The Daily Signal - Batya Unger-Sargon on Why Media Went Woke

Episode Date: December 22, 2021

Years before Donald Trump became president, legacy media was already moving in a woke direction. While no doubt some reporters are ideological, the trend was influenced by the growing prominence of the internet. Online, articles that generated an emotional response became income generators, because they led to readers spending a longer time interacting with the article. In 2017, the New York Times launched a program called Project Feels to track how younger readers responded emotionally to certain articles. "What they found was the more emotional the reader was, the longer they stayed on the page, and the more likely they were to click on an ad," says Batya Ungar-Sargon, the author of the new book "Bad News: How Woke Media Is Undermining Democracy." Ungar-Sargon shares why reporting on racism drives emotions, how black media differs from legacy media in its coverage, and the class issues the media ignores. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Snap up Ancestry DNA's lowest price ever in our incredible cyber sale. With 50% off Ancestry DNA kits, it's the perfect time to help a loved one unwrap the past. And with their latest update, they'll discover their family origins like never before. With even more precise regions and new and exclusive features. Their best gift, our lowest price. 50% off Ancestry DNA, only until December 2nd. Visit Ancestry.ca for more details. Terms apply.

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Wednesday, December 22nd. I'm Doug Blair. And I'm Virginia Allen. We know that the legacy media leans left. But when did they begin fully embracing woke ideology? On today's show, Kate Trinco talks with Batya Ungas Sargon, the author of the new book, Bad News, how the woke media is undermining democracy. They discussed the media's obsession with covering identity issues and the role digital platforms have played.

in the shift in the news media in recent years. We don't have any news headlines today because it is Christmas week, but in the spirit of the holiday, we are sharing some Christmas trivia with all of you over the course of the holiday season. Virginia, are you ready to go? Oh, I am so ready, Doug. What you got? All right. So, question number one, what is Scrooge's first name in the book slash movie A Christmas Carol? One of my favorite Christmas movies is the Muppets Christmas Carol.

So I'm well-versed. I'm very ready for this question. Ebenezer. Ebenezer is absolutely correct. Very good, very good. All right, question number two. What made Frosty the Snowman come to life? So I believe it was the magic in the old silk hat.

Yes, very good. The magic in that old silk hat. I'm not going to sing the song. Now, do you have a favorite Christmas song while we're on the topic? Oh, actually. So the actual name of the song, song is just the Christmas song, but it's the chest out throws me open fire. Yeah, that is my favorite Christmas song. Okay. It's an excellent. Not everyone actually knows that it's just called the

Christmas song, but yeah. It's just a very pretty. It's beautiful. It takes me back. Definitely, definitely. All right, final question. How many reindeer are in the story twice the night before Christmas? I believe it's eight. Very good. So why would it be eight? Because normally there are nine Rangers. Yes. Well, there's no, there's no Rudolph. There's no Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer in the original was the night before Christmas. Which is shocking to me because he's just so part of the whole Christmas spirit. I know. Well, I haven't done my research on this, but I think he might have been a little commercialized.

Oh. Added in for the sake of. I've heard that. He's a selling point. I've heard that rumor, too, that I don't know if this is a tall tell or not, but Santa Claus originally was green. Really? His outfit was green if you look at his old depictions. Oh, that's interesting.

And it was later on that when he started to become more known to Americans, of course, you know, he was around before then. But, you know, he started to become red to match certain aspects of American culture. Patriotism. Ah, that's fascinating. Wow. Cool tidbit. Thanks, Doug. Yeah, definitely.

So stay tuned throughout this week and next for more Christmas trivia. But for now, let's get to Kate's conversation with Bacha Ungar Sargon. Joining me today is Batya Ungar Sargan, the author of the new book. Bad news, how woke media is undermining democracy. Baya, thanks for joining us. Thank you so much for having me. All right, so let's dive into this. So for decades, conservatives have, fairly in my view,

complained that the legacy media is biased, it's liberal, etc. But your book chronicles something really interesting, and that's the rise of woke media coverage, of media coverage that is really obsessively covering issues of race, of identity. When did that start? It's such a great question. So, you know, journalists have always or historically tended to be much more liberal than the American population at large. But there was always what I call a countervailing force to their own sort of crusading tendencies that would pull them to the left. And that took the form of their bosses, right? Their bosses would be either a Republican or the owner of a corporation or both. Or they would be working in a local newspaper in some town in America where there were both Democrats and Republicans, and there was one newspaper, right? And so they could report the news to their hearts

content to the left and sacrifice 50% of readers, or they could do what their bosses told them to do, which is report the news straight and get 100% of the town's readership. So there was sort of a balancing factor for a long time to journalists' own internal desire to be sort of outside of power demanding justice on behalf of the little guy. Another factor that I think is really important is journalists themselves were the little guy for a long time. Journalism used to be a working class trade for much of the 20th century, and that really is no longer the case. Our industry underwent a status revolution to where we are now one of the most highly educated industries in America, and one of the more affluent ones, journalists are in the top 10 percent by and large.

And what I argue in the book is that as journalists went from being working class to being part of the elite, they really abandoned the working class that they used to belong to and really started to write for and about each other and other highly educated liberal elites and for other highly educated liberal elites. And to me, the kind of woke revolution, what sociologists call the great awokening, is the last stage. of this abandonment of the working class, and it was enabled by what I began with, which is the fact that we've lost that countervailing force. And the reason we did that is because digital media is built on a business model that rewards journalists leaning into their most extreme and radical and far-left ideas around race and identity, because in digital journalism, you measure success not based on the extent of your bipartisan readership, but the extent of your bipartisan readership, but the extent of, of, you know, the most extreme readers feeling like you are a home for them. And that's because we measure success based on engagement. And the most extreme readers are always going to be the most engaged. So long story short, everything now is pulling towards rewarding financially,

as well as, you know, for highly educated elites emotionally, really leaning into this great awakening and this obsession and moral panic even over race at a time when Americans have really never been less racist. And there's so much to unpack here, which is great. I love it. But first off, let's go into this. So when you talk about woke media coverage, what does that mean specifically? What kind of stories would you include under that umbrella? I'm so glad you asked that because I'm really curious what you're going to make of my answer. So please tell me. Okay. So the word woke started as black slang in the 70s to refer to ways in which this state still sponsors racism. And I think that that is extremely important to point out. I think journalists should spend a lot of time talking about things like police brutality, for example, mass incarceration, intergenerational poverty among, you know, 30% of Americans descended from slavery and racial segregation in public schools. I think it's not to me, even though I use the word woke, which used to refer to that.

When I use woke, I'm not talking about that stuff. I think that's really important to talk about. And, and this is what I'm curious what you think about, I think there's very little partisan divide left over those issues. Republicans have been at the forefront of prisoner releases for the last decade. You know, Georgia and Idaho, in Iowa, the First Step Act, you know, we've seen just mass prisoner releases. Of course, not because of quote unquote social justice, but because of a combination. of fiscal and Christian values. But, you know, at the same time, it does seem to me

like there's no longer a partisan issue, a divide over that. There's no longer a partisan divide over the importance of combating police brutality. And there's no longer a partisan divide over wanting, you know, every American child to get the best education possible. So to me, to call those, I don't, when I'm saying woke media,

I'm not talking about that stuff that I think we're really united over. What I'm talking about is what sociologists talk about when they talk about the Great Awakening, specifically something that happened in 2015, which is that white liberal opinion on issues of race became much more extreme than public opinion in minority communities that they're ostensibly advocating on behalf of. So that shift took place in 2015 is the first year that white liberals outpaced black and Latino Americans in terms of how extreme and radical their views on race is.

And that comes directly from the media. That comes directly from something that happened in. in the mainstream liberal press, starting in 2011, 2012, when the New York Times went all in on digital and erected its digital paywall, which is when you started to see the New York Times, Washington Post, NPR, the Atlantic, CNN, MSNBC, all the liberal outlets, just suddenly using woke terminology with just skyrocketing frequency. So you saw suddenly words like, you know, oppression, marginalization,

the word oppression next to the word people of color, white privilege, like ideas that are very academic and very foreign to communities of color, that are based in a, you know, a woke binary that describes all power to white people and powerlessness to people of color. So that's what I'm talking about when I say woke. I'm talking about this moral panic around race that's based on a very academic binary that's very alien to the communities that need our help the most and that I now believe there's little partisan divide over the need to assist these communities. Yeah, I absolutely think you make a great point there.

The Heritage Foundation, which is the Daily Signals parent organization, our legal center for years has been working on criminal justice reform. And as you say, you know, sensible reforms. It's not to defend the police or anything. But it's also, you know, does someone need to spend decades or most of their life in jail for something they did when they were younger that wasn't violent? And those are good questions to wrestle with, and we definitely cover them at the Daily Signal. So couldn't agree with you more there on I don't think there's a partisan divide on covering that stuff.

So there's a narrative out there that because Donald Trump was such a polarizing figure, which I don't think anyone disagrees with, that he really changed the media landscape. But your book, if I'm understanding it correctly, is making the case that actually a lot of these changes in media coverage and the obsessive focus on race. They actually began years before Trump was elected. So what is the correct way to understand Trump's impact on the media? It's such a great question. Yeah, I would even argue that the media is very responsible for the Trump phenomenon because the pressures that led to the appearance of polarization had begun long before that. Woke Media started around 2011, 2012, like I said, and then the Great Awakening in 2015. And I would say even for, Further back, the media, as journalists underwent this status revolution and abandoned the working class, they signaled to politicians that it was okay to abandon the economic concerns of the working class.

And that's really what led, I think, very directly to the Trump phenomenon because this was, you know, the number one predictor for whether a county would go for Trump was the number of deaths of despair in that. County, and those deaths of despair, you know, suicide, death by alcoholism, death by opioid overdose is primarily a phenomenon among working class Americans who no longer see a future for themselves in America. And so to me, those were the people that the media abandoned on both sides, and we can get into that in a moment. And so I completely agree with you that the causality is reversed. It's not that Trump led to the Great Awakening or that Trump polarized the media, but that a media that was polarized along class divides, along the great American class divide, is what essentially enabled Trump's rise. Now, of course, he took advantage of, you know,

the loathing for the media among his base, right? And the media took advantage of the loathing of Trump in their base, right? Highly educated, affluent, liberal elites. And so it was sort of a match made in hell, if you will, right? This kind of kabuki theater, as Matt Taibi so aptly called it, where both sides are making bank off of pretending to fight when actually they're both benefiting from this. And of course, you know, the 90% of Americans who are middle class and working class are the ones who ended up losing out on that. So another thing that you get into your book in bad news is so you chronicle how the legacy media is really focusing on these race issues. But in something that surprised me, you cited data that showed that blacks in the U.S. actually are largely ignoring the legacy media. media, especially at least the woke parts of it. So you cited a 2019 Pew Research Center poll that

found only 12% of Black Democrats read the New York Times. But over a third of Black Democrats, 36% check out Fox News. Now, I will say to our listeners, don't get too excited because 56% of Black Democrats are still watching CNN. So it's not like they're all glued to Fox. But I found this statistic really surprising. What's going on here? Why are they not interested in places like the times that are really looking at issues of race all the time? Because the real divide in America is about class. It's not about race. And the difference between CNN and Fox News,

and I say this is someone who part of my job as Newsweek's deputy opinion editors to watch Fox News and CNN all day long. Nice. The difference between them. Yeah, I know. Pray for me, right? Your brain is flipping a lot, yeah. Right. But I would say the difference between them is not race and it's not politics.

takes its class. You know, Fox News is picturing a working class viewer, a person without a college degree, and CNN and the New York Times are picturing, you know, a viewer, a reader who has a college degree and who is increasingly affluent, especially if it's the New York Times. I will say this, though, so while Fox News doesn't insult the working class in the same way that CNN does in the New York Times, it does not advocate for their economic agenda. And, you know, especially when you have a third of black Americans tuning in. And this is something maybe you can help me understand. What I don't understand is, is it's so clear that the liberal side of things, and I say this is a lefty, but it pains me to say this, that they've really abandoned the black community in the name of this,

you know, woke revolution that furthers the economic agenda of highly educated liberal elites, most of them white. Like they're, you know, things like defund the police. It's they, they've taken real black pain over real issues like police brutality, and they have taken that and appropriated it to further their economic goals. Fine. I mean, I'm sure you would agree with that, and that's sort of what my book chronicles. But what I don't understand is, why aren't Republicans and conservatives, like, it's such a slam dunk for them. You show up in a community of color and offer school choice and, you know, protect them from crime. You would clean up in there. And it seems to me like it's such a missed opportunity that I just don't understand.

You know, I'm often saying that, you know, the left thinks everyone on the right is racist and the right thinks everyone on the left has contempt for them. And one of those things is true, right? And it's not that everyone on the right is racist, right? It's that the left has inculcated a contempt for people who don't have that college education, you know, two-thirds of Americans. But at the same time, maybe you can help me understand, like, then why are Republicans not seizing this opportunity?

Why are our conservatives showing up? You know, Republicans are now, they like to talk a big game about class and about how they're the party of the working class. And that's true at the cultural level. But I don't understand why there isn't more appetite to really show up and show communities of color, show the black community, why they share their values and why they have something to offer. Yeah, that is.

I wish I had a good answer for you. I think there's been some progress. I know, I think the recent president of Heritage Foundation, who just stepped down, Casey James, she was actually in the second class in a Virginia high school that desegregated the school. She's African American herself. And during her four years at Heritage, you know, we talked a lot about this issue and discussed a lot of engagement with the black community. You know, and she talked about how a lot of their values aligned with construction. conservative values. They're just no one ever made the connection. So I think it's something, yeah,

I wish I knew the answer. I know we've, a daily signal, you know, we've done profiles on some of the minority school kids who've really benefited from school choice. And I think, you know, we continue to do coverage like that. But yeah, there's always room for more engagement. That is for sure, Drew. So speaking of which, this is an area that I, I am not as familiar with as I'd like to be, but you dug into black media in the United States, and you found that it was maybe not what a white liberal would expect. What did you learn about black media and what it's covering these days? Yeah, it's just not woke.

It's, you know, at the end of the day. And that's not to say that, you know, they're not advocating against mass incarceration or police brutality, but they are definitely not advocating for defunding the police. And it's so funny, I mean, any person who has any relationships in the black community you would know instantly that this, you know, defund the police was just a losing proposition. You didn't need Gallup to show up and tell you 81% of black Americans opposed defunding the police.

That what they want is, what they deserve is a non-abusive, you know, police force that shows up and protects their children, which is something that they do not have and that every good American should be advocating for. And if you look at the black press, of course, there's, you know, there are, you know, woke outlets. But if, you know, overall, you just don't,

don't see this kind of view that people of color are, you know, across the board, oppressed, that they are powerless, that they have no agency, that they have no decisions, and that their decisions don't matter. You know, the view that Black Lives Matter promulgated after Josie Smollett's trial, right, while waiting for the verdict where they said, we still stand with him because he's a black man and we're not going to stand with the police against him. You know, there's something about that that was dehumanizing because what it said was nothing he could do would would would merit their judgment right because of the color of his skin i mean that's the worst people to ever walk planet earth that's what they thought you know and i think that that view is extremely foreign

in the black community you won't see that in you know mainstream black publications where there's a lot of focus on black achievement on black businesses on black millionaires you know and on the ways in which culture so deeply woven into the fabric of American society and what makes us excellent, what makes us great. So you've mentioned a few times, you know, how it's actually profitable for these legacy media outlets to go woke. And in the introduction to bad news, you write, this perfect alignment of journalistic and corporate interests is one of the great ironies of the woke culture war. It makes individual journalists feel like heroes while making their bosses and shareholders and themselves even richer.

So could you unpack, how does this work now? I mean, I think, and you talked about how this, you know, back in the day, you wanted to get the most readers possible. So you went for the middle. But now it seems like being extreme actually helps you financially. Why is that? I'm going to answer with a very concrete example, because it really helps sort of, I think, lay the groundwork for what happened sort of overall.

Okay. So the New York Times, their data science team has a program called Project Feels. And Project Fields started in 2017 where the data science team sat down and they started to ask highly educated, affluent millennial readers to do them a favor after they had read an article and to rate how the article made them feel and how much it made them feel. You know, they gave them a choice of, I think it was 18 emotions to rate which emotion they were feeling and how much on a scale of, I don't remember what the numbers were. Oh, wow. Okay.

Yeah. Now, unsurprisingly, what they found was the more emotional the reader was, the longer they stayed on the page, right? Because in digital media, we know exactly, you know this. We know exactly how long a person has stayed on each page in addition to knowing where they live, how much money they make, you know, what their interests are, what words make them click, what words make them close the browser. So what they found was the more emotional the reader was, the more the longer they stayed on the page, and the more likely they were to click on an ad. Okay, they took this information, they created a machine learning algorithm that could then predict how an article was going to make their target audience, right, which are highly educated,

affluent liberals feel and how much it was going to make them feel. And they now offer that insight to advertisers who come to the near-turb. Times to advertise. So say you're Armani and you're coming to the New York Times and you want an ad in their Sunday style section, the data science team can say to you, you know, to the Armani representative, great. How would you like the reader to be feeling when they encounter your ad and how much, right? They've monetized our emotions. And the reason they did this is because, you know, that crucial metric of engagement is how we measure success as journalists. It's how you make your money as journalists. You sell data, you sell ads based on how long the reader's going to be there and how likely

they're going to be to click on that ad. And so, you know, unsurprisingly, the New York Times is now essentially sensationalism for the rich, right? Because that is what they are selling to their advertisers. Now, the data science team was very clear. They do not tell individual journalists, you know, hey, Armani wants an ad that, you know, will make readers enrage with a little soupsson of, you know, hope for the future, right? But here's the crucial point.

They don't have to because just like I said, you know, that countervailing force disappeared and everyone's pulling in the same direction. The same thing that makes the Armani ad want to be next to an article that makes the reader feel something very deeply, that same impulse is what's animating the journalist to want to write an article that's going to go to the top of the board, right? That's going to be the most clicked on article. That's going to be the most shared, the most retweeted. journalists also want their articles to get a lot of engagement. And so essentially what you have now is everyone pulling in the same direction. And that direction is a very, very emotional one.

Now, what are the two things that make white liberals feel their emotions the most deeply? Well, you know, the first is Donald Trump's name, which appeared 97,000 times in the New York Times in 2017, 97,000 times, right? And the second is white supremacy. And this explains the great awokening. You know, the New York Times figured this out. They figured out what words were making their readers the most engaged. And then they just hit them with that over and over and over again. And they are literally monetizing those emotions, monetizing our outrage and creating an extremely,

extremely woke media that does not reflect the views or the desires of the people that they are advocating on behalf of. Which, you know, this is so fascinating. and I'm sure you encounter this in your job as an opinion editor at Newsweek too, is I often struggle when we're coming up with headlines with our, you know, what's the responsible way to target emotion? Completely. Because it's like emotion matters, obviously. It matters for engagement. It's part of who we are as humans.

But I also know, you know, I have so many friends who aren't in news but are just so burnt out by how depressing the news is. And they just can't stay at this emotionally fraught. stressed out level all the time. And frankly, that's how I feel reading Twitter a lot. So it's such a, yeah, I wish I knew the magic answer for like the appropriate way to deal with emotion. But it's concerning to hear that the times like actually, I didn't realize they had, I don't, this isn't a real word, but mathematicized it so much. That's really interesting. Yeah. And it was all by design. So in 2014, they, they had a really bad year. And the incoming publisher, who's now the publisher, A.G. Salzberger, was tasked with writing an innovation report about how to take advantage of digital media, essentially. And so much of this was in there, you know, he wrote that the New York Times needed to take down the Chinese wall separating audience development and the business side of things from editorial. He wanted to see journalists responsible for growing the audience. He wanted to see, he called it a two-way street. He wanted to see content that was influenced directly by what readers.

wanted to read, and he wanted to see his own journalists become social media stars. You know, there's a really funny line in the report where, you know, he writes, you know, with horror about a journalist who didn't tweet their story out for two whole days after it had been published, right? You know, audacity. Exactly. Exactly. And essentially what ended up happening was, was he created these, you know, his own reporters and journalists who often have, you know, a quarter of a million, half a million Twitter followers, and who now dictate back to him personnel decisions, right? When they don't like somebody,

they can create a Twitter mob and get that person fired. And that's not hyperbole. That happened on multiple occasions, right? But again, this is all by design, you know, this is not some sort of accident. This was kind of, you know, baked into how the New York Times saw its next iteration. So it should surprise no one,

given all this that we're talking about, that 91% of the New York Times' readership is democratic. grads, 91%. I mean, that doesn't happen by accident. You know, it takes a lot of work to get there. Right. Okay, so you also noted bad news that journalists are getting younger, that while more experienced journalists can still get good pay, entry level pay, at least for college grads, isn't awesome in journalism. So that means that younger journalists tend to be people for more affluent backgrounds. That means you're probably talking about Ivy League grads, or at least people who went to. to relatively prestigious higher ed.

How do all these factors play into current media coverage? Well, first of all, I think that the woke revolution is very clearly, I mean, you can draw the line, right? It's basically academic malarkey, right? It comes right out of Ivy League, you know, critical race theory programs and, you know, English departments. And it's very clearly an academic framework that has been imported whole. sale into America's newsrooms because America's journalists come from those schools now.

You know, the New York Times and NPR and the Washington Post, they select their summer interns from, you know, the top 1% of universities. So, you know, essentially they kind of let all of this in the front door. And then it spread like wildfire. As one New York Times editor once said to me, you know, imagine if the younger generation showed up and not only did they have better digital skills than you, you know, making your skills basically obviating everything that you had learned, but they would call you a racist if you ever said anything they didn't like, you know, and you'll understand the fear that Gen X and boomers at the New York Times are feeling and why they don't stand up to the woke nonsense. So I think it really did come directly from academia, and that's really

why you're not seeing any, you know, concomitant relationship to economic policy. So, I mean, you're not going to agree with me on this, but I think that, um, you know, you're not going to agree with me on this, but I, I think that, you know, what Donald Trump brought to the table was an economic agenda that was very focused on the working class, very protectionist in nature. You know, he did a lot of things that Bernie Sanders had been advocating for in 2015, right? Getting rid of NAFTA, you know, trade war with China, tariffs, controlling the border, all of this stuff that had been abandoned by this kind of free trade handshake between Democrats. and Republicans for 30 years, which to me seems very much like it led to the abandonment of the working class. But, you know, it was very shocking to me to see Trump doing all this stuff and never hear the so-called socialist left say, oh, my God, this is, wow, this is our jam, right?

Like, this is, who could have hoped for such a thing, right? You know, so I, you know, I felt very much like I was the only person who was, like, out there even praising anything he was doing because, you know, Democrats had sworn that he was the enemy, and so they couldn't praise anything good that he done in the economic front, and Republicans are still so much enslaved to this. I'm sorry, forgive me, but this trickle-down, you know, nonsense that has really emissorated to my mind the working class and resulted in these deaths of despair. But that thing where it's like the hyper-focus on identity, on race and gender at the expense of any kind of economic agenda that would actually give dignity to the working class, that is very

much like an academic, you know, the kind of point of view that you develop. when you are very highly educated elite who never has to worry about where your paycheck is coming from. Right. And I think, you know, we see in the GOP today that Trump's economics, we've still got a lot of fights going on about them, which it's fascinating to watch. Well, that's so interesting because I think, and I'm curious what you think about this, to me it seems like the left and the liberals have this kind of wishful thinking about what the divide in the GOP is about, right? They think that the divide. in the GOP is between like the brawlers, right? And then the, you know, the more dignified, like, you know, anti-Trump side, you know, and sometimes that is, you know, sometimes it does seem to me like the GOP has learned the wrong lesson from Trump that, you know, the lesson they seem to have taken away is like, you know,

that brawling is good as opposed to the real lesson of Trump, which was, you know, that economic populism is good and that there's a hunger for economic populism among the conservative working class. I'm so curious what you think about that. Well, I would say that I think there's, I think, I love how you're turning the tables on me. I would say that I think one of the things that I think conservatives need to take from Trump's rise is they need to make a better case for things like trickle-down economics and how they actually help. And I think that's something that like we haven't made the case well for. I think you can say, you know, if you look at the rise of capitalism, you know, over the.

the past 200 to 50 years, you know, world poverty has been, it still exists, obviously, and there's still far too many people living without enough, but it's not what it used to be. And I think we need to make that clear, but I also think that conservatives and I think many are, but I think they need to continue wrestling with certain things about, like, you know, if you've had a broken down family and someone's, you know, we're talking multiple generations, And we know that family structure affects education. It affects material wealth. It affects opportunity.

What does that mean? And I think there's, I think Trump, oh my gosh, you started so many conversations, you know, and definitely on tone and whether to brawl or not to brawl. But I think also, yeah, ideology-wise, are we communicating well? And also, what do these ideas look like in 2020 as opposed to 1980? Right, right. Absolutely. Yeah. Well, actually, that segues nicely into the one more question I wanted to ask about some of these class issues. So how do you think the media could cover the working class better? And do you think the reason there's not interest is just there's not a financial incentive or do you think there's other factors at work?

I think polarization is an elite phenomenon that is making elites very rich. And so there's very little. incentive to cover any aspect of American life where we are not polarized, which is most aspects of American life. And so if you turn on your TV or you read the New York Times, you're always going to see the same four or five topics covered because they're always looking to amplify that polarization because they are getting rich off of it. Whereas as soon as you get out of New York City and Washington, D.C. and, you know, San Francisco, Americans are breaking bread with people they disagree with politically. They are, you know, joining picket lines with people they disagree with politically. You just don't see the same kind of, you know, polarization. And I think that

that that kind of taboo on covering economic issues of working-class Americans, I think, stems from the fact that it's in nobody's interest. So if you're sort of on the trickle-down side, you're not going to cover, you know, working class people, you know, banding together to try to, you know, get better wages because you think that that's supposed to happen naturally from the trickle down. And if you're on the liberal side, you're not going to cover it because, you know, most working class people are conservative, right? And you're not going to take up their cause because they voted for the wrong person. And so there's sort of no incentive. And of course, the same thing happens with politicians, right? You know, the people who ostensibly care about the working class,

who are supposed to care about the working class on the far left, they're very committed to of hating Trump and anyone who voted for him and calling them all racists. And so they're not going to take up their cause. You know, there's very much this feeling of like, well, screw them, right? I mean, why did the Democrats do a 180 on immigration in 20 years, right? I think so. And then on the right, of course, you know, there's very little incentive to sort of go into those communities and cover the fact that the corporations are bleeding these people dry.

I know you disagree with me about that. Well, actually, you know, thank you for giving the opportunity to say that on your podcast. No, it's funny because actually you got me thinking that, you know, the other point I would make that I think Trump helped make conservatives recognize more is I would say that a decline of religiosity and values has led to, and I'm not an expert in this area, but, and certainly there were obviously horrible corporate owners throughout history, including the U.S. But I do think that there's less of an understanding now when you hear about some of these things. You know, what do you owe to people on an ethical scale? And I think that ultimately capitalism, if there is not a bedrock of morality, is very different. And, you know, I think of that as like, I'm not a business owner or something. But, you know, if I was, I would be thinking, what is a just wage?

You know, what does that look like? And I think those are questions that too many capitalists are not asking right now. And I think that it's very, like I, to me, one of the things that the left is deeply uncomfortable is the concept of autonomy, which is, I think, very important to working class people, like the idea that they are in charge of their fate and that they, you know, have responsibility for their actions. But if you're not paying someone a living wage, they cannot be autonomous. They cannot have that autonomy. And I think on the left, they've just abandoned the.

the whole concept of autonomy. They want the government to be in charge of everything. They want, universal basic income or like nonsense like this where like you're essentially paying people off not to work who will then live at the beneficence of like, you know, generous liberal elites, right? Like working class people don't want that. But on the other side of things, it's like there, we, you know, there's no respect for the dignity of labor and the fact that I don't think, I think, you know, the last 30 years is proof that if you just let corporations off on their own, they're going to end up squeezing the people who have the least amount of power. And, you know, what I would like to see is populists on the left and the right,

joining hands together to ensure that sort of dignified labor and that that's something that we, you know, that autonomy is something that together we recognize as an inherently American principle and one that's not at odds with capitalism or with the things that make this, you know, the other things that make this such a great nation. Right. And I mean, another factor that I would say that contribute, well, what is a just weight or a, you know, a living wage, something that you can live off of? But a big part of the problem, I would say, and I come from the San Francisco Bay Area is rich liberals who are against policies that would make life better for low income folks. Like in the Bay Area part of California, you know, there's a ton of not in my backyard, preserved land, you can't tear down. So housing is insane. And that's the sort of. thing that directly hurts, you know, the workers because, of course, they can't afford a good place to rent or own.

Completely. And then, and then, you know, they'll, you know, they'll add on this whole environmental agenda that, that is, that punishes the working class, that punishes the middle class, right? They try to ban great jobs like fracking. And then they'll, they'll try to pass that off as like, you know, not just like ridiculous things, like tree equity, but they'll actually try to pass it off as some sort of justice when actually it's the middle class that's paying for this entire agenda and they're flying to their climate conferences in private jets, right? No, for sure, there's enough blame to go around.

But I feel a little bit like I can't, when I have an opportunity to talk to conservatives, I have to try to get them to see things the way I do. Just like when I talk to liberals, I tend to criticize liberals more. I love it. That's what media should be about. It should be about having these discussions. Like, how do we get anywhere if we just shoot arrows and aren't talking? Totally. All right. One less media question. Do you want to make any predictions about where media goes in the next few years? Are there any factors that you're watching closely? I don't want to make any predictions. It's a bit of a fool's game, I think, and I've been wrong about so many things. I mean, for God's sake, I was woke, okay? So I don't hold a lot of stock in

my predictive powers. I will say I am hoping to see an even, more vigorous consumer boycott of the news. I think we have replaced spirituality and community and religion and caring for our fellow Americans with information and knowledge and being up to date about national politics, which matter to absolutely nobody at all. And I would encourage people to consume much less news and to go out there and, you know, engage in communal activities, volunteer, go back to Shul, go back to church, you know, find your way back to a place where you're going to meet people you disagree with and become one of the people who's stitch, the fabric of American society back together because I just think that we're obsessed with knowledge

and information. We only, as a society, we only reward smart people and talented people. And I just, I think that that's kind of a sickness. So I would say, I expect the media to get even worse before it gets better, if it gets better at all, because there's so much financial incentive in what's going wrong. And I would urge people to find other ways to connect to their fellow Americans. All right. Again, that's Batya Ungar Sargan. She is the author of Bad News, how woke media is undermining democracy. Thank you so much for joining us today, and I'm glad we were able to dialogue. Oh, man, thank you so much for having me. This was such a pleasure. You were such a gracious host, and it was really, really an honor and a privilege for me. Thank you so much.

It was an honor and a privilege to speak to you, too. The Biden administration has been in power for almost a year. And the radical left has been imposing its dangerous ideology on America. Not only do they want to expand government control and promote cancel culture, but they also want to rewrite our nation's history. Indoctrinate American students in our public school system. Attack our traditional values of honor, liberty, and justice for all, and implement a Marxist agenda that unleashes socialism throughout our country.

Here at the Heritage Foundation, we need your help to finish the year strong and prepare for the battles that lie ahead in 2022. By making a tax-deductible year-end gift right now, you'll help advance your principles, free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense at a time when our nation needs these principles most. Visit heritage.org slash year end to make your tax deductible donation today. And that'll do it for today's episode. Thanks so much for listening to the Daily Signal podcast. You can find the Daily Signal podcast on Google Play, Apple Podcast, Spotify, and IHeartRadio. And as we are approaching the end of the year, if you can, and if you could take some time to do this,

please give us a five-star rating on Apple Podcasts and leave a review. It really does help us. I know it so little time. Just when you do it, it lets other people know that this is a podcast worth listening to. And we really want to have more people listening to our show and hearing the news in the new year. Again, thank you so much for listening during this Christmas season. And we will be back with you all tomorrow. The Daily Signal podcast is brought to you by more than half a million members of the Heritage Foundation. It is executive produced by Virginia Allen and Kate Trinko, sound design by Lauren

Evans, Mark Geinney, and John Pop. For more information, please visit DailySignal.com.