists of unrepresented backgrounds who may come to work of reporting with a different lens. Different lens doesn't mean advocacy. I think the New York Times is just as much an advocate by picking and choosing coverage as anybody else. And I'm all for debate. I'm all for fair coverage, even if it's painful. But over coverage is happening. And something Amanda said, and I'll stop my rant in a second, was that you wonder if anybody there has trans friends, right, at all. And one of the things that reminded me, and this is what I did write about, when I was a young gay person at the Washington

Post, there were all these editors advocating, covering the side that wanted to quelch and change people like me, even though they were deeply inaccurate and lying, right? And I was like, why are we covering people who are at their heart lying to you about what's actually the really thing? And so, when I pointed out, I was called an advocate and emotional, and I was like, you're publishing errors about the gay community, errors. And I was young, and so I didn't have as much pull. But I was a news aide, and they had this egregious gay photo of an old gay trope. And I objected to it. I said, this is not the gay community. Can you just go out and do reporting on it or something?

And I joked and said, we contain multitudes. You know, there's lots of, like, it's a little more complex. And the right wing was just trying to fuck with gays. That's all they were doing in order to gain political advantage. So what I did is, back then they didn't have digital photography. I took the photo, put it in my desk, and I left it there and they couldn't find it. And so they did, I offered a better one, right? It was, I wasn't being propagandized. It was just a more accurate photo. And that's the one they use. And I don't regret it for a second. And so I just feel like

over coverage can be advocacy in a way and they pretend it's not. That's all. So that's my rant. Thank you. in very ugly factions' hands by saying, wanting to engage in an outrageous debate over don't say gay in schools. And I'm like, as someone who has kids in school in Florida, as someone who has served on the board of their kid's school, this is less than a non-issue. We're trying to figure out a way to teach them the skills such that they can go on and be productive citizens. And because we get outraged by it, and when everything is, you know, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a cultural war. And this is what the Republicans want. That's what they want. They want us, I mean, around, I have a friend who's running, who's running for re-election

and asked for communication or thoughts around the transgender issue. I'm like, I would leave it at everyone deserves dignity and rights. That's right. And we should err on the side of grace. Yeah. But don't take this up as like, die on this hill. They just write a lot about it. Like, and then they get curdled.

And you know why? Because transgender people yell at them. And I'm like, you know what? They yelled at people at Stonewall. Pesky, aren't they? That's where they focus on free speech. I was like, they're angry and they've been beaten down. And really, to me, is this the big issue of our day? And we're playing into the hands of people who want to restrict and eliminate, not just restrict, but eliminate. Anyway, we should move on. Our next topic is perfect on that, which is we're going to quick break.

When we come back, the debate over the origins of COVID are raging again. We'll speak with a friend of Pivot, Mehdi Hassan. 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, 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. Procrastination, putting it off, kicking the can down the road. In. Plans and guides that make it easy to get home projects done.

Out. Carpet in the bathroom. Like, why? In. Knowing what to do, when to do it, and who to hire. Start caring for your home with confidence. Download Thumbtack today. Scott, we're back with the debate over the origins of COVID-19, which is still raging and still polarizing. Another thing that should have been more widely reported on all sides, by the way, in this case. Unfortunately, the conspiracy theories took over. So it seems if you said lab, you know, that it was a conspiracy, the Chinese trying to kill the entire world.

And it became sort of anti-Asian. But if you've forgotten, there are two dominant theories of how the pandemic got started. One, the virus jumped from animals. It's called zoonotic, to humans, most likely at a market in China. Two, the virus spread because of a lab accident in China. There's actually a third that it was a purposeful accident in China, which that's what got everybody against this second one. The lab theory got a boost this week when the Wall Street Journal reported the Department of Energy, based on classified information, now considered the lab leak to be the more likely source. That stirred up all the finger pointing all over again, specifically at big tech companies.

Republicans saying the report is proof that big tech censored information. That is not true, Republicans. Senator Eric Schmidt of Missouri tweeted, we've known all along, but federal actors colluded with social media giants to censor anyone who dared to question the origins of COVID-19. GOP Chairwoman Rona McDaniel, that piece of work, tweeted, we need accountability for both the Chinese Communist Party and big tech. I think we certainly need accountability for the Chinese Communist Party. We're not getting it. And then, but interesting, like half, there's no consensus in the intelligence community about this. Of the eight intelligence agencies, four lean towards the natural origin theory with low confidence, and the conclusion from the Department of Energy made with low confidence. The FBI also supports the lab leak theory with medium confidence. The two remain agencies remain undecided. meant undecided, we're not going to know because the Chinese government isn't going to let us know,

even if it was an accident. And so, I don't know what to say here. It's just that Facebook and Twitter did in the early days remove posts about the virus being man-made. So, thoughts, Scott? I actually think that the GOP has a really valid point here. And that is, and I was, you know, I fell into this. And that is, the notion or the thought that this might have originated from a lab in Wuhan was immediately by the left assigned as being racist and a conspiracy theory. Well, listen to their language when they did it. They did say it was purposefully, it was very, it had an anti-Asian tone, but go ahead. But the truth doesn't care about your feelings and what's politically correct. And the reality is it is now a very viable cause that there is credible evidence that this may have, in fact, originated as most likely an accident from a lab. There were two or three lab workers were hospitalized.

I think it was late 2019. And I want to be clear. I was guilty of this. I immediately thought, oh, my God, that's just racist, jingoist bullshit. And the reality is there was some veracity to it, and we should have taken it more seriously. Agreed. And so, look, I think they have a point that it's just a politicization of everything. Every issue you immediately, almost unconsciously, identified as a left or a right,

and that identifies how you feel about it. The ESG, the train accident, whatever, all the things. The whole point of academia, and one of the reasons I love the basic notion of a university, is at least initially, we're supposed to pursue the truth fearlessly, regardless of who it offends, regardless of the narrative. And I would argue that, unfortunately, we've lost a lot of that pursuit, or that pursuit, occasionally we get distracted from that pursuit. And when you're talking about a virus that's killed at least 7 million people, probably a lot more than that, 1.1 million in the U.S., regardless of what might offend you or what is seen as jingoist or racist,

where the fuck did this thing come from? And the thing that leads me to believe that, in fact, it did come from the lab, is that if it didn't come from the lab, the Chinese would be cooperating around validating that it didn't come from the lab. But the fact that they have been, they have literally resisted any thoughtful attempt by the World Health Organization or neutral bodies to go in and investigate this means most likely they're hiding something. I agree with you. I do think, I've read a lot on this, to go to zoonotics is the first thing you should do because typically that's where they start, right? Right, makes sense. But listen, remember Jon Stewart got slammed for backing the lab leak theory on

Colbert in 2021. Here he is reacting to the latest news on his Apple Plus TV show. Let's listen to John. The larger problem with all of this is the inability to discuss things that are within the realm of possibility without falling into absolutes and litmus testing each other for our political allegiances as it arose from that. What he said, Jesus Christ. Right. Exactly what he said. Yeah. And he's, no, he's, I would not call him a conservative. I would not. I would call him progressive, quite heavily progressive. But he's right. He's 100% right. I think one of the problems

is to entertain the lab leak theory, because it was put out as a lab leak on purpose kind of thing. And there was all that anti-Asian violence at the time, if you recall. And so, nonetheless, people should have calmed the fuck down and said, we don't know. I think we don't know might have been real good at that moment for all the agencies is we don't know. And they don't, you know, at a time of crisis, people always need to explain things they don't know. And that's, to me, the real shame here. I think John's right. I think you're right.

The most productive way to do the discourse is say, everyone calm the fuck down. We don't know why this happened, right? And one thing, David Wallace-Wells actually, who used to work for New York Magazine now, is at the New York Times, that no matter the origin of COVID, and someday we will know, presumably, we should be having a conversation about lab safety. Absolutely. These labs are terrifying to me. Not to say that they shouldn't exist or that we shouldn't think about and do all kinds of like what if, what if, and test things to know what could happen. But, you know, when you start doing that kind of stuff, you're going to, there could be trouble. Speaking of seeing the movie, every movie on lab leaks, Hollywood's already imagined this a hundred times. And so it's really important to be able to say, I don't know, and tell the public.

I think that was the greatest problem with the CDC in their response is they couldn't possibly say, we don't know. It's just so strange what we'll go to war for and what we ignore. And that is, if something had showed up with different colored skin and a turban and killed a million Americans, we would be on the verge of, we would probably consider a nuclear strike. But because it's one three thousandth the width of a human hair, even if it came out of China, even if it was possibly deliberate, which I don't think it was, but it was reckless. If, in fact, it did come out of a lab, it was reckless. And they, by the way, owe the global community total transparency here and general standards for, I mean, something like this, what we've seen here, what if it had been, you know, a virus that mutated faster?

You literally could have wiped out a quarter of the world's population. And we all have a vested interest in transparency here because this has hurt the Chinese economy. a vested interest in transparency here because this has hurt the Chinese economy. So it just strikes me that if you want to be a global citizen, a good global citizen, I mean, we have weapons control, we have global organizations around poverty, around hunger, around whatever. It strikes me that we probably need some sort of uniform standards around lab safety. Yep, 100%. And by the way, they should pursue both things, Zoonotic. I think we will never know, probably, because of the way the Chinese government is. But certainly, we've got to talk to each other more.

Like, they've got to drop the anti-Chinese stuff to be able to talk about it. It could have been our lab leak, right? So, I'm not an expert on this, but we have to consider all the origins of everything and talk about it without adding anti-Asian stuff and without adding, you're all trying to censor us. I don't think that's the case. I think these scientists try their very best. And in times of crisis, they tend to, and these tech companies too, by the way, these tech companies shouldn't be in this business of deciding this stuff, period. I think if you go to incentives, it oftentimes explains, you know,

kind of the best likely explanation. And I do think, because if you look at the behavior of them trying to not cooperate around any investigation around the lab theory leak, that lends veracity to the notion it was a lab leak.

The reason why I don't think it was intentional, and no one knew this, but I actually think when we look back over history, over the last hundred years, I think COVID-19 and our response to COVID-19 will be seen as a great geopolitical cause of ascendance of the US. I think our response, our vaccines, our economic response, as harsh as it is to say, and this in no way diminishes the loss of life, I think America comes out of COVID having reestablished its dominance.

And so, I don't think China would have wanted to play a hand in that. But I think my point is in 2050, I think we're going to look back and go, you know, being very unemotional about it, COVID-19 and America's response to it helped reestablish U.S. dominance globally. It's a really interesting thing that we certainly did make a mess along the way, though, with every issue, every single issue, but it's a perfect segue to our guest. Let's bring in our friend of Pivot. Mehdi Hassan is the author of a show on MSNBC and Peacock and the author of Win Every Argument, The Art of Debating, Persuading, and Public Speaking. Welcome, Mehdi. Good to see you. Thanks for having me, guys.

So speaking of arguments, we were just talking about the debate over the lab leak theory. You hosted some conversations about COVID's origins. When the news came out, you tweeted, it's hard to have a good faith disagreement about a major issue if the issue itself has been hijacked by bad faith folks. Unpack that for us. We'd love your thoughts on this. Yeah, a lot of people got very upset. I haven't had a response to a tweet like that from kind of crazy right-wingers for a long time.

I've been trolled on that for days. I got properly ratioed. People are very upset with that tweet. I think it's because they read it as some kind of admission of a conspiracy by the liberal media to stamp out this story, when in fact, they're very opposite. I actually covered the lab leak story

on my show back in June. I had to go back and check. June, 2021, I hosted a debate between Alina Chan, who's one of the biggest lab leak promonents, and Angie Rasmussen, the virologist, who's a big critic of it, so we don't run Away from it, but I have a longer memory Than most people I would like to think, I think

Our media culture is dominated by people with very short Term memories, there's always a reset button I hate to go along with that, and I Haven't forgotten 2020, I haven't Forgotten Donald Trump standing in front of crowds Shouting Kung Flu, Kung Flu I haven't forgotten Peter Navarro saying the Chinese Communist Party created it in a lab And sent Chinese people to infect the rest of the world. I haven't forgotten

Washington Times Daily Mail running bio lab, bioengineer, bioweapon stuff in January, February of 2020. So there was a lot of nonsense around this stuff. It's always been plausible that it leaked out of a lab, but it was always a natural disease. No one ever claimed it was, no serious person ever claimed it was a bioweapon. And the ever claimed it was, no serious person ever claimed it was a bioweapon. And the problem was it was very, very quickly hijacked by the bioweapon conspiracy crowd and by the anti-China racist hawk crowd. That's undeniable. Go back, pull up the clippings, pull up the clips. I might do it on my show next week, in fact, because it frustrates me that people are acting like we should have all just sat down in March of 2020 and said,

let's have a good faith, impartial reason debate about whether it came from the wet market or whether it came from the Institute of Virology. That was not what was happening. Donald Trump was president of the United States, was trying to deflect blame for crazy deaths here in America, talking about disinfectant and began by praising Xi, his friend, but then decided to blame China and the China virus for everything else. So it's nonsense. And by the way, one last quick point. The story that's come out this week does not vindicate anyone. No, it's low confidence for everything. Not even just low confidence. No one in the story is saying it was related to a military program. Tucker Carlson went on air this week, this week, and said,

and what did he say? He said it was engineered in a lab as part of a military bio lab, the GOP house. The house GOP's position is that this was related to a Chinese biological weapons program. No, the intelligence specifically says we do not believe that. And by the way, only two out of the eight intelligence agencies have looked at this say that it's lab leak. Four say it's zoonotic. It's from the wet market. And by the way, the two that say it's lab leak, one of them is the FBI. And I thought we don't trust the FBI anymore. Well, they don't. So there's two very viable ways this could have happened, right? And both should have been investigation. And probably all our agencies should have said, we don't know until

we do know. So let's entertain both of them at the same time. But talk about this. What does this specific case tell us about the argument styles and the left and the right? Because this, you know, this tweet by you really did get a lot of attention. So, I mean, Twitter is not the greatest place to have arguments. I keep telling myself that and I keep doing it again and again. I'm sure you're in a similar boat. I was going to have a chapter in my new book about arguing on Twitter. And then I thought, well, no, maybe that's for a sequel. But look, I think what the COVID as a whole, the whole handling of the pandemic, and why I actually think the right have won a lot of the messaging battles on vaccines, on masks, on lockdowns, on school closures, and now

perhaps on lab leaks, is because A, the right wingers have a very clever tactic, which is to declare victory in the middle of the game when the game's not over and say, we won, and allow kind of both sides' media to indulge. They did it on Mueller. I mean, the Mueller report. Oh, they misrepresented that before the findings were even out. And they've now left a legacy where everyone thinks the Mueller report showed no collusion or showed Trump did nothing wrong, which is not what the Mueller report shows. And I think similarly now on COVID, it's a very clever tactic to declare victory. And separately, similarly now on COVID, it's a very clever tactic to declare victory. And separately, the whole approach to pushing back against COVID mitigation measures was very cleverly framed by the right as freedom, liberty, standing up against suppression. People in America love that stuff.

These are the values that appeal to Americans. And they very quickly realized that if you make something about identity and about values, you win. And liberals, leftists, progressives, members of the academic community, the scientific community, they think if we make it about the facts and the figures, just one more peer-reviewed paper, then we win. That is not how the human brain works. That's not how people, that's certainly not how Americans engage in debate or persuasion. So your book, Win Every Argument, The Art of Debating, Persuading, and Public Speaking, do we want to win every argument? Isn't there a need for debate or conflict to take on a level of consideration and acknowledgement of other points? It strikes me that we're in a situation now where we don't want to win every argument? It's a great question. A lot of people have asked that question. So let me address it in a couple of ways. Number one, 100% agree with you. You should not want to win every argument. I make it very clear in the dedication page on the front of the book that I do not win arguments with my wife and I don't want to win arguments with my wife. So

I'm very clear about situations where you don't want to win every argument. But people have jumped on the title and said, win every argument. You shouldn't want to win every argument. I mean, I could have written a book called Drive Every Car. Doesn't mean I'm telling you to go out and drive every car. Literally, I'm saying, here's a set of skills that allows you to drive every argument. You shouldn't want to win every argument. I mean, I could have written a book called Drive Every Car. Doesn't mean I'm telling you to go out and drive every car. Literally, I'm saying, here's a set of skills that allows you to drive every car. You can choose when is the best moment to win that argument, because some people, they don't have a choice, Scott. Some people need to win an argument. It might be a job interview. It might be something their job depends on. You might be a prosecutor in court, where you have to convince this jury to stop this person you believe is a murderer from getting off. So the point of the book is to say, here is a skill set that you can learn that should

help you win any argument you choose to win. Because the reason I wrote the book is because I hate when people say, well, you were just born this way. You came out of the womb doing this stuff. I'm not like that. No, I'm saying actually anyone can pick up these skills. They've been around since Aristotle. And just on your point about, you know, should you want to win every argument, in the big stuff these days, I think people should want to win. For example, democracy. I believe that democracy is at stake in America right now. I believe there's an existential threat to our democracy, our free press, etc. Those are arguments you cannot shy away from. Those are arguments you cannot keep your head down on. And those are arguments that my side, I would argue the pro-democracy side, is in fear of losing because we're confronted by people who've

degraded our public discourse. We're confronted by gaslighters and BS merchants who aren't interested in the rules of formal debate or facts and figures. And therefore, I would like to see people who believe in democracy and freedom be equipped with the rhetorical tools to win those very vital battles. So when you think about that, how do you have good faith disagreement? Because there doesn't seem to be any good faith. It's always a one up kind of thing and a dunk. And obviously, I've gone way off Twitter. Scott's sort of gone off Twitter. You clearly haven't. I'm just using it as the example because it is a very small little world. Speaking of echo chambers, it's the echo is chamber there is. But what is a good faith? How do you have a good faith disagreement? And how do you decide

when to engage and when to walk away? It's a great question. And I talk a lot about the phrase good faith in the book and about the need. And I genuinely believe in good faith disagreement, because I believe that democracy cannot survive without it. That's the reason I wrote the book, as reason why I enjoy debating and arguing and value it so much. Because, you know, I quote the French essay, Joseph Joubert, that it's better to debate an issue without settling it than to settle it without debating it. There's an intrinsic value to the process, to truth-seeking in that way. And I think you're right. It's really tricky. You know, people say, what is a bad faith argument? How do you define it? And, you know, it's like the Supreme Court definition of porn. You know it when you see it, you know, there's so many different ways to engage in a bad faith argument, people who shift the

goalposts, people who make claims without any evidence whatsoever, people who only engage in abusive ad hominems. Those are people you should probably walk away from. I was going to write a chapter in the book on when to walk away from argument. I didn't, maybe that's saved for a sequel. Because there are arguments, Cara, that I choose not to have to go back to Scott's earlier question. Like people say to me, would you have Marjorie Taylor Greene on your show? No, I wouldn't. I wouldn't have an argument with Marjorie Taylor Greene. It's pointless. She's a grifter. She's not interested in any facts or figures. She doesn't even believe most of what she's saying probably. Why would I give her a platform, especially on live TV to spew uninterrupted nonsense? So there are some arguments

you should walk away from, but good faith arguments, I mean, I write a chapter in the book on listening, right? Something we don't do in arguments, and I'm a bad listener. I say that openly in the book. My wife laughed at me when she heard I was writing a chapter on listening. Empathetic listening is a very important part of having a good faith argument. Because if you're just having a debate where you're waiting for your turn to speak, then that's not a good faith debate or argument. But if you're just having a debate where you're waiting for your turn to speak, then that's not a good-faced debate or argument. But if you're actually critically listening to what the other person is saying, if you're empathetically listening to what an audience is saying, for example, in a political context, then actually everyone feels like they have a stake in the conversation and everyone feels like they're going somewhere. And I give the argument, I give the

example in the book of 1992 Town Hall in Richmond, Virginia, where a questioner asks George Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, and of course, ridiculously, Ross Perot, how the national debt has affected them. Bush isn't paying attention, looking at his watch, gives a nonsense answer about interest rates. Bill Clinton goes up to the woman and says, tell me how it's affected you. And that's the beginning of a great conversation, someone who's automatically persuaded by one person in front of them. Yeah. So you sent us a clip of an interview you did with John Bolton. Set us up for this and what were you arguing about? So John Bolton has done a lot of interviews. John Bolton is a man who I don't like, but I respect him as a debater. He's a very clever guy. You

can't question his intellect, whatever else you question about him. He's been debating since his Yale days. And he agreed to come on my show in 2020. I don't know why, I was surprised. And we wanted to do an interview with him and we looked at what he was promoting his book. And I didn't want to ask him what everyone else was asking him. I like to ask questions that other people aren't asking. And I looked at his book, and he hadn't mentioned the fact that he gave speeches, paid speeches for an Iranian opposition group called the MEK, who are nuts. They're a bunch of cultist misogynists. So I decided to press him on that angle. How much of your antipathy towards Iran is to do with geopolitics? How much of it is to do with the fact that you've had a long association with a group called the MEK, which was once a terrorist

group banned by the State Department while you worked there? You don't mention it in your book. This is really about as low as it gets. The fact is that Hillary Clinton, perhaps someone you support, took the MEK off the U.S. list of terrorist organizations. How about that? I speak what I believe. She took it off in 2012. You were speaking with them in 2010 when they were still a banned group.

Yeah, look, you're simply wrong on your facts on this. No, you were there in Paris in 2010, speaking at the MEK rally, when they were still a banned terrorist group, according to the State Department. Nobody buys my opinion. And you can ignore that if you want. I'm very comfortable. I have never said anything other than what I believe. And we are now, sir, 20 minutes into this interview, which you said was for 15. All right, that didn't seem good. interview, which you said was for 50. All right, that didn't seem good. Yes. Madi, can I ask a question? I don't, and I struggle with this as someone who's a podcaster interviewing people, and there's a reason we let Kara lead the interviews. And when I hear that,

I feel like you're purposely putting him on his heels to score points with your liberal viewership, that you aren't having a productive conversation, that you are so aggressive there that you yourself are reducing the likelihood of a productive conversation. So, obviously, I disagree with you on that. And I understand my wife actually takes a similar view to Scott, that some people don't like such confrontations. And I think the American media has suffered because your point of view has dominated and we haven't had enough challenging conversations. And the reason why I have partly succeeded in a career here in the US in people like Jonathan Swan did well with their Trump interviews, because people are quite frustrated that American interviewers have been so deferential to people in power for so long. And that we engage in both side ism and don't

really call people out. And not just that, but I'm just talking about the tone. And, you know, yeah, sometimes you do need a bit of, you can call it aggression, combativeness, belligerence, whatever it is. Someone like John Bolton, who filibusters, who has talked over and bullied interviewers for years. And it took 20 years, 20 years

from the Iraq War, whatever it was, 18 years at the time, for someone to ask him, as I did later in that interview, you know, does he have any qualms? Does it rest on his conscience that tens of thousands of people died in Iraq because of him? I think those are questions that need to be asked. And a lot of American interviews, sadly, are a little uncomfortable asking such questions. And I take your point about scoring points for liberal viewers. Maybe that's part of it. I'm not going to pretend otherwise that I want to get views. But I also think it's about holding people to account. I mean, I do what I do because I want to hold people to account. Otherwise, I'd go be an accountant. Do you think you're just as

tough on people from your side of the aisle, liberals, when you do that? Yeah, I try to be. And in fact, liberals get very upset because sometimes they expect a kind of softball interview from a fellow liberal, especially on someone like MSNBC. And no, I try and hold people to account. If you watch my exchange with Ron Klain on Biden's support for Saudi Arabia, it was a tough interview. MBS, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, was behind that killing. And yet you haven't held him accountable. Why? It's been our government's longstanding policy not to personally sanction heads of state, leaders of government in countries where we have diplomatic relations. He's not the head of state, though. Ron, he's not the head of state. Jen Psaki is someone I've grilled before. She put the quote on the book saying that.

Look, is it tonally the same? Not necessarily. But then, for example, Tony Blair. If Tony Blair was in front of me and someone I've never got to interview, oh, I would push him as aggressively on Iraq as I push John Bolton, regardless of the fact that he's a center-left prime minister who I once voted for. So I think there might be tone differences, but no, certain issues, people need to be pressed. I try and be tough on everyone. Obviously, certain people, you know, Cara, the reality is we live in an age right now where one group of politicians are particularly deceitful and offensive and bigoted. And that is reflected sometimes in the tone of my commentaries interviews. That's,

that's a reality. But I, the issue is though, it does. And I try very hard to get as many people from all sides as possible and not to be both sides of them, but more to be like, at some point it degenerates into a way that's not illuminating to people in

any way. And so you have to be very careful not to seem, because one of the reasons I don't watch cable that much anymore is I'm like, it's this, I know exactly what's happening. Like, you know what I mean? It never illuminates. It's a lot of fire, but no illumination whatsoever. Well, that's not always the case. And I would say, watch my show and you've been on my show. And when you're on my show, it's certainly illuminating. So I wouldn't want people not to watch you when you appear on my show.

But I would say this, look, to go back to Scott's point about, is it productive? I say context is everything. We have very, very productive interviews with experts and with interesting people such as yourself on my show. But then we do have the more lively, combative interview with people like John Bolton. What I would say to you, Scott, is let me turn it around. Let's say you were sitting with John Bolton talking about the MEK. What would you have asked that would have been illuminating that he would have engaged in good faith? I would have brought up the point and I would have said, what do you say to people who say it's, you know, hypocritical and that you're sort of bought and sold as evidenced by this? And I would

have let them respond. And I probably wouldn't, like you have a style and you have a show on msnbc and i don't so you kind of win but i i've when i hear that i that tone and again it's hard because it's one clip right and my guess is we should look at the entire body of your work but i find that that's easily gonna it sounds to me like that's gonna digress into a food fight where where the person doesn't trust you and it just thinks you're trying to embarrass them so so here's here's the thing scott what i would say number one is if you did that he would be delighted because there's no follow-up to point out that he's lying to the viewers about when he spoke to the group but just on the broader point well i think you can say i think you can say what you said well that that doesn't feel accurate

so it's a tone issue that's great but i'll just on the wider just on the wider point scott that you'll make i just want to address this really important point. I say this in the book. Sometimes you're not trying to persuade the other person. I'm not really interested in whether John Bolton agrees with me. He's not going to change his mind. He's John Bolton. I am interested in the audience seeing that people in power can be held to account for their lies. They can be held to account for what they've done. And I think that's what's been missing too much from our discourse. Sometimes you're not trying to convince the other person, you're trying to convince the third person, you say the liberal audience to point to. I'm saying the American

public that needs to hear some sharp conversations. And perhaps sometimes my tone is off, I'm only human. But I do think the style is very important to be tough. I do think that's important. Okay, so let's talk about a place where it doesn't happen in social media. Tactics do change online. And we talked about different argument cells for the left and right. There's no winning on social media. It's just one dunk after the next, back and forth, and then it degenerates, you know, to what Scott was very quickly, which is no one's hearing a thing at all. So how does that change online, and why do you think that is? I agree with that that that's

where i would 100 agree with scott is a twitter is a place where it does just then descend into kind of mob mentality dunking uh ratioing it's it's really bad and if i wasn't so addicted to it i would have probably cut myself off a long time ago 100 you and me both brother why haven't you both i mean it's it's an addiction car i don't know what to say. I mean, I'm not hiding. I've told my family. I was getting palpitations when I thought that night a few months ago it was all going to shut down because of technical problems. It's a place I both love and hate at the same time. I do think there is some value. I wouldn't write it off completely. I'm not one of these people who's like, this hell site. It has huge advantages in terms of reaching audiences I could never reach

otherwise, in terms of connecting with people I could never connect with. And some debates are really interesting. Let's go back to what we started with, the lab leak debate. There are some fascinating conversations going on between scientists on Twitter right now. They're really interesting people that 10 years ago, you and I would never have been able to connect with, would have to go find some boring paper they wrote on their university website to find out what they think on this issue. Right now, I can see really interesting scientists who I follow unpacking that Wall Street Journal story, that Department of Energy Intelligence Assessment, and making good points. So it's out there if you want to find it and be part of those more

productive conversations. But sure, we're going to do the dunking along the way. That's human nature in an age of social media, sadly, right? Which cleverer people like yourself understand much more than I do about those kind of incentives. Where do you get inspired and find you can find good information? That is a great question. So good information, I'm very critical of the American media, and people know that. I've been very open in my criticism, even after joining NBC. It was easy when I wasn't at NBC. But one thing I've always said is like, I can disagree with the New York Times op-ed columnist or some headline, but the investigative journalism that our media still does is the gold standard. I think some of the stuff that people at NBC News,

my organization do, people at the New York Times and the Washington Post, both foreign investigative journalism and domestic, I think is hugely valuable. And that stuff still inspires me. I'm not an investigative journalist myself. I don't think I have the skill set or could ever be that person. But I'm great admiration to people who break these important stories and tell us what's going on behind the scenes, whether it's in China, whether it's in the United States. So that is something that inspires me. If you're talking about holding people to account the stuff I do, then, you know, unfortunately, it is I do look across the pond and I look at the UK where I do think it is slightly done a bit better.

And maybe something you don't like, but that's a faced opinion for me. That is the kind of stuff I enjoy watching. You know, when I saw Ben Shapiro, the hero of the conservative debate, right, the man who puts up YouTube videos saying, I've destroyed X, Y, or Z on a college campus, when he goes and gets interviewed by Andrew Neil and then gets a BBC British interviewer who is a conservative, who basically runs rings around him,

that for me is enjoyable. I enjoy that. I'm a nerd. I enjoy that stuff. All right, last question. Scott and I frequently argue. That's our entire thing. I think we argue well, actually.

One of the more harmless arguments is about whether my Chevy Bolt is sexy. I'd like you to tell us who's winning that argument. Is the Chevy Bolt sexy as a car? I think the Chevy Bolt is as sexy as the person driving the car. And that is how I would define it. Oh, nice. Oh, no.

God. Let me phrase the question. Yes, you should reframe. I say in the book, always reframe. Am I more likely to get a random blowjob in a Tesla or Chevy Bolt? Your turn. This is what I have to do. He's got his head in his hands. Let's bring back John Bolton. You've literally thrown me off there. I wasn't seeing that coming.

Look at him. He's flustered. He's speechless. I didn't see that coming. In all the media interviews I've done, I didn't get that question, Scott. Exactly. The flaccid penis joke always ends up there. Go ahead. What I would say to you, Scott, is, is that joke contributing to a productive discussion and illuminating our lives or not, Scott? You know what the answer was? The right answer was no. No right answer involves Tesla is the answer, is what I would say. you go oh very well done anyway last question what's the most important thing not winning every argument what is the empathetic here at listening i think is i suspect as well i actually think the more important than anything else i have a chapter on it is confidence building unless you have confidence you can't do anything you can't listen you can't speak you can't engage

you can't take a position and we lack a a lot of confidence in our societies. We defer to people who are overconfident. And I talk in the book about the need to build confidence because that's the stepping stone for everything else. Yeah, that's the explanation for Elon for sure. Anyway, the book is Win Every Argument, The Art of Debating, Persuading, and Public Speaking. It's available now. The Maddy Hassan Show airs Sundays at 8 p.m. Eastern at MSNBC and Tuesdays on Peacock. Thank you so much, Matty. I really appreciate it. Thanks, Matty. Nice to meet you. Thanks, guys. I appreciate it. Even the end question. Thanks, both.

One more quick break. We'll be back for predictions. As a Fizz 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 Fizz, you always get more for your money. Terms and conditions for our different programs and policies apply. Details at Fizz.ca. Okay, Scott, let's hear some predictions. Okay, Scott, let's hear some predictions. So I think there's going to be a fairly significant punitive award to Dominion.

This Dominion versus News Corp is just shocking to me. And I don't think anyone's going to be surprised where I imagine you land on this or I land on this. But you call yourself Fox News. You're the most watched news program in America. And the anchors and the CEO of the company and the founder know that they're lying. And they continue to lie in an environment where we have insurrections, in an environment where people don't trust each other. And I was trying to get to the human element of this. You're 92 years old, which means there's like a one in three chance you're going to die in the next 12 months. I mean, I'm just trying to get into this guy's brain.

Is it because he hates the other side so much? Is it because he sees a profit motive? What is in your head when you decide to create a culture and you make the decision that we know this isn't true, but we see an opportunity to inflame our viewers that could lead to really ugly places? In addition, the board should be voted out because 61 percent, let's just go to straight corporate governance distinct to the ethics and my virtue signaling and disappointment. This company is a publicly traded company. The board is supposed to show care of duty here and protected shareholders. 61 percent of the shareholders are not the Murdoch family. So let's just assume that the Murdochs have their own motives. And I'm not even going to try- People don't realize that. Point that out again. They're not the controlling shareholders in that regard. So I'm not even going to try and figure out what's going on between his ears. But 61% of the

shareholders invested in an organization that claims to be fair and balanced. And veracity, even for Fox News, directly impacts shareholder value, they are probably going to get a billion-dollar-plus fine here. By the way, where these companies make all of their money, or most of it, in terms of high-margin money in an election season, is from not only Republican candidates, but Democratic candidates advertised on Fox. And guess what? They were sharing information on Biden's advertising strategy with Jared Kushner. So there are so many things distinct of the ethics that are going to really damage the 61% of shareholders that aren't the Murdochs. The board really should be taken to account here that you're not doing your job.

You're not representing stakeholders here. Yeah, they're shitty managers for sure. So I think one, my prediction is one, there job. You're not representing stakeholders here. Yeah, they're shitty managers, for sure. So, I think, one, my prediction is, one, there's going to be a serious award here. This is a very high hurdle to clear, and Dominion's lawyers have cleared it. I mean, they have presented so much evidence that they acted in bad faith. They knew they were spreading misinformation. They knew this would hurt Dominion. They knew they were lying. They had information that showed that this was not the truth, and they decided to engage in an editorial strategy to spread these falsehoods. They will get, in my opinion, my prediction is it's going to be not only a large monetary award, punitive award, but you're going to see some board members rightfully be kicked out of the board here. There is no way you can be a board member of a media organization and not have heads roll when you have this type of reckless behavior, this negligence that results in this sort of shareholder damage.

I don't know. I've seen some pretty bad boards. Look at over at Tesla. It might be me just like screaming into the wind. Yeah, it's a very high bar. I mean, it's interesting. I've read all the various and sundry debates among media lawyers, and some of them think this is a slam dunk. Others do not. It's a very high bar. I mean, it's interesting. I've read all the various and sundry debates among media lawyers, and some of them think this is a slam dunk. Others do not. It's a very high bar. We'll see. I think they certainly deserve it, and it's a jury trial, but they'll keep appealing it all over the place.

The good thing about it is it'll distract them, and the rest of his life, Rupert Murdoch will be in lawsuits over this. There's going to be shareholder lawsuits for the next decade. It will occupy him until he's in the ground. And so, good. That's what's going to happen. Probably one of the executives will have to go, like Suzanne Scott or someone like that. But this is what they're going to be doing the rest of their pitiful lives. So that's my feeling.

So anyway, this company is not backing off, FYI. They haven't and they won't. And they shouldn't. So anyway, great prediction. That backing off FYI. They haven't and they won't and they shouldn't. So anyway, great prediction. That's a really great prediction. We'll see. We want to hear from you. Send us your questions about business tech or whatever's on your mind. Go to nymag.com slash pivot to submit a question for the show or call 855-51-PIVOT. Scott, that's the show. I like our arguing. I think it's actually okay. It's all right. It's okay. That's right. If we're wrong, I don't want to be right, Kara. That's correct. And we'll be back on Tuesday for more. Will you read us out? Today's show was produced by

Lara Naiman, Evan Engel, and Taylor Griffin. Ernie Entretat engineered this episode. Thanks also to Drew Burrows and Neil Saverio. 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. My good friend Scott Zabah is not feeling well. I am wishing him strength and good health.