Pod Save America - Covering Trump 2.0

Episode Date: December 4, 2024

Tommy is joined by Eugene Daniels, Politico White House Correspondent, coauthor of the Playbook newsletter, and president of the White House Correspondents Association, to talk about the changing media environment and what will—and won't—change about covering a second Trump term. Plus, the latest on the blowback to the Hunter Biden pardon, Pete Hegseth's mom fighting back, and what's next for Trump's cabinet picks. For a closed-captioned version of this episode, click here. For a transcript of this episode, please email [e-mail] and include the name of the podcast.

Welcome to Pod Save America, I'm Tommy Vitor. Over the past couple of weeks we have been focused on this messy conversation about problems within the Democratic Party and how to fix them. Always a fun topic on Twitter, no one ever gets mad. We're also gonna talk about how Democrats should adjust their approach to a second Trump term. At the same time though,

there's an equally important discussion going on in the media about how to cover Trump for a second time. And because crooked media sits in both those worlds, that's a discussion we also wanna have. So joining me today to dig into this media debate is someone who is uniquely qualified to help us think through these big changes and how we approach them.

Eugene Daniels is a White House correspondent for Politico, a co-author of their enormously influential playbook newsletter, and the president of the White House Correspondents Association. Eugene, welcome. Hello, thanks for having me. Great to see you. You're also the best dressed man in Washington. We'll get to that later. The bar is very low. You know, a lot of blue suits happening here.

Buddy, I was the number... I was first in line at the fucking three-for-one sale at Joseph A. Banks. Don't even... I can't suck any shit. But we're going to get into all this media stuff, talk about all the tough questions about covering Trump, your sort of journey to the center of this. But first, let's talk about the latest in DC. So it's Wednesday morning, LA time.

It looks like Pete Hegs's nomination to be Secretary of Defense is maybe unsurprisingly in a bit of trouble. Already the impression was that senators were concerned about the allegations of sexual assault and excessive drinking and had committed to having some pretty serious hearings for Hegseth. But this morning there were new reports that Trump

and Ron DeSantis have talked about DeSantis getting the nod if Hegseth doesn't make it through. This morning Hegseth is vowing not to back down. He's tweeting that the left is smearing him with quote, fake anonymous sources and BS stories end quote. One of those lefty fake sources, his own mother, who as we discussed on the Tuesday show wrote that now public incredibly damning email

to Hegseth in 2018 calling him an abuser of women. Penny Hegseth, Pete's mom went on Fox and Friends this morning to disavow that sentiment and surprise surprise, attack the media for reporting her own words. Let's listen. I came to take on New York City, to take on the New York Times, to be a mother, a strong mother, a fighter. What's your message to the New York Times? I would say I don't think the way you operate is, it feels almost criminal when reporters call you and threaten you. I don't think the way you operate is, it feels almost criminal when reporters call you and threaten you.

I don't think a lot of people know that's the way they operate. And they are in it for the commission, for the money, and they don't care who they hurt. Part of today is to discredit the media and how they operate. When they contact you, I let a few phone calls go, but then they call you and say they threaten you. That's the first thing they do. They say unless you make a statement, we will publish it as is. And I think that's a despicable way to treat anyone. Eugene, how much is the commission per story?

Is that part of your salary or like a tip? It's a million dollars for every word, actually. It's very high. Yeah, that's not how it works at all. Anybody that works in journalism will tell you, the vast majority of people, especially the folks in print, are not in it for the money. It's not how it works.

It also sounds like what happened there is she got a request for comment. I mean, am I wrong? That's exactly what it sounds like. You know, when people, when it sounds like she ignored a bunch of calls, right? And so eventually you have to publish the information, right? Especially when you're talking about a nominee for Department of Defense, what could impact whether or not he gets confirmed.

And so it sounds like the reporters called her a bunch. They finally answered and said, ma'am, you know, we're going to have to publish it if you don't release a statement. And it's not a tit for tat. It's like, we are going to publish it. So if you would like to get your side out, which is part of our job, to let people be heard and to provide that information to folks,

it sounds very normal. Everything that happened is very normal. I will say, when you're talking to normal people who don't engage with media all the time, it doesn't feel like that's how it operates. But that's mostly the vast majority I will say when you're talking to normal people who don't engage with media all the time, it doesn't feel like that's how it operates, but that's mostly the vast majority of people, partly our fault in the big media,

is they don't have insight into how this thing works, how we gather information, what we ask for, how long we give people that kind of stuff. Yeah, that's right. I mean, certainly it's intimidating and a little scary to get a call from the New York Times, but ultimately what they were doing was kind of giving her a heads up and asking for a request for a comment.

Regardless- It'd be much worse if they published it without her comment. If they didn't call her at all, that'd be much worse. Exactly, and the comment got in the original story. But it does seem clear that this is a strategy. They're going to attack the media. Not a novel approach. But I mean, Pete Hegseth, Penny Hegseth, sorry, she doesn't end up on Fox News this morning by accident. She was clearly coached to pivot to an attack on the press from the beginning.

JD Vance was on Twitter this morning complaining about the biased coverage of Hegseth. The question is always, will it work? You guys had a great quote in Playbook today from an anonymous Republican Senator who said, when Matt Gaetz dropped out of the AG race, quote, Pete's next. If you were a betting man, would you say that's true?

I think it is. Based on everybody that we've talked to, right, that it seems like he's going to, that it's very possible that he's going to get dropped here. And we've been told by another GOP source, maybe by the end of this week. It's just like too much too fast, I think. And it was very obvious when Gates dropped out,

that means that the spotlight has to go elsewhere. He was taking up so much of the oxygen in the room for obvious reasons. And the Hexas stuff has been drop after drop after drop. And it's impacting the way that senators are viewing him. You look at someone like Cynthia Lummis from Wyoming, who after her meeting was very like, I like him, I think this is, you know, he has, I have his back. Now she's having, she called them side issues,

but now she's saying that the allegations that have come up are a surprise, and he does have to address those, right? That's a different way of talking. It may not seem that much to folks who aren't in DC, but that kind of language tells you that people are going in the opposite direction of where he and Donald Trump want them to go.

Yeah, that's called leaving yourself and out. I've been trying to imagine what a confirmation hearing would look like, and it does seem really messy. I mean, you're gonna get a detailed set of questions about the sexual assault allegation. There's all these reports about his drinking. You could see potentially really damning testimony from Pete's colleagues from the nonprofit era

about his mismanagement, from Fox News people who say he was drunk on set, maybe even his exes or people he was in relationships. And all of this is under oath. And like, I think my instinct thinking that story was like, that is not survivable. But then I thought back to Brett Kavanaugh who started attacking the press,

started attacking the senators and survived the confirmation hearings by being combative and it does seem like Pete Hegseth was was built for that mission to just lash back at the liberal Media and the Republican the senators or rhinos, etc Yeah, I'm just wondering like what do we think Trump's tolerance is for bad press on a pick like this? Yeah I mean it wasn't very high for gates, right? I think it was like eight days from nomination to drop. I think it's a lot of what we're hearing is the pressure behind the scenes is what's going to change the minds here.

You know, Trump seems to have a better relationship with the Senate going in than he did in his first term. And I think he kind of wants to keep that because he needs them to get some stuff done. And so I think a lot of it's going to because he needs them to get some stuff done. And so I think a lot of it's going to be less like how what's his like aptitude, what how much he can take from from this, but how much they can and what they're telling him behind closed doors.

Right. If you get six, seven, eight Republican senators saying like, look, I can't do this. I can't especially I think people should look at the women senators. Right. Lummis is one of them. A lot of them have been are looking at this kind of stuff. Joni Ernst is one who has taken on sexual assault in the Pentagon, in the military apparatus. And so those conversations are the most important ones. And really, like for Hexeth, sure,

he can go on in front of all the senators and go back and forth with them yell and do kind of the thing that he's done on Fox News But also do you want that to be part of your legacy right because you have to first you have to get to that moment Right whether or not the senators think you can even make it and to that's a lot like that is a lot of pressure all at Once he has a family so so it's also about the human psychology behind some of these things, as you know, right? Like, if people feel like they can survive and it's going to be worth it, then they probably will do it. Right.

But at the end of the day, we don't know what's in Donald Trump's head. Hex has said he told him to keep fighting. Trump does like a fighter. But some of this seems like too much, too fast for a lot of these senators. Yeah, and there's a lot of different sort of avenues of attack.

Right. But yeah, I mean, presidential transitions before Trump, they seem to have one or two nominees who were deemed out of bounds or who became the focus of criticism and the targets who got shot at. Trump seems to have flooded the zone with controversial picks. There's Tulsi Gabbard. There's RFK Junior. There's Dr. Oz. there's Pete Hegseth.

I wonder though, how much we can expect the Senate to show independence on their sort of advise and consent function here, or at some point whether they'll feel like, listen, we can take down one of these guys, we can take down two, but four, five, six, like that's a bridge too far for us. I think that's probably right, right?

I think we've been here before, over and over and over again, as people that cover and watch all of these things, and thinking that Republicans were going to get tough against Donald Trump and put their foot down. And they do it every once in a while, right? At some point, you have to kind of show that you are a completely separate body.

But they have also, for a lot of people who are hoping that they wouldn't, let them down, right? Like they have said they're gonna be tough, and then they eventually fold, because Donald Trump's pressure is too much. So I think this could go either way, but I think when you get into four picks, it's gonna be really difficult to try to take all those folks down

or say that you're not gonna vote for them. Because then, now you're talking about Donald Trump himself starting to attack you, right? He's not done that publicly. And that's when they start to have, they start to like back down really quickly. And this is a test, right? Like when you look at Senator Thune

and kind of how the relationship he wants with Donald Trump and also how he wants to operate as the leader of Senate Republicans and whether or not he is going to put his own foot down. McConnell did this a little bit, right? and kind of as sometimes served as a foil, is soon going to be able to do those kinds of things. What's his leadership style look like? And I think lastly, this also with all of those names you just mentioned, this is kind of what happens when you have a nomination process that is focused on loyalty

to the principal, to the president, Donald Trump. And then also in a lot of these people and how they've spoken about the departments they've been nominated to, they have a disdain for the department or they wanna flip the table in the department. So that's not all the kind of traditional vetting is happening and some of these things are being missed or looked past.

Yeah, I mean, Trump didn't want to do FBI background checks on all these people. It's like, hey, that would have actually helped you here. Maybe you could have gotten ahead of some of this stuff and not selected these people. The other funny thing is, again, thinking about like pre-Trump world. If you had a president where you had the attorney general

nominee get pulled, you had the DEA selection get pulled, you have the secretary of defense on life support, it seems like the normal narrative nominee get pulled, you had the DEA selection get pulled, you have the secretary of defense on life support. It seems like the normal narrative would be like, administration shoots itself in the foot right out of the gate, you know, like administration struggling. But I don't think I see that with Trump. This is just kind of like priced in for him.

Yeah, I think that's right. I think a lot of this is just, we have seen this before, we expected it, right? For years, when he said he was gonna run again, we all knew based on reporting and our own conversations and kind of just like what Donald Trump was saying was that he was looking for loyalty, right? That that was the thing that he wanted

from the folks that were around him, whether it be his chief of staff, whether it be the FBI director, right? Those are the kinds of things he was demanding. And so this is exactly how it was going to end up, that it was going to look different and feel different, I think. And there's a criticism of the media, as people often like to do, in saying that we have to go at it as if this is a traditional and that the precedent with how other people operate it should apply to Trump.

And I think that sometimes that's not true. I think this is one of those times. We already told everybody that this was how it was going to work. And you can compare it to others, but he has always operated completely different. And to your question earlier about whether or not he, how much he can take, he kind of

likes some of the chaos. He likes a little bit of the drama. It feels like a television show, right? Something that you can see on ABC, CBS, or NBC with a president coming into office and all of this stuff swirling around, but then it works out in the end, right? That's kind of how some of this stuff works out.

Yeah, and the chaos was frankly part of the appeal to voters, it's what they voted for. Yeah, they liked it. Yeah, they loved it. last thing on the on hexeth I mean, I don't know if you saw this report by Brian Stalter at CNN about how Fox News is just ignoring the hex F Controversy it's already just so weird for a network to have a weekend anchor plucked out and made up secretary defense potentially But then just to ignore one of the biggest stories of the Trump administration. That's got to be strange in the newsroom Yeah, I mean, I think that you know, there are definitely people within Fox News who would want them to cover it ignore one of the biggest stories of the Trump administration, that's got to be strange in the newsroom.

Yeah. I mean, I think that there are definitely people within Fox News who would want them to cover it. I think those people aren't making the decisions to do so. And this is, I mean, Fox News operates a lot differently. I think, one, I think any network might have difficulty figuring out how to cover this story. But Fox News operates completely differently in some ways

in how they cover their own folks and things that might make them look bad. I will say there's been at least on X there's been a bunch of Fox News personalities who've come to Hexeth's defense, but because that conversation is not happening on Fox News, the people that watch aren't seeing that. But they did see his mom, right? And so that seems to be the way that they've decided to move forward. I will be interested to see after his mom's interview whether or not the defense of Pete Hexseth will be as full-throated on television

as it was with her today. Nothing says badass secretary of defense like calling in mommy. You know what? I would call my mom in too. She's bad. Listen, man, I remember I got in trouble at school once and the teacher called my mom on a weekend and I was like listening from the top of the stairs

and all of a sudden my mom just started lighting this teacher up on my behalf and I was like, holy shit, that's how it should go. Anyway, I was probably paying the ass, I'm being honest. Switching gears to other sort of inter-family conflicts. Let's talk about Joe Biden pardoning his son, Hunter, which we covered on Tuesday.

There was some speculation on Twitter that Biden did this as kind of a final F-U to the Democratic Party for pushing him out of the reelection campaign. I'm not sure that I buy that, but I'm wondering if you've heard anything about that in your reporting or generally what you made of the process for how Biden made this decision

and the timing for when he made it. Yeah, I think one, the kind of FU to the Democratic Party, that's not really how he operates, right? And I think this kind of decision was about his son and not really about anyone else, right? I think that part of it is very clear. Yeah, clearly. Right.

But I think what it shows you is that the Democratic Party, especially the ones that are most vocal, are still pissed at him for the election, right? Like his legacy is tarnished based on that. And every other thing is just like icing on the cake for people that wanna attack him and those decisions. And I think the process of it is kind of exactly how those of us that covered Joe Biden, if you've covered him any time, any period in his life of how important his family is to

him and how much of a kind of a sometimes an outsized influence they have on the kind of decisions that are much bigger than just the family. And so kind of at the, you know, the end of his political career, what else does he have to lose, I guess, right? Like the respective Democrats, many of them have already lost a lot of respect for him. And I think as he was having these conversations with the First Lady, with other members of the family, it basically just became clear that one, they felt that there was a danger in a Donald Trump DOJ coming in and investigating his son with all the conspiracy theories that had been out there

about what his son did or didn't do. And that at the end of the day, he had the power to do it. What I think is really interesting is the statement that he made was leaned way heavily into, oh, this was so hard. This decision tore me up. I care so much about the rule of law. But I think really, at the end of the day, what the American people and the reason why it landed so poorly

is that the American people will probably, if a president said, I thought my son was going to get investigated, I worry about whether or not he's going to relapse, I have the power to do it and have responsibility as a father. I'm not happy that I was put in this position, but here it is." And I think that's the real reason. I think probably folks in the Democratic Party, one, they clearly, a lot of them have been like, sure, do it, whatever you had the power to do so. But I think the American people also appreciate that kind of honesty, because it's one, why Donald Trump has been kind of popular

when he talks about power, right, and what he's gonna do with power. And I think Democrats often pretend that they are, that power is not to be wielded kind of however you decide. There's no rules about pardon power, you do what you want. That's such a good point. Donald Trump goes out to events and he was like, I hated electric vehicles, but then Elon gave me a

hundred million and now I got to say, I love them. And the people are like, ha ha ha. What candor, we love him. Yeah. I have a similar reaction on, on the Hunter stuff, like we don't need to belabor it, but you know, I understand it on a human level. He absolutely has the power to do it.

The Supreme court just reaffirmed it. But if I were his staff and I was sort of cut out of the decision or I was told to lie about it like Kareem Jean-Pierre was or other spokespeople for the Democratic Party, other surrogates, I would be pissed. Because it's not just Joe Biden's credibility here, it's the entire Democratic Party that we all look like we are full of shit and just typical politicians who say one thing for an election

and then do whatever we want afterwards. And I think that's a real damaging part. I think his staff is probably used to it, right? Like about him like going to Wilmington or going to Nantucket and coming back thinking differently than when he went there. But I think you're right. The kind of danger here is that one, Republicans have already seized on this, is that whatever pardon Donald Trump does over the next four

years, so what? But you know, like Democrats don't really have a leg to stand on. And Joe Biden will probably be out of the political arena. But people like you and the others who are kind of, you know, saying for a while based on what Biden was saying that he's never going to do this, this is an honorable man, they put their necks out on the line and they will be in the political arena. Kate, you know, Karine Jean-Pierre will the line and they will be in the political arena.

Karine Jean-Pierre will be around and she will be asked about this over and over and over again. Other people who defended on whether television or X or whatever in interviews, they also will have to kind of figure out and already have tried to figure out how to defend this decision and defend the decision making process. When did he make the decision versus what he told us in June? Right. It does seem like that's where people like Gavin Newsom, governor of California, is a

little pissed off. Yeah, you're right about these decisions being made at Wilmington or in Nantucket. If I was the Russian spy service, I would have been wire in that rich guy's house in Nantucket a long time ago. Let's talk about the media, this sort of media moment and how you see it. I'm not going to ask you to belabor your biography because anyone listening to a podcast about the media knows who you are, knows your work well. But suffice it to say, as playbook author and the White House Correspondents Association president, you really are at the center

of the political coverage discussion. So I want to start with some political reporting. A Trump advisor told Politico that Trump 2.0, the White House briefing room, could be one where, quote, Maggie Haberman sits next to Joe Rogan. Now, for context, I think it's worth saying that every administration comes in saying they have grand ambitions to change the briefing room,

change the comms process, and then they often end up doing just the same old shit, including Trump in his first term. But do you get the sense that these guys really wanna shake things up? Is this bravado and trolling? How should I read it? I mean, the people that we speak with, most of those conversations are off the record,

but the people that we speak with, right, most of those conversations off the record, but the people that we speak with in kind of talking about, I mean that in the WHCA terms, talking about this, they are not saying the exact same things that you're hearing on these podcasts that people are saying in blind quotes, right? And the bravado of, you know,

F the legacy media, we're gonna do whatever we want, that's coming from a lot of people that are kind of like in Trump world and around. But that is not at this point how the team is talking about it, right? And I think that's really important. And people are using language like could, right? Of course, anything could happen. That's true. Sure. You know what I mean? I could grow another neck. Like, anything could happen. Joe Rog true. Sure. You know what I mean? I could grow another neck.

Like anything could happen. Joe Rogan could do the briefing. Exactly, right? Like all of these things could happen, but I think it mostly speaks to how people are looking at the narrative and the rhetoric about the media from Trump and Republicans, really, and extrapolating from there without kind of knowing every single conversation that's happening behind closed doors.

And I think like, you know, our expectation is that things stay set by the precedent that has been set by members of both parties and presidents of both parties for decades. And I will say, you know, Donald Trump, as he bashes the media, he talks about the distrust of the media, but he also has us around, right? Like the interviews, like that part of it,

if people aren't hearing and seeing the things that he's doing, like did they actually happen, right? That is a big part of this. He understands kind of the theatrics of the presidency in a way that I think, you know, frankly, Joe Biden and team don't. Donald Trump during his first term would bring the pool into the Lovo office, and just basically do his own mini press conference.

That's not something that other presidents have done. And I don't see those kinds of things changing. And frankly, some of these names that are being thrown out about people who should be in the briefing room, being in the briefing room is not just easy. You can just pop in, right? It's the White House. You also have to come a lot, right?

It is not a part-time job. It's not something you can do every once in a while. A lot of these people don't even live in D.C. That's right. Yeah. I really, I feel very torn about this briefing room debate because I think there is value in forcing an administration to be on the record every day about whatever issue you guys want to ask about. I really, really don't want changes to the briefing room structure that push reporters off the White House grounds. Cause I think that is damaging and your ability to like just interact with people is very valuable. But I have sat through countless briefings when I worked the administration. I have watched the briefing in the press secretary role get turned into a clown

show by Sean Spicer and others. The last election I think shows that all of us need to change the way we're communicating with people or else the news industry is going to struggle, politicians won't get their message to voters, and they'll just get bad information off of Twitter or whatever. So I don't have a great fix for this, but it's just those are the things I kind of stew over when thinking about the problem. And I also just wondered how much say the White House Correspondence Association kind of has in the matter of what gets changed? Yeah. I mean, the thing of we have always,

since Ronald Reagan actually kind of set up the seats in the briefing room, for example, but it is the, you know, who they pick, who comes into the room even, right? For those that haven't been on the White House grounds, some of us have hard passes, and then there's kind of a form that you can fill out and come just like randomly. And like, you know, that is something that is completely within the power of the White House and the press secretary. You know, they have said that they want a brief, right? That has been very clear, even when Trump nominated Caroline Levitt. He talked about how great she would be behind the podium, right? And so, you know, that is never gonna change. And I think you're right, you know, sometimes

those briefing rooms, people that are watching them are like, what the hell is going on? People are just yelling, you know what I mean? And, but I think at the end of the day, you know, this is a democracy and it is important for the most powerful people in the country or the people that work for them to have to defend and answer questions that not just we have, but that the American people also have. Right. I think what we need to do a better job of as just like the media in general is to talk to more people on the ground to understand the questions. Right. And so much of and and there's a, again,

the actric nature to some of this, and that doesn't have to be the case, right? It should be about trying to find the information. It should be about, you know, holding the press secretary, no matter who they are, their feet to the fire, about the decisions that are being made. After that, you take that information and then you go and do more reporting, right?

There's almost no one who just takes what's in the briefing room and then does a report, a story, a newsletter off of it. There's so much that goes into it. Even the White House press staff doesn't trust everything that's said in that briefing room. No, but I do, the theatrics, the theatrics are all, look, let's be real, it's always the TV people.

When I was there, there was this awesome CBS guy, I loved him, named Bill Plant, and you just read a hard copy of the newspaper in the front row and it was just such a flex, like I don't give a shit what you're saying right now, I'm gonna ask my question. But then, I mean, there's worse versions, right? I mean, there are times when it feels like people

are posturing or peacocking. There was a lot of, you know, I'm not gonna name names, but there were some journalists who would always get in these combative fights with Trump in the first administration, and I always felt like it played into Trump's hands in a sense. I didn't think anyone looked good. But I don't know, do you disagree? Is there any remedy for this dynamic or is it just is what it is? I think we have to everybody has to do their part, right? Like, we as journalists

have to come into that room, thinking about getting the information, right? You can be combative, you can go back and forth, but at some point it does become clear that one, how can I get your question answered? And sometimes a non-answer is an answer, right? Like that's something that I have learned in journalism. This, you know, like when I interviewed Vice President Harris, I was talking to her about Israel

and kind of like what she would change. And she wouldn't say anything. So it's like, okay, take my answer. That means that she doesn't wanna change anything. I think people should take that. I think people should go in there and focus on their job and not think about what's gonna look good on Twitter X, what's gonna help them get a book deal or what's gonna...

That stuff is not helpful for the job that we have been tasked with, which is getting the information out for the American people, something illuminating so they can live their lives. Yeah, speaking about getting good information, I mean, I have like 800 text chains with friends in politics and the other day,

somebody sent around a tweet from the Epic Times about a Trump personnel thing, I don't even remember what it was. And normally, like this is an outlet, It's like associated with the Fallon Gong. It's kind of this right wing weird thing now. Normally I would just kind of dismiss it as a joke, but then I started to think, I don't know, I've seen a lot of news break in weird places

over the last couple of weeks, because that's where a MAGA world is located and that's who they're talking to. And in the Biden days, we knew he called Tom Friedman all the time. We knew he called Maureen Dowd all the time. We knew he called Morning Joe all the time. And so you can kind of read between the lines of what they said and see Biden's fingerprints

on these things. Now I'm back to consuming hours and hours of Steve Bannon's podcast and feeling like a psychopath. How are you adjusting your media diet to make sure you're not missing stuff now? Yeah. I mean, kind of the same way, right? You have to go where you think the information is going to be. And I think people that want to hear and think about

and hear from Donald Trump and the folks around him, they're going to have to get out of their comfort zone, right? Like the people that, like, you know, know Shay Tia, but it's not coming from crooked media. No. That's not where all that insight is going to come from. And so people are going to have to change their media diet a little bit. And frankly, I mean, you know, Trump 2.0 is just like Trump 1.0 was exhausting and it

was like so much all the time. And so I think it is possible that a lot of voters are just going to like ignore a lot of the things that kind of pop up. We though, in the media, have to do the opposite, which is like take as much in as we possibly can. So not only do you have to read the stuff in some of these kind of non-traditional, non-legacy right wing websites, you got to talk to the people they're talking to.

So it's changing my media diet, but also kind of changing the kinds of folks that I'm talking to and trying to sift through where that information is. Because you also have to, a lot of the Trump 1.0 was folks trying to get out ahead of certain leaks that were going to come. And so you have to really think, and reporters

have to really think about, why is this person telling me this thing? So when you read a story, you have to think of the exact same thing, who wants this on and why? And I think it's gonna test all of us in how much information we can take in, but also what kind of information we're gonna spit out to the American people.

Yeah, I think the intake will probably be the same. I think we should all do a little more sifting this time unless we're lighting ourselves on fire at every tweet. Also, you're gonna eat those words when I launch a show with Don Jr. Look, I'll come on. I'll come on the first episode. Be like double triggered, whatever we're gonna call it.

Let's talk about trust in media for a second. According to Pew, 40% of Republicans in Republican-leaning independence say they have a lot of or some trust in media for a second. According to Pew, 40% of Republicans in Republican leaning independence say they have a lot of or some trust in the information they get from national news organizations. That is 30 points lower than in 2016, and basically just above the score that Republicans give in terms of trust of information from social media.

Meanwhile, Democrats like me, 78% of us trust the national news. So what do you think that 38-point gap in trust in media tells us about how to change the job or what it means for Trump? I mean, one, it tells us that for years, you've had people attacking the media and attacking people's trust in media, right? This stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum, right? People trusted the media at one point.

And then that coming, that going down so quickly, by so much so fast, it tells all of us that the attacking the media did work for a lot of people. But I think it also, for us, it tells us that, like, we have to try to keep getting to the, getting to people who may be not reading us and don't trust us. And I don't think, and you don't have

the sugar coat stuff, right? I am very anti-sugar coating. I think, like, give people their damn Brussels sprouts and, like, call it a day. Like, I'm not giving you any damn chocolate over here, right? Like, I think that's, like's an important part of the process. But there is, when we are seen as peacocking to our earlier conversation, that's when I think a lot of people lose their trust. So if you have the side saying, you can't trust these people, and then you have, I'll use myself

as an example, I wouldn't do this, but I stand up and yell at Carolina, the briefing room, so that I can get a nice little bump on Twitter. Why would I trust someone who does that? And so there's also a kind of like look that we have to do as we're trying to figure out what to cover and how to cover this. And more importantly, gain the trust of the American people back, because does it impact us?

Yes, people are getting, there's less organizations available to do work, right? We're seeing layoffs happening all the time. That's a part of this conversation locally, especially. That's what I'm most worried about. You're seeing like less local newspapers and that's where people get most of their information. But it also is bad for democracy.

It's bad when people are looking at the institutions and saying that these people don't believe in us or are doing this work for us. So we have to do a better job at explaining that the reasons that we got in this job still exists for many of the people that do it. It's hard as hell. Like, it's not gonna be easy.

It's not gonna, it may only get worse, right? Based on what we've seen. But it can't get worse because we're making it worse. We have to do our part in trying to fix it and have people focus on the information. And different organizations are going to do it differently. I don't think there's going to be this Trump bump. So it might give folks an opportunity to focus on the impact

of some of these things instead of getting distracted by some of the things we often do. Yeah. We just talked through some of the structural challenges. There's a whole set of economic challenges for the news business. But then there's a sort of scarier set of challenges, which is Cash Patel, who is Trump's pick to lead the FBI, has made some explicit threats to go after the media. But then there's a sort of scarier set of challenges, which is Cash Patel, who is Trump's pick to lead the FBI,

has made some explicit threats to go after the media. He said on Steve Bannon's podcast, quote, we're going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections. We're going to come after you, whether it's criminally or civilly. Does that make you nervous?

Me personally? I mean, yeah. You know, I think I didn't do any of those things. I say you didn't do shit. You know, you've been good You've been nice. I didn't live rigged election because I'm sure was it rigged, right? But I think like that's part of this in you know talking to Other journalists about like what it looks like to cover you do have people who are like, you know I'm too nervous about like the retribution. Maybe I don't do this, right? Like that is a conversation that's happening around the country, not just in Washington,

DC, with people trying to figure out what that actually looks like. So of course, we're, you know, folks are nervous about that. And I will say, you know, White House's, you know, people in politics, both sides at different times talk shit about the media and like what we don't do right and all of those kinds of things But it's the the actual actions, right? So it's like what is rhetoric and what actually changes in the way that we're able to do our jobs And you know civilly is also something that is nerve-racking, right? Because it's that means you can just be in court forever, right? People don't have money to do those kinds of things, but there are tons of resources,

and I think it's gonna become even more available for reporters if these kinds of things actually come to fruition of people that would do a lot of this work pro bono moving forward. You can see I've thought about that a lot. Well, yeah, no, I'm glad you have, and I hope that's right, because someone like Cash Patel, he was also raising money to sue reporters. you know, he wants to change defamation law

He wants to really go after you. It is different, right? Like it is it is it is a different world that we could be operating in It could also be rhetoric right like these are you know, you know, Donald Trump talked about changing libel laws and those kinds of things and in In his first term and after and so some of this from Casper Tell could be rhetoric, and some of it's stuff that he might actually try and do. And so the people that are in the DOJ, right, not just like him himself, but like the deputies that are going to be around him and the civil servants that are still going to be around them, do they slow walk these threats if he comes

to them? Do they stop them, or do they just let it go? It's like getting that moving through the process is going to look, I think it'll look a lot different than people anticipate. Yeah, well hopefully Patel gets asked about this at his confirmation hearing. Oh, I think, E100% well I think a lot of them

are gonna get asked about their different podcast problems that they've had over the years. We'll podcast habits. Yep. All right, we're gonna take a quick break, but before we do that, we just dropped a new episode. Oh, we're plugging my stuff, look at that. My YouTube series, Liberal Tears,

I do with Brian Tyler Cohen. This week, we ranked Trump's cabinet picks. We've done a lot of fun ranking episodes. It's a fun, goofy show. You can find it on the Pots of America YouTube page. And also, for some reason, even though we're both grown adult men, we've decided that the loser of this silly ranking competition gets a punishment so you can watch Brian

do horrible things to me, like make me eat one of those chips that are so hot that I couldn't move for two days or a bite of the smelliest fish in the world. Again, I'm 44 years old. I don't know why I'm doing this, but it's the life I chose. So go to the Pate of America YouTube page. While you're there, look for Liberal Tears, T-I-E-R-S,

on the YouTube search bar, and enjoy. Let's talk about you in Politico Playbook. I think Playbook is the single most influential news product in all of Washington. It's true. Everyone reads it, sometimes multiple times a day. You got journalists fighting to get their stories included. Just so listeners don't think I'm a wimp and hypocrite, we used to make fun of Politico. We used to make fun of Playbook and this thing called Take It, Appreciate It, as we did years ago.

But we made a conscious decision to stop, because I was like, you know what, guys? We're wrong. It's really good. Like, we're just being giant hypocrites here, because they do a great job, especially you. How does it work? How do you decide what goes in there every day?

What's the timeline to get that thing out of what, like 3 a.m. your time? Yeah, we start, it's always out at around 6 15. So it's on 3 a.m. your time. And the process is, you know, the authors, our editors, the producers, we're having one, conversations about my phone's actually going off right now. It's just like over and over and over in our signal chat,

just sending stories, different thoughts and thought bubbles and conversations. And then we have a meeting later on in the afternoon. We're going to work through what is that top section, what is that going to look like? And sometimes we make a plan. Like on Sunday, I had a plan to do, and like this is what the Senate and House have to do.

They're coming back. It was going to be kind of like one of those like listicle ones that, you know, take some conversations, I can get to bed at a reasonable hour. And then it changes, right? Then Joe Biden pardons the son at 7.30 or whatever. Now it upends everything.

And I think that's the part of this when you're thinking about the next four years that might change is, do we need to start working at like 4 a.m. or something instead of trying to do a lot of the work at night. And the group that we the person that's doing the top kind of goes about around two thirty or three. And then we have another group that comes in and kind of gets a fresh look at it, adds the links, adds the stuff that we may have missed that people send

into all of our emails. Keep sending it in people forever. We love you. We appreciate it. And then just wake up and do it again. You do it again. One, you do it for PM and then you do the whole thing over and over again. And we're very lucky to have... We do.

And I mean, it's, you know, me and Rachel and Ryan get a lot of the attention, but like the kind of background players and really the spine of Playbook, um, are the producers and our editors who are like making sure we get all of the information because there's so much of it that's happening. And I'm always surprised by how well read the producers are with all of the things that they're taking in all day long and trying to live like normal lives. Um, good luck with that. Normally it gets worse. Okay. So I buttered you up. The flip side of this is the DC Press Corps is often criticized for having a herd mentality when it comes to coverage.

Do you think Playbook might contribute to that because everyone's reading it? You know, I've never thought about that. I think that, like, we don't think like that. I think like our work, we have that kind of driving the day part of it. And we're never trying to jump on the bandwagon. We're trying to be in front of the bandwagon. And whether Playbook does it or not, people jump on it.

We may be leading it in other different news, influential newsletters around DC may be leading it at different times. But it's up to other people to kind of jump on that bandwagon and cover it. I do think what we try to do is have like the focus on like the impact of this stuff, right? There's some of the gossip that's in there,

but the gossip at times tells you a lot, right? Like we always knew that Hexeth was having problems because we were talking to senators and folks on the transition about this for a long time. Same thing with Gates, right? Those kinds of things were happening. And it sounds like gossip at the time, right, for a lot of people, but then eventually that gossip leads to someone dropping out or having a really hard time having their nomination.

But yeah, I think there's a lot of things in the DC press that we're not perfect, right? We miss things, we focus on sometimes the shiny objects a little too much, right? And so when you're thinking about how the next four years within the media goes, my hope is that folks focus on not being distracted and really focus on the why something is happening, right? I think that is much more, and really focus on the why something is happening. I think that is much more, one, interesting, and two, important for the American people to understand. If a politician lies, sure, call it out, do the fact check,

but also what are they lying for? What is the thing they're trying to hide? So it has to go deeper than just the bandwagon mentality sometimes does. And Trump pretends to hate the mainstream media or legacy media, but I assume that his staff are just as obsessed with getting stuff in playbook as everybody else, and Republicans generally.

We have a nice, wide swath of people who send us information. Look at you, look at what a pro, no sourcing. One big thing the White House Correspondents Association does is the White House Correspondents Dinner, big fancy gala in the spring, everyone calls it nerd prom. You guys gonna book Tony Hinchcliffe

and do you expect Trump will attend? You know, I don't know actually. I think, you know, whether or not he's going to attend. I think at the end of the day, it's up to him. And you know, the invitation has always been open for presidents to do so. He didn't during the four years, and that was his choice, and the dinner still happened.

People keep asking me, like, are we going to have a dinner? I'm like, I'm planning it, so somebody better damn show up. So that aspect of it is, that part's going to happen. But at the end of the day, for me as president, and the person who, people don't know this, but the dinner is basically me and the executive director of the association kind of planning and coming together and then we get the production team in

that does a lot of the physical stuff. But the focus for me and Steve, our executive director, is about the reporters, right? So whether or not presidents come, whether or not a vice? So like whether or not, you know, presidents come, whether or not a vice president comes, whether or not members of Congress come and sit in the, you know, in the crowd, that's not my focus. Our focus is like celebrating good journalism.

The Kardashians, Beyonce. But like that part of it is the fun part of it. And frankly, like, you know, people could use some levity. This job is very heavy. And so I think that aspect of it. And frankly, people could use some levity. This job is very heavy. And so I think that aspect of it is important, too. Every once in a while, it's nice to have a little bit of fun when we're kind of doing all of this, dealing with all of this chaos.

We'll need it in April. I know that's for sure. Yeah, no, it's one night of fun. I don't know if people will ever interpret it. One night of fun. One night. Well, the Obama people, the meanest shit we ever did to the press was do the Bin Laden operation the day after the correspondents' dinner.

Yeah. Just watching all these people on TV so hungover, like they just basically couldn't speak. So much concealer. Yeah, that's tough. Yeah. So a lot of people know you from Playbook. They know you as the impeccably dressed reporter on TV. But I was reading up on you for the episode.

You played Division one college football? I did. I know the Nell Polish confuses people now, but I did play defensive end for Colorado State. No shit. Yeah. So you played in high school where it was like, it was a big part of your life?

Yeah, it was. It's funny because, so my dad played football at Walker College. And so he, I'm the only son, and he really wanted his son to play football. And I was a good kid, so I got into it. And I wanted to quit, because I was always a larger kid

than everyone else. They had me on the offensive line. So I called my dad. He was in the Army, so he was overseas. And I was like, I'm quitting. I hate this. But then he was like, give it one more week. They put me on defense.

And I just like, I had a switch flipped in my head. And so I played, you know, little league, middle school, high school, college. I love football. I think a lot of it was like the camaraderie, the like teamwork of it, which is why I like being on Playbook. Same reason. And also like knocking some heads.

It's very people. My nickname was Mean Gene. I was like. Really? No, I have it back somewhere. My Shoemaker High School letterman jacket is back there that says Mean Gene in huge letters. Next time wear that. Please wear that on TV.

I'm gonna wear it to the Wild's Gross Ponders dinner. Of course you like playing defense. You play offense, you're the schlub is getting wrecked. Right. And all of a sudden you're just going at people. Pass. So much better, so much better. Do you hate Deon Sanders and the Colorado team?

Were they your big rival? Now, Deion, he wasn't there when I was there. Yeah, he's recent. I will say this. So CSU and CU have always had this rivalry forever. Those games get nasty. They get real nasty. And more importantly, the stuff before it

gets nasty, those rivalries. And I wasn't from Colorado. I played in Texas. We were military brats. so we like bounced around everywhere. So I didn't understand like rivalries that lasted for a long time. So we get up there to Colorado State and we're doing like two a days a summer.

And we have all these guys coming in, getting us hyped up for the game. I'm a freshman, so we're like, who none of us are gonna play. We're just like, and they're like, you're gonna hate them. Like you have to hate them. And I'm like, I don't hate them. That's weird, I don't know these people. But then we're like, who now diverse are gonna play? We're just like, and they're like, you're gonna hate them. Like you have to hate them. And I'm like, I don't hate them. That's weird.

I don't know these people. But then we get there and I like see them walking in and I'm just like filled with this like anger that I had never felt them. But when it started like yelling at them, I was like, oh, now I get the world rivalry. This is bad. This is not good.

Yeah, when harness for good, that stuff's fun. When harness for bad, it's real bad. But yeah, there's nothing better than the rivalry week in college football where you watch Minnesota and Wisconsin battling it out over some giant ax or some stupid shit. Exactly. You're like, do you guys really care about this?

They're literally fighting over someone planting a flag in the center of the field. Exactly. Anyway, let me just ask you about the clothes for a second because again, you're a fashion icon at the DC press corps. As I noted at the top, I was more of a Joseph A. Banks three-for-one guy. Well, when did this become important to you?

What do you think? Is there a meaning behind it, or just like, it's fun? Yeah, I mean, it is fun, right? I like to play with colors and fabrics and things. But I think part of it is also, if I'm being really honest, is like, I am 6'3", I'm black, I'm gay. There's almost no room that I walk in where like, eyes aren't looking at me, even though I had like a blue suit on, I have a big afro. And so part of it is like, you know, I'll give you something to look at. Like if that's like, you're gonna be staring at me, I might as well just like lean into what I want and do that. I also think that it is, when I came out at 27 and I kind of like always said, I'm just gonna live my life how I want.

And that was a part of it. And there was like, you know, some nerves the first time I went like pink to the briefing room where I was like, this is not gonna go over well. What I found out is like nobody cared that much. There are a lot of people on X that care, but the people like in person, I've never heard anything

other than the same thing you said, right? The compliments, which I really appreciate. And I think that when you kind of do what you want, and without hurting other people, and live your truth, as the kids say, then you get permission for other people to do it. And I had a lot of people in DC, they're like, I bought a pink tie.

I'm like, you go, bro. You get out that comfort zone. You get out that comfort zone. And it's just fun. Like, who, I don't know. I think people, I think I do not believe that the way someone is dressed speaks to their seriousness. Right?

No, it's ridiculous. Or their talent level, or whether or not they are a real journalist or whatever. And I think what I've learned is a lot of people don't either. Listen, I dress boring because I'm lazy, but I think, do you see people, you don't need an excuse to be interesting or different

or be yourself. There's no value in looking like the herd there. It's a town where everyone, I think, could use a hobby or a passion or something other than walking up to people at a bar and being like, what do you do? Right. Worst question.

And when you get here, you take it on immediately. So you have to stop yourself from asking people what they do. Because it's not like, DC is its own culture. The clothing's a part of that. The conversations are a part of that. The DC stare-off when you're having a conversation with someone and they look past you.

I was like, you can go. You're free. You don't have to. You don't have to talk to me. I don't want to talk to you. You can go out. That's fine. Go hang out with them.

But I think that it is, you don't have to listen to the world. I think a lot of, in DC, that happens on a personal level a lot. It's like, well, blue makes me look serious. And I was like, no, it just makes you look like Bob. Like you and Bob just look alike now. You have the same suit as Bob.

And there's nothing wrong if that's your truth, you know? If Joseph A. Banks is your, is yours. If Brooks Brothers gets you going, you know, do that. But if it doesn't, like do something different. The Brothers Brooks. Well, Eugene, thank you so much for all the work you're doing. Thanks for joining the show today. It's a blast talking with you.

Everyone should subscribe to Playbook. Everyone should follow you on Twitter. What's your Twitter? At Eugene Daniels, too. At Eugene Daniels, too. That's it for the show today. Thank you. John and Dan will be back with a new show Friday morning.

So tune in then. Thanks, everybody. If you want to listen to Pod Save America ad free or get access to our subscriber discord and exclusive podcasts, consider joining our Friends of the Pod community at crooked.com slash friends or subscribe on Apple podcasts

directly from the Pod Save America feed. Also, be sure to follow Pod Save America on TikTok, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube for full episodes, bonus content, and more. And before you hit that next button, you can help boost this episode by leaving us a review and by sharing it with friends and family. Pod Save America is a Crooked Media production. Our producers are David Toledo and Saul Rubin.

Our associate producer is Farah Safari. Reed Cherlin is our executive editor and Adrian Hill is our executive producer. The show is mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Jordan Cantor is our sound engineer with audio support from Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis. Writing support by Hallie Kiefer. Madeline Herringer is our head of news and programming. Matt DeGroote is our head of production.

Andy Taft is our executive assistant. Thanks to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Haley Jones, Phoebe Bradford, Joseph Dutra, Ben Hefkoat, Mia Kelman, Molly Lobel, Kirill Pellavive, and David Toles.