The Press Box - Covering a Campaign Rematch, Media Free Agency, and the Return of Jon Stewart With The New York Times’ Astead Herndon

Episode Date: February 15, 2024

Covering a TK Campaign, Media Free Agency, and the Return of Jon Stewart With the New York Times’ Astead Herndon On the Final Edition, Bryan is joined by Astead Herndon—reporter at The New York Times and host of ‘The Run-Up.’ They discuss how the election coverage will change since the Republican primary is ending so early (1:54). They also get into his conversation on ‘The Run-Up’ with an organizer of Free Palestine Charleston, who was a protester at President Biden’s campaign at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston (19:10). Later they react to Ryan Clark’s video on X in which he shared his media free agency status (37:56). Astead also discusses what he learned from The Boston Globe in the beginning of his career (44:52). They close out with a discussion of Jon Stewart’s return (51:45). Host: Bryan Curtis Guest: Astead Herndon Producer: Brian H. Waters Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hey there, humanoids. This is David Shoemaker. The pro wrestling world is currently on fire. And so we've got you covered five days a week on the ringer wrestling show. Every Monday and Thursday, hang out with me and Kaz on The Masked Man Show. And this is Peter Rosenberg, the host of Cheap Heat. Join me and my guys, Stack Guy Greg and Dipperstein on Tuesdays and Fridays. We talk wrestling, we have bagel breakdowns, mage interviews, and so much more. And Ben Cruz here. Come kick it with me, Cal and Brian on Wednesday. Worldwide, where we hit the most interesting headlines and even react to some of mass mans, cheap heats, or even your hottest tics.

Don't tap out. Tap in to the Ringer Wrestling Show feed. Now on Spotify or wherever you get your podcast. And stay mage, everyone. Worldwide. Hello, media consumers. Welcome to Pressbox. Brian Curtis of the Ringer here, along with producer Brian Waters.

Coming up on today's pod, the Republican primary is over or virtually over. So how does a political reporter cover the next nine months till Election Day? We'll talk about the hive mind takes about 2024, but how media people think about their own free agency, plus the crackup of regional newspapers and the return of John Stewart. All this with today's guest host. He is a Sted Herndon, New York Times political reporter, host of the excellent weekly podcast, The Runup, which has featured several episodes I've loved recently, one in which he convened a political focus group at his family's Thanksgiving table, another in which he interviewed two activists who

interrupted a Joe Biden event in South Carolina. I always enjoy how good and curious and different his podcast is from everything else out there. Instead, welcome back to the press box. Thank you so much for having me. I appreciate you highlighting our work and the work that you do too, so thank you. Let's start here since you'll be programming a podcast for the next nine months. How does the fact that this primary season is ending so early change the way you'll cover the election? Well, it does. I mean, in the most literal sense, I basically had a plan to, our show came back in November, kind of a year before election day. And I basically had a plan of episodes through Iowa and then thought that, okay, I don't want to overplan once people start

voting. And so I had a light, and the team had kind of a light structure to kind of get us through Super Tuesday. Obviously, that's already been blown up. because of the margins in Iowa, New Hampshire, because the way the field has collapsed, to your point, the general election is kind of already here. So I do think it changes some things. One, I think some of the change is good. It allows us to kind of see the broader landscape of 2024. So we're thinking about Super Tuesday in terms of down-ballot races, in terms of people not on the presidential ticket, in terms of stakes and issues and the ways that they think that people come to the process, it's a little easier to get out of a horse race. When the horse race is so, familiar and so decided super early. So one of the things I try to tell the folks that I work with at the run-up is like, let's use this moment creatively to actually try to do different things. But the logistical challenge that you're talking about is I think we're entering what I call silly season. Like every single poll will be over-analyzed. Every single reaction will be endlessly debated on Twitter. And we'll have no new information in terms of like hard

information for a long time. And so it becomes this like hyper-reactive media period. But I think it's really important to not get stuck in the conversation just between campaigns, pundits, and media, because I think it's actually a really critical period to make sure this is when most people are starting to tune in. So let's actually follow that rather than we have months and months to that kind of track where horse race is going. So one example I give about this is the Thanksgiving episode you mentioned. That was born out of a poll from the New York Times that show changes among black voters. Now, the anything that we did in that episode is not say, oh, does this mean Donald Trump is going to win?

But to actually explore the reasons of why that is happening among that group. So to use it as a whole follow-up. So that's what I think we can do a lot more of as a year is issues, people, new types of voices, and away from the horse race. And I think people will come to that. Nate Cohn, who writes about polling for the Times, was on your pod the other day. And he was talking about this. That when you look at those results, there's all kinds of fascinating people to go talk to. For instance, people that hate both candidates a lot.

Is that a roadmap for you? Let's go find those people and talk to them about what they're feeling about the campaign, how they might vote November? Totally. I mean, I think that, like, if you're not starting from the premise of that this is an election that feels really familiar to people and they don't like both. candidates, then to me you're not starting it objectively. Like, that's not to say that the candidates are the same or that they're equally bad, quote unquote, or that it's media's role to kind of call those balls and strikes. But the objective facts tell us that the majority of Americans, including the majority of people in both parties, look at the two candidates and they're not happy.

So that's where we started our show. I mean, even before the 2024 was envisioned and we were reporting kind of before the midterms, our show has been born out of the idea of broken systems. It's been born out of the idea of, like, people feeling like the process is not reflective of their concerns. And that's specifically because in my kind of travels for the 2020 election, that was overwhelmingly what I was hearing, right? And I actually think it's a thing that unites right, left, and center is a kind of class of people who are increasingly feeling like the political system is unresponsive. And so one of the things that I really like is that, like, since that is our starting point, it's very easy to think about, it's not easy, it's not the right way. Since that's our starting point, I think we're better suited to kind of reflect the temperature of this election, but it does require going different types of places.

So if you're a person who hates both candidates, I'm not going to find you at a campaign of it, you know? If you're a person who thinks, is debating whether to vote or not, I might not, I'm not going to find you at the traditional places we go to talk to those people. And so the challenge for us is finding those places to reflect those voices. Those voices, that we know are there. So that's why we're at a Jason Aldeen concert, right? That's why we talk to the Gaza protesters who interrupt Biden. That's why we're thinking about people who may be outside of the traditional lens of who you talk to ahead of a presidential race is because if I'm only going to do the campaigns for the next six, seven months, I think that misses a lot of people generally,

as we've seen in elections previously. But I think specifically this year, that misses a whole crop of people because the majority of people are looking at the parties and the candidates as part of the problem. Well, you tell the story about the Jason Aldean concert because you interviewed some people there and then you kind of let the tape run as you started to walk away and end the interview. People who haven't heard, will you tell them what happened?

Yeah, yeah. I mean, it was kind of the closing note to a very interesting day. So the premise was Jason Aldeen was closing out the Iowa State Fair's concert series. And so when we looked at kind of what to do for the Iowa State Fair, that's actually what jumped out to me

way more than any other candidate or following in the kind of traditional retail politics since. Because I had seen the controversy over the summer around his song, try that in a small town, which became this kind of rallying anthem among Republicans and was played at Republican rallies.

Donald Trump was kind of embracing it. It went to number one, all this stuff. And so all of these things are kind of happening. But like, you read them in stories, but you don't hear people in their own voices make that connection from culture to politics. And so the premise of why we went to the concert was to say, okay,

do the Aldeen, what do the Al Dean fans think this song is about? And do they see a connection between, you know, try that in a small town and the values of make America great again? And one, they do. I mean, that's one thing I like about people is they don't have the kind of same level of uncomfort that sometimes the political class does

in terms of expressing their own values. So, you know, you go talk to someone about Al Dean fans, and they might be uncomfortable saying, well, you know, like, I don't know if this is about Trump or race or whatever. We go talk to some of these folks directly. The majority of people we talk to is like, absolutely. And I like his message. What he's saying?

Like, that's the reason I am here. And so that's why we went. But the moment you're talking about is the moment that happens after the concert is over, where we talk to one final group basically about this kind of concept. And as they're really laying out that connection I'm talking about, they're laying out the importance of, you know, fighting back against people who they think don't reflect their values and the ways they think the country's changing and all this kind of grieving stuff, we get ready to go. We get ready to leave. And then there's a moment that

happens when they start asking me and the producer, Caitlin, who I work with, who is a white woman, importantly for the story, they start kind of asking about our relationship. Like, how do you two even know each other? Like, what, do you work well together? Do you whatever? And sometimes this stuff comes up. And a lot of times we cut it out because I think part of the role of being there is I'm happy to tell people what we do. I'm happy to tell, explain journalism. I'm happy to go through the process of whatever, whatever. But as you hear in the tape, this turns kind of personal.

He like, I say my name's instead. He kind of makes this joke about how I thought you were, you know, you're from Africa and how is this guy who's all blinged out, which for the record, I own zero bling. So that's like not true. But he's like, how is this guy who's all has his sneakers and shit on? And how is he working with this? girl. And so it becomes this kind of uncomfortable moment. And we went through about whether to play it or not.

And I thought it was actually important one, because we were dealing with a story that was about grievance, right? That was about race and those things. But I also think that people underrate the amount of like soft emotional work that goes into reporting. And I think particularly true for marginalized groups, right? If you're going to, if you're a woman on the trail, I mean, this is a thing I experienced going out with our producers. Like, some of these interactions are like labor intensive, you know? And if you're a black person out there, like, you're going to have to negotiate some interesting stuff in moments. And so I think audio allows you to play those moments naturally in the way that in a paper story, I would have to insert myself. And that was always really uncomfortable. And so I never knew how, and I didn't want to insert myself in a paper story.

But there's a much more natural way to do it on the show because it's just something that happens as we're there. and we don't have to actually frame it for you. You just get to hear it. Sometimes it's even the moments where you start an interview with a professional politician. And it's just the niceties going back and forth. And those always just feel fascinating to me because this is. Yeah. Right.

And again, it's something that wouldn't have made The New York Times, or at least the paper section of the time, but it's fascinating. Totally. I think the run-up is a really transparent, journalistic thing, right? And so whether you agree or disagree with, my lens as a reporter, whether you, like, whether, however you feel about, I think, me as a person, you hear me go through the process, right? And so I think that that transparency is something I really, I think it's really vulnerable. I mean, I actually kind of say, like, it's a thing I've

had to think about more than when I was writing, because you know that every word you have written has been poured over. Like, you know it's been edited. And I know that I can go back to someone for to clarify the quote, right? I can go back to someone to make sure that every piece of this, whatever. As you're doing these interviews, as you know, it's kind of live, you know, and I might not ask it in the way I wanted to ask it, but I kind of asked it the right way, right? Like, I am reacting in a moment or whatever,

but I think that the transparency to me matters more because in the same way that in the paper, you get your money quote, and there's a question of how that came to be. that's not true enough. By the time you get to that person making those statements about my shoes and the producer in that relationship,

I don't have to tell you what it was about. Like you are making that decision for yourself? And so there's a lot of ways that I think the paper process I mean, of course it like informed and taught and like taught me how to do the work. But it, the, the possibilities of audio and that transparency, I think allow people to come to you as a journalist in a full way.

So, and a lot of times in the listeners, they can disagree with where an interview goes even, but they can respect the arc, you know? And they hear you try to be respectful. They hear you try to think about both sides, but not in the both sidesy type of way. And so I like that proof point as like, you know, my response, if people say,

if people have like questions about what we're doing, like listen and decide for yourself because I trust that transparency is actually what people want from reporting. Speaking of putting interviews in context, we had a special counsel's report from Robert Hur the other day that included the now immortal words that Joe Biden has quote a well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory. You've had professional Democrats on the pod powering through questions about Biden 2024. What questions are you? interested in asking about the issue of his age. I mean, there's a couple things when I think about the special counsel report.

Like, there is both the facts of what he said, which are like, which, which I think are important because they, they mesh with what people anecdotally feel about Biden, right? Like, whether the special counsel report came out or not, it did not put age into the spotlight. It did not create age as an issue for voters. It was already there. It's the biggest thing people say. Every time I ask people, what do you think about Joe Biden? Democrat, like Democrat Republic.

The first thing people say is age. So, like, that was true before the special counsel. I think it adds an air of legitimacy to the age kind of argument because it was coming from someone inside his own DOJ. And then most importantly, I think, like, it creates a level of expectation that's really going to, what's really going to matter is how he, what he does. going forward. And so the questions I have are really not for Democrats. The questions I have are for Joe Biden, right? I want Joe Biden to do interviews, you know? I want Joe Biden to put himself out there,

to take more questions, to be more on the trail. And I think those to me are where the age question will live and die, is if the version of Biden that people see feels like someone who is people mind, old, or whatever, or just absent, or if it feels like someone who's the opposite of those things. And so I think one thing we have right now is you have Democrats willing, so willing, though, on record, off record, tell you what Joe Biden's like in private meetings. You know, I reported a Times piece about Vice President Kamala Harris. And so many people will talk about this is what their relationship is like in private or this is how Biden communicates there. Or that's their preferred way to say, oh, that's so ridiculous. He asked such intense questions.

And so, but we're not there. And I think they're really over-indexing people's own trust in them, particularly when they have a incentive to present him as such. People want to choose for themselves. And so if Joe Biden is who they say he is, that is something he has to prove. And I think for me, if I would think about this as a journalist covering the race, the clearest thing they can do is put him out there. and the clearest thing I want him to do is do an interview. And now, that's not just me saying Joe Biden should come on the runoff, which he should. But, like, that's anywhere.

I mean, he hasn't done an interview. The president hasn't done an interview with any major newspaper. Like, as a person covering the race, that wouldn't even have to be me. Like, go do it with one of our colleagues. Go do it somewhere else. But I think going and doing it is what I'm looking for. He passed up the Super Bowl interview. Exactly.

And like, if you're not doing the Super Bowl interview, you're deaf not coming on our show. You had a moment you tweeted this out and it was a voter, I believe, was sympathetic to Biden and it was to Democrat, who said, you know, I've been hearing about the Biden age thing. I thought it was a little bit overblown by the media. I don't have TV. I don't have a TV. Yeah. Then I saw a clip of Biden. And all of a sudden, I'm worried about it.

And that's the type of thing we hear. And those are from people who are sympathetic Democrats. So, like, you know, when the Democratic apparatus, specifically kind of like liberal Twitter and the kind of professional Democratic blacks, get so upset with people who are starting with age, who are kind of leading with his age, my answer is like, you're your base Democratic voter, the people who are definitely going to vote for him. They're leading with age, too. I mean, that's just to me, like the starting point of this election, right? Like, that is not a reason to say that he will lose. The important thing to say is like it is unfixable, but it is not inherently disqualifying. Like, I talked to a woman earlier today for our show who is one of our listeners who has a question about, who's, who has a question about doing like a Q&A episode.

Her question is literally what happens if they die. And like, you ask that lady, that lady has that question and says she doesn't want to vote for Joe Biden. But she's like, if my option is, I definitely will. That is such a belief that I think it's important for media to calibrate it, not only in the stakes and in the choice against Donald Trump, but in the fact that people can hold two thoughts at once. They can say somebody's old and still think that they're their better option. That's not that hard to square. What is also important is that there is a lot of people who that choice is still an active one, right? Like, they have not, they're not set in that decision. And so the people we're talking to are baseline Democrats. And they're saying they're having. to talk themselves into it. That's not who wins and loses presidential elections.

People who win and lose presidential elections are more marginal voters, are more people who have to be persuaded. And so that's why the age has such a prominence is because if your base and core is already having to talk themselves into it in this February, like, that's that's, where the floor of this is. Where we go next is, we don't know, right? Like, let's say he has some great summer. He's running around. He looks all great. And everyone feels fine. Everyone's fine. Everyone's fine with Grandpa Joe come the fall. I'm not saying that's out of the question, but like, they do have to do something. I'm asking about another episode of the run-up. This is from earlier this month. Biden had had a campaign event at the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston. Of course, there was a mass

shooting in 2015. Protesters demanding a ceasefire in Gaza interrupted his speech. I want to play a little bit of your exchange with Tamara, who was an organizer for free Palestine Charleston, and she was one of the protesters. There's a larger question about young people in this election and how they feel about Biden, specifically driven by the crisis in Gaza. So I guess I'm saying when you all take your protest actions, are you thinking about any of that electoral politics impact? Or is it just getting the substance of the message out there?

I think that, again, I just wanted to reiterate that there is an egocentrism was sort of kind of like centralizing the Democrat versus Republican race in our like any sort of political conversation or topic, again, this isn't a Republican versus a democratic issue, nor is it a tactic to be used as a sort of way to garner votes in the upcoming election. This is a humanitarian crisis and over 25,000 people now have died. So our stance needs to be taken exactly like that. It's not lightly and it's not supposed to be used as a tactic to be talk about the upcoming election. So that exchange goes on for a while with you asking about electoral concerns and Tamara,

mostly rebuffing you. What did you want to show with an interview? Yeah, I mean, we think about these episodes in terms of giving people an opportunity to express where they are. So like, I don't need Tamara to have the same lens on electoral politics that I do. But I do think it's important for someone whose protests are effective. the electoral space to say how they think about their own actions. So I was really, what I wanted people to take away, well, one, I was open to whatever

possibility of their own explanation they wanted to set. But what I took away from that is like, these people who are shouting down Biden are not doing so from a place of like trying to win over a public opinion on a specific slice of the issue. Right? Like, it's not like her goal in doing that was so that more people pressure Joe Biden to call for a ceasefire. Her goal is in a moral stance that like that is about the stance itself, right? And so I I respect that as a lens on power and accountability that is not electoral politics. But I want, but because so much of that is the frame of this year,

I wanted them to reject that, which they did over and over in a way they got super, they got super frustrated with me with asking the questions. But I actually thought it was okay for them to do that. So what we did us after is we follow up by talking to Mayor Abdullah Hamoud, who's the mayor of Dearborn, who's a Democrat who also is really upset with Biden, kind of shares a similar stance on the issue with them, but it's much more willing to say clearly. He's like, yes, people aren't going to vote for them. And no, I don't care if that impacts whether they win or not.

That's the question. They have to answer. So I think that, like, the combination of them, too, is important. And so that's how I think about constructing those episodes. It's not that I need the protesters. They're not representative of everyone who holds a ceasefire stance, right? They aren't representative of most young people, too. But what they are representative of the people who are driving some of this conversation right now. And I wanted to make clear that their lens and view on power is distinct.

from the people who are taking that message up and pressuring the administration on it, kind of more from a traditional electoral insidery perspective. And I guess I wanted the clear answer to like the question that was in the air electorally, which was like, will these people care if their actions make Joe Biden lose? Which I know is a callous question because like people are actually in harm's way, have died and like the conflict is not directly about Biden, you know. of I understand that. I understand even frustration with that.

But from our work and from our lens, I wanted to know because they're in that space, because they're refusing to meet with them, they're creating bad headlines, they're interrupting them, whatever, whatever. Like, are you thinking about the potential impact of those actions? And I'm open to that answer being no.

And when it was, I still think that's important for people. And asking the question five times and having the premise of your question rejected five times is something you could not convey in a print story in the New York Times. 100%. It's the same type of thing that you have to hear people's moral clarity and you have to hear us kind of wrestle. And so I think that you can do that in the show where it's like, this happens on other episodes too. I'm thinking about abortion. I'm thinking about, you know, us talking to Mike Lindell and Ron and McDaniel. I think there have been moments which, which, you know, putting a question in front of someone that they don't want to hear is inherently uncomfortable. But I don't think it has to be. Like, I'm like, I'm asking for my reasons. You can tell me my reasons are stupid.

And that's fine. You know, like, and so it's also the importance of who you select to, because even their rejection, I think, speaks something to our mission, you know. And so we try to be really clear-eyed about the type of people we're choosing. And so if they reject our premise or, if they accept it or reject it, we're still getting valued. I saw you tweeting the other day about

trying to avoid hive mind takes or overcooked takes about 2024. What are the hive mind takes about this campaign that you already see percoling? Oh, it depends on right and left. Like,

one, I think that like, in general, the up and downness, responsiveness to polling is like a cycle that like super annoys me, you know? And it's not because I don't like polling. I think polling's really important. I think the aggregate of polling is important.

I think it points you in certain directions. I think they're like always, it can be a starting point for you to answer, a follow-up question. But the idea that every new thing is a thing we have to act like we knew nothing before it is wild to me. And I think that media, but the first thing I would say is like acting as if this election will not be close is to me just crazy. Like, we can just communicate to people that the nature of polarization and the evidence we have from these candidates are such that they should be preparing for a close and

contentious election. Like, I think that's a role we can play. It actually is really helpful for people to understand the nature of the country and our political system. Like, it requires you not, like, not acting like as if every Quinnipiac that's says 7% lead has to be juxtaposed with some place that says 5% Biden. I'm like, we know what this adds up to. It adds up to closeness. And that's actually okay to communicate to people, that we don't know the result, but we know it. Anyway, I think that overall, like, there is way

too much Twitter belief in people as ideological actors. Right. So, like, what, way too many people talk about voters as if they are operating from a policy or ideological lids or that like any piece of information breaks through to them about the election. Like one piece of information like a month breaks through to them about the election. So most people, right? So like, that is how you should think about the majority of voters in this country, which is, I want to say, is not an insult. I do not say that as a bad thing. I say that as like, people have lives and people have like, and politics holds up one piece of that. And so,

and not a day-to-day piece of that for the majority of people. And so the thing that I get really frustrated by is, you know, there'll be, you know, Twitter will be waiting for polls to justify the latest jobs report that will then mean that the policy accomplishments are cutting through. And it's just a series of thoughts that are totally disconnected from people. And so that's another annoying one. I think Republicans have really overdone the indictments helping Trump. I think that was only really true in the primary. I think now that we're in the general election, like, we got to flip the lens.

Like, it is, you know, it's toxic for him in independence. It's toxic for him in swing voters. Like, it's not actually good stuff. And I think the overcook one I would say about Biden was just there was a complete underestimation of their own problems. Until now, I would say. I think they've gotten around to it. But, like, last year, when we were asking them questions about Biden's age, and we were laughed

out of the room, I mean, like, when we were saying, hey, poll after poll says, Americans think he's an okay president, but nobody wants them again. It was like, oh, our policy accomplishments are going to cut through before the end of the year, and those numbers will change. Now they're telling us the numbers don't matter, right? But that's not where they were. They were telling us they would change first. And so, like, basically, I don't think that that's, like, damning from them.

I basically think they're now welcome to reality. And, like, it is not just that individual people didn't think Donald Trump would be back. People didn't think Joe Biden would be back either. And the concern for voters and the realization from voters who are tuning in right now is about both of them, not just Trump. I've got two questions about political reporters for you. Yeah, sure. We had a few pieces early on in the primaries that said it wasn't just voters who had very negative views of the two candidates, but political reporters themselves were bummed out to be covering a Trump-Biden rematch. You actually believe that?

Bummed out? Like, I think bummed out in the same way the country's bummed out because they're familiar, right? I don't say, I don't think bummed out because they don't like these two people in the, or I don't know, whatever. Like, I would say it's much less an individual feeling among political reporters about the candidates and the feeling of familiar more so than the feeling of familiarity that I think the country shares. We've seen this before. Yeah. In the same kind of rematch, remake, remake of a sequel, no one asks really. Or, but what I would say is the, what I say more than anything, it's like, it's.

a challenging reporting environment. Like, I think I would say is how do you take that familiar feeling? And one, make clear to people there are new stakes and make clear to people that this still matters, you know? And so I think in 2020, there was such, I think one thing political reporting is dealing with, I would say, is there was such intense interest. in everything, in every kind of political action from 2016 and 2020. And I think through the presidential race, I mean, every story was hyper engaged with.

Every cable network was having 50 reporters on panels. And you were just so in the center of the action. And I definitely think political reporting is dealing with a country and a race that feels less interesting. And I think a Biden administration that's less leaky and more kind of like, you know, blaming press just as much, you know, or, and I think like it has created an environment that I think is more difficult than the last presidential election. I think those are all distinct from being like, oh my God, it's Biden Trump again. I don't want to talk to them. You know?

Yeah. You can, I think, overread stuff that political reporter. who are in a Fairfield in in Des Moines say in that, you know, Gimlet-Eidway, we all try to be reporters. I just heard sports writers doing this in Vegas last week and then Las Vegas covering the Super Bowl. 100%.

I like, there was one time, I was with this reporter who was like complaining about getting on the bus to cover this candidate. This is like a couple months ago. They're like, they got no shots. And I was like, isn't that our job? Like, I don't know. Like, I have a little bit of like,

if you didn't, like, it's challenging. It's more challenging or whatever. And I definitely think like journalists were the heroes of the story for like four years, you know, and I definitely don't think it's that way. Like, if I, I mean, whenever we do something about Democrats, like, I get yelled at on Twitter, right? Calling Biden old is like not a thing you could do on Twitter, you know? So I'm saying, like, if you were used to getting all these retweets and you're used to people liking you and you really liked the idea that you were like holding the breach for democracy, like, then, yeah, I do think you probably are going through it right now. But like, I wasn't trusting them when they were, when they, to me, like, reporting is never,

you're never going to have friends for too long if you're good. Like, I don't know. Like, none of the journalists I like dealt that much with being liked. So, like, you know, I try to worry about being good. I try to worry about being fair. I try to be worrying accurate, all those things. But, like, I'm not shedding too many tears if, like, the nature of what is, I think, a different position that we are in causes us some challenges. I think we've got to rise to it. That actually feeds right into my second question, which is the reporters covering Trump's presidency became very, very famous. Orders of magnitude more famous than they would have been if they'd been covering Hillary Clinton's administration with exactly the same skill.

Definitely. do you think reporters attaining that level of fame has changed anything about political coverage in this country? Like, the important thing, let me, like, I say this with love for White House reporters. But the important thing to know about White House reporters is they were always famous in their own heads, right? Like, you know, so, like, they might be, you know, the book contract might be a less now, or, you know, I definitely think that, like, Trump added some different type of things here. but if you're a type of reporter who's in that briefing room, like, you already think you're famous. I mean, I'm with you that I think that, like, I definitely think that Donald Trump created an insane. First off, let me be honest.

My journalism career has been completely transformed by Donald Trump. The day before 2016 election, I was a city council reporter at the Boston Globe covering the imminent race between Marty Wash and Michelle. Woo, and the day after I was sent to Washington to be a D.C. reporter on this new president because nobody, because no one had planned for this crazy transition and the globe needed like the young

single person who could get on the Greyhound the next day to go, right? So I'm saying like I don't want to act like it's them and not me too. I think there was a different, I think there was a an intense level of interest that completely changed the role and job. But I don't want to act like, I think,

that changing has like zapped people's willingness to do the work. What I will say is more than just famous, the Trump presidency was really leaky and really narrativey rich, right, on its face. Like, you didn't need to go scoop behind the scenes. The man in front of the camera said the craziest thing you've ever heard, right? So like, there

was things to do that were just there and a lot of topics that were just there. But I do think is even more than fame or money. Like finding interesting stories from a White House that is not handing them to you, nor it is frontally there, has changed a landscape. Right. Like, I think, like, how many, the rate of like scoop craziness is really, decreased, right? Like, the level of new book has really decreased. And I would say even from a campaign perspective, like the rallies were new and crazy last time. So how do you cover something if just going to a rally isn't new and crazy? So I do think that onus has been thrust on us. But like, you know, in my opinion

like good journalism like will cut through that and like if you were reliant on the administration telling you what the story is like

your time was going to come up at some point anyway you know you're right about the rally story that we did have the return to the Trump rally story a couple weeks ago everybody's like I went back and you'll also never believe what's happening. It's funny because like we were doing it in

23 when like no, everyone was not doing it. And then I was talking to a reporter who last week was like, oh my God, they're crazy. And I'm like, yep, they're still crazy. A couple more topics before we go. Ryan Clark, ESPN NFL analyst.

Really good one. He was on the set when Damar Hamlin's heart stopped in an NFL game last year and did a fantastic job. He put up a video the other day because he is now a free agent. at ESPN. It's in a video about how Hardy's worked, where the position he's put himself in and what he wants from his next contract. Let's play a quick clip from it.

It wasn't what I wanted. You know, like, I realized it was like I had to do more. And like, honestly, I felt played. And you know, the worst thing for anybody that's from the world is to feel played. But I felt like I deserved something that they didn't feel like. like I deserve. And so I set out that day and I said that day, that in three years, I'll be the best in the world doing this. That there'll be no stone left unturned. I leave no doubt that there was nobody in the world

that was like me. So I started my own stuff, bro. I started the pivot. I did the work. I got on the road. I went to every show they put me on and made sure I crushed it. now here we are again. The season's over. Inside the NFL, it's finished, and somebody got to pay to Piper, and it's either, you know, we get what we want, or we make a decision to stand on

what we're worth. It's not that I think that I should be paid more than anybody that does the job. I just want, you know, I just want what I'm worth. And if they think, too, that I'm the best doing it, then that's what I happen. Wow, I watched a couple of minutes of that. I did not sit, I did not watch the whole thing. That's interesting. It is fascinating, guys. And I have a theory about this.

Yeah, I would love to lay on you. It may not appeal, apply to Ryan Clark so much because he is a genuinely famous athlete and commentator. But I think those of us in the media who have consumed Woge bombs and Adam Schaefter bombs for years who've watched that become the basic unit of basketball and football journalism have begun to think of our own careers in the same terms. We have come to think of our career changes, our professional development as events or things we should turn into events. Have you noticed that too? Some personal news tweets, you know, like when people like do their own little Schefterbom on themselves. I definitely can see that being true. I mean, I think that like as a sports media,

a consumer, there has been a drastic change in the landscape of people's, like media, sports media is definitely part of a story, but I also think that's partly because sports media has become less journalistic. There was in a distance

that the Michael Smiths and Jamel Hills and even the like early versions of Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayliss had from the athletes and institutions themselves because they were newspaper people. Like they were people who were making an argument, but they weren't part of the game. Like, and one, from my, I mean, you wouldn't know but this better, but one, they seems to have completely like, flip the script in terms

of having more athletes on rather than those types of voices, period, right? There's some left. I'm thinking of the Mina Kimes and, like, others, but like, the Ramona Shelburne, like, whatever. But I'm saying, like, they're still mostly, they've introduced former athlete a lot more. And, like, I just don't even think fans. Like, like the fan media of my growing up was Bill Simmons and Grantland, which was still journalistic, it mostly. Like, they had their rooting interest and those were really obvious, but they were not, again, they weren't won with the game. And I think about the player pods in the NBA. I think about Travis Kelsey and Jason Kelsey. And these things. I just think like, or even Pat McAfee in the way that he would like, I wouldn't

say that's journalistic at all, right? That's just, that's like good vibes, but no, you know, journalism would bring down the mood on the Pat McAfee show. You know what I'm saying? Like, I don't even think, to me, that's the interesting part is like, I don't even know if fans want, like, that voice anymore. And that's been a shift. And so like, you know, you not only have more like Ryan Clarks and former athletes or whatever. But you have like the ways that sports gambling has blended all these lines. It just feels like a big blended line to me in a way that it didn't always feel. Like I actually saw what sports journalists did as an entry point that eventually got me into political journalism. But like it felt like cousins, you know, you could see like the people

on ESPN who were doing work that you would do if you were in sports. And I just think that like that doesn't exist for them anymore. I'm curious what you think about, though. No, it's absolutely right. And it's fascinating how it's blended. You know, when you talk about Bill, like the old days of like,

wait, if I'm actually a fan of the Patriots and Celtics, why do I need to pretend? Why do I need to put on this old media type thing? Makes complete sense. But then, as you say, it blends further and further and further.

It's like, oh, now we have Draymond Green, has a podcast and is kind of a media member while he is a player. Definitely. We've traveled a long way down this road. And fans seem to like, I mean, I know that like when we were starting the run-up,

like the challenging part of the podcast environment right now is if you're not a celebrity, if you're not an athlete. And people want, they want Julie Lue Dreyfus talking to her friends. They want Cameron and Mace talking music. Like they have people that, you know, it's become, there was something democratizing about podcast, but there's also something about like a very certain type of person now who's kind of leading that industry. And I think sports has really been the, has been a big driver of that.

And the way that as a fan, I'm curious about. Because it's like, it's not like I hate it, right? Like, it's not like there's anything I think that's wrong with Draymond Green having a podcast. I just wish it wasn't, it didn't feel like it took up the entirety of the space. I wish that our side of the industry wasn't collapsing. At the same time, their side was emerging, you know? Absolutely. Absolutely, that there was room for both of them at the same time.

Yeah, you get the seeking suspicion that there actually might not be. Yeah, exactly. My favorite thing that journalists do when they're creating their own woge bombs is you have an announcement. Okay, I'm leaving the Boston Globe after five years. I'll have something to announce soon. Okay. Thanks. My least favorite journalism, like, you're not woe.

Like, news upcoming or stay tuned for news. Stand by for news. I'm like, you better have the scoop of the century if you, if you mess, if you like it's standby for you. And it never lives up to that like standard. I'm like, if Woj tweeted standby for news, I know Kevin Durant's movement. You know, like, I know there is something that is actually, I am locked into my phone. Right.

Like, but he doesn't tweet standby for news because we all have them on alerts anyway. So like, you know. Two quick ones for you. Speaking of the Boston Globe, you used to work. When we're talking in the midst of this media apocalypse, which is affecting regional newspapers as much as anything, what did you learn at a newspaper like the Globe that would have been harder for you to learn elsewhere? Oh, my God.

I really appreciate this question. The Globe taught me how to be a journalist, period. Like, I was, I came there immediately after college. I was a summer intern, and then they kept me on. And I stayed for a year and a half more in Boston. and I did the very classic first newspaper job. I cover crime, fires, overdoses, murders, like your city council meetings,

your very standard general assignment metro reporter job that's existed for like decades and maybe centuries in a place like the flow. But a job that's increasingly not the path of young people. And I remember when I got out of school, I had all of these friends. I was really jealous of, and to be honest at the time, who were writing these think pieces and their identity was in their work and they were able to write with different voice.

And I was like knocking on five houses. And I was like, you know, having to follow up with the mother of the victim and d'all-la. And it felt like, you know, my story was on like B5, you know, like much less like, you know, the front page of bus feed, whatever, whatever, whatever folks were in. And like, I remember, actually, this was a roundabout way of me answer your question. I remember one time talking to someone who was like a big leader in journalism and saying that I want to get a new job. I like want to be like more like my kind of friends who can write with voice and can whatever, whatever. And I remember this person telling me in one of those like older people like, I got a lesson for you.

He's like, you were. at the Boston Globe. Like, you have a good job. Like, and if you commit yourself to this job, you will be a good journalist. And like, I remember it being a moment that actually had me remember that I was actually skill building in this way that I really look back and I'm thankful for. Like, the globe was big enough to be ambitious and also small enough as a regional paper where they needed you, you know?

And you were part of you, you had both the latitude to try different stuff. So first time I ever tried to do an enterprise thing or an investigative piece or, you know, I remember working with a person on Spotlight for a story and literally asking her, like, if you work on something for months, like, how do you do that? And I would go to journalists at the globe who were write stories that I knew I couldn't and just ask them about their process. Like, how do you organize quotes? When did you, why did you go to this person?

Why did you start with this person? And so, like, there was not only, it's not only just possible because that expertise was in the room, but like, there were structures of editing that had been in place for a long time that really, really benefited me. And the last thing I would say is the globe used to have this thing in the internship process. I hope they still have it. I'm not sure. Where you would send your first copy of a story to this, like, longtime reporter's name is Charlie Ball. and he would read it. And then after the story went through all your real edits during the day,

the week after he would come with you and we would go through the story that appeared in the paper versus the first version you just wrote. And it was something that was huge for me in terms of walking through those changes and actually understanding how journalism work. So that's a long way of me saying. I don't think places have that type of process, right? I don't think the new kind of digital age places have that muscle memory. And places like the New York Times are not made for young people.

Maybe they would be mad at me for saying that. But they're not, really. You know, like, I mean, they're doing a good job of like, you know, supporting the people who are here, whatever, whatever. But if you're a journalist at the New York Times, they kind of think you know how to do journalism, right? Like, where you should, you know? And so I needed a place that could train me,

that could help me grow and that could, that also allowed me to be reduced. I had so many passions about what I thought journalism should look like. And some of them looking back were ridiculous. And the one thing I truly appreciate about the globe, they never told me how ridiculous I was. Looking back now, I'm like, oh, I was insane. But, like, at the time, all those crazy leads I was trying, they would just be like, let's talk through it. You know, they would like, all those crazy story ideas I was doing, they're like, let's sit down, whatever, whatever.

And so all of those kind of passions about like maybe journalism can be more voice. Maybe we can do political stuff in different ways. Like they really affirmed that. And so I think that if there is a media lesson I have, and as I tell people, like, I think it's much more important to go to a place that gives you that practice and gives you that ability to try, especially as a person coming out of college rather than it is to do like the first job. Like I don't think I do the run up.

I don't think I am a political reporter in the way I want to be if my first job is at Politica, no disrespect. But like, I didn't have politics prank, you know? Like, my journalism learning did not come through politics. And so even now, it's about applying the same lens I did in those crime stories to report, to political reporting. But it's not as if, like, people are like, oh, politics reporting needs to be. confused with a sense of people. I'm like, how did you learn journalism without a sense of people? Right? And that to me is a real newspaper equality. Let's talk through it is such a great bit of editor speak. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I just learned that let's talk through it actually

means this idea is crazy. But at the time, I didn't know. Last topic before you go, John Stewart is back. We have no shortage of early aughts nostalgia in our lives. But there was something about watching his show for Monday and he'd play a clip from Trump or Biden and it would come back to Stewart and he'd be doing that deadpan. Yeah. Like, hmm? How do you think that brand of political comedy plays in 2020? I think it's interesting.

You know, I am someone who really, you know, a college during like Stuart Colbert time was like a formative, as you say, like memory. I mean, I think that now the reaction to him was interesting. Like, he, in my opinion, played it like pretty safe and good, right? He acknowledged the differences of both candidates at the same time talking about the thing that most people are talking about, which is that they're both old and like how this system has produced these things. There's a voter we talked to it for our first episode who said something I always think about, which is that he was like, if it becomes, he's like, if this election ends with us having to choose between Biden and Trump, then that should not be, that's not a reflection of the people in this country, but of the parties

that put them there. I think about that all the time. Like, and I think that that is a feeling that people have and I think it's a feeling that Stuart named really well. And, um, the reaction, right, is like, is, is, is, is, I think, I'm thinking specifically of like the freak out of Democrat by acting like he's doing both sidesism and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I just think that like the space to be nuanced is harder. And so I'm curious on how someone like him navigates that. I'm also curious if there's any reflection he has from that Obama theory. Because one of the things that really sticks out to me, as one of a person who was like in Wisconsin during peak kind of like Obama liberal mocking of the time.

I don't say Obama was doing it, but I think there was an ecosystem that was kind of like liberal mocking. It was clear as a youth that these people were missing the point. Like, it was at the same time when Scott Walker was taking over Wisconsin by force, you know, as the Tea Party was handing out loss after loss. And I was turning on Comedy Central and it was all a joke, right? And so I personally think that there is a language of kind of debate class that has been like normalized in a lot of liberal circles that if we're just right, if we just right, if we just prove that we're right and they're wrong. If we just prove that we're smart and they're dumb, that means we win. And I do think that's a language that Stewart specifically helped popular rights. And I wonder, not only does how does nuance play now, but I wonder, do we get the same version

of it now? How does he deal with Republicans now? And that's part of the reason I will be tuned in is because I think, in the same way, I think a lot of people look back at the kind of pre-2016 confidence and are regretful, particularly on the Democratic side. I wonder if he experiences or has updated the language in which he uses to talk about these people. Because listen, listen, like, there's very little difference between what we do and what Jordan Klepper does, right? Or like what we do and what, you know, somewhat of a John Oliver does. I would say Clepper is a more a better example. We just don't mock people. We just let them talk.

We just actually earnestly care how they think they're going to vote, right? And so I think that people have space to do a lot of things. And I think that, like, we're not doing the same thing. But what I do think is that that brand of comedic haughtiness only hits if you're winning, in my opinion. That's interesting. I don't think smugness works if you lose. I think it's actually really embarrassing. And so I look back at the pre-2016 smugness,

and I think aren't y'all embarrassed. But I don't know. I don't know. I don't know if they are. I was thinking about this when I was watching that first episode, in terms of the cadence of John Stewart, the mock outrage. Like every podcaster in America is doing an impression of John Stewart.

They may not know. it they may have been laundered through three other podcasters and they think they're doing an impression of somebody else, but they are doing an impression of that way of talk. Yeah. It's it's it's it's a language and a communication style that, uh, not only that that he's rubber stamped. And I think that it's interesting. Like to, I would say personally, I loved, I was always like a Colbert guy more than a Stewart guy. And partly I think that's like timing and just like age. But I also think I like the character because it wasn't character to me somehow made the comedy complete. Like, I mean, this is obvious from the work that I do.

But I like don't, I think no form of smug, like, to me, the mocking, even people who are incorrect only has a yea amount of value, right? Because it's not like I think that the other side is always working from the side of right. And so that's a journalist brain, right? And it's partly the reason I didn't end up working in politics. Like, I didn't want to tell people, this side's good, you know. But at the same time, I'm going to be curious as to like which version or what John Stewart 2.0 looks like because I do think beyond even needling liberals, okay, like,

how are you going to deal with the reality of Republicans? And does it come from that same tone? for sure. He was not there in 2016 when all this happened. Absolutely. It earns. All right. Instead, Herndon, if you're not listening to his podcast and run up, you are doing the election wrong. New episodes every Thursday all year long. Am I getting that right?

Yes, Thursday all year long. Instead, thank you for coming on the press box. Thank you for having me. I really appreciate it. All right, that is the press box. I'm Brian Curtis. Production Magic. As always, by Brian Waters. All right. So next week, you know, we have a week off, a wellness week.

if you will at the Ringer, no podcast, but we are back the following week. And on February 29th, we're going to have Sean Fennessey on this podcast. I cannot wait to talk to him about all the news of the week. I think I'm going to draw him out about his experiences at Pitchfork, something we haven't talked about too much in the press box. And we're also going to revisit the great campaign documentary, The War Room, from 1993. So if you haven't gotten any chance to see that yet, check it out.

We'll talk about that on February 29th. Monday, February, what is that, 28, 27, 26, 25. I think I got my dates right. David Shoemaker and I return. More week-borne takes. A fantastic week.