The Press Box - Jen Psaki on the Democrats and the Future of MSNBC. Plus, Paul Finebaum vs. ESPN and the End of LeBron’s Media Headlock

Episode Date: October 9, 2025

Hello, media consumers! Bryan and Joel cover LeBron’s “big” news, Paul Finebaum a week after his OutKick interview, yet another Bill Belichick story out of UNC, and a bizarre Katie Porter interview (0:45). Then Joel and Bryan talk with MSNBC's Jen Psaki about the Democratic Party, how politicians can effectively communicate their message, modernizing White House press briefings, the future of cable news, and more (44:18). Finally they close the show with some J-School (1:15:16).Hosts: Bryan Curtis and Joel AndersonGuest: Jen PsakiProducers: Kyle Crichton and Brian Waters Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This is Bill Simmons, and I want to tell you about my movie podcast, The Rewatchables. We're each week, I'm joined by Ringer movie lovers, Chris Ryan, Sean Van Van Lathen, Kyle Brandt, Malley Rubin. We have a whole bunch of people on. We talk about movies. We can't stop rewatching. And now you can watch us cover these movies on video in the Spotify app. We have covered over 350 movies, including Heat, Goodfellas, Boogie Nights, Pulp Fiction.

We have some real heavy hitters coming up here in 2025. Make sure to follow us on Spotify, where you can, watch every new episode right now. Just head to the rewatchables on Spotify, now on video. Hello, media consumers. Welcome to PressBox Thursday. It's Brian Curtis. It's Joe Anderson. It's producer Kyle Crichton. Coming up, did Paul Feinbaum get benched by ESPN as he looks at a run for U.S. Senate? There's another Bill Belichick news cycle, and it's not about losing to Clemson. plus Katie Porter and how not to do an interview. And in the latest edition of our 25 for 25 series,

MSNBC's Jen Saki joins us to talk about everything from the Democrats, pause for laughter, to the future of cable news. But Joel, let us start with the true news of the day, the news of greatest import. LeBron James. The decision, part two. A second decision, he called it. He teased it in a tweet on Monday.

He was sitting down just like he did with Jim Gray oh so many years ago. On Tuesday, we learned what his decision was really about. LeBron, fans want to know where you're taking your talents this year. What's your decision? In this fall, man, this is tough. In this fall, I'm going to be taking my talents to Hennessy VSOP. Um, I don't like, like,

that you made me watch that because I was actively trying to avoid it. It really, it made me cringe even before I knew what the content was. I've made you watch three hour long right wing podcast and you never complained, but you complained about a minute long LeBron ad on Twitter. I don't want to, I don't want to. I mean, so you, we knew what that was before, maybe we didn't know it was going to be Hennessy, you know, but we knew that it was going to be something, he was going to be selling us something, right? He was not going to be retiring from the NBA. Right. In October. Two weeks before the season started. Not at all. No. That's not. And I mean, again, we know enough about his history and what has happened in his career to know that

he wasn't going down that particular road again anyway. Didn't the silliness of it remind you of the fact that LeBron James, for the first time in his career, has lost a hold of the news cycle? Yeah, it really, he's really been sort of absent this summer, right? Like, I mean, I guess could it have been that the Olympics was sort of the last hurrah? And, and ever since then, it's just like, okay, like, you know, you can keep doing, putting up decent numbers. But I kind of feel like everybody is waiting for the next thing, which is retirement, right? Yeah, I mean, you could also call the Luca trade the last hurrah. Because at that moment, the Lakers were like, actually, we're building around this.

guy. So if there's any leaks, if there's any murmurs from LeBron's camp, NBA media and the rest of us that, you know, have NBA media members in our friend's circle, we're not going to be rushing to leap on this anymore. No, that's right. Do you think that Woj, gracefully bowing out of the game, had anything to do with this as well? Because I do feel like now that Shams owned most of the breaking NBA news that there's just been a lot less heat and attention to this stuff. Like Kevin Durant went to the Rockets. And I mean, again, Kevin Durant is at the end of his career. He's not the player that he was.

But he's still a really good basketball player. And that's still a pretty big deal. A lot of people seem to think that makes the Rockets are one of the favorites in the league this year. And still was just kind of like, okay, cool. I think the Woj versus Shams rivalry made a lot of mildly interesting NBA transactions way more interesting. Right.

Because even if you didn't care about the transaction, you had that as the B story. And now you just have Shams breaking everything. And you actually look at the transaction. Look at that Yonnas story yesterday or whenever that was this week. And yes, on ESPN.com. You're just like, Janus is still thinking. Yeah. He's still thinking.

Maybe he would go to the Knicks. Maybe he's still thinking about it just like you've been thinking about it all year. Yeah, it kind of feels like a throwback to like the Farrer where it's like, okay, man, it's like we'll just check in when you've actually made your decision. Like, you know, like people can kind of get tired of waiting and they're like, all right, we'll just wait when you actually change teams. And I also think that there's maybe like a practical basketball reason for this.

It's like we also, but for the Luca trade, which was just crazy on its own, we understand that like one trade doesn't necessarily change the fortunes of a team like that anymore. Like it's going to take a series of moves to be better than the OKC Thunder. Like you're not going to become a title contender by trading one guy. Yeah. See, see Kawhi. You know, see, there's so many examples of this. And you go to battle stations like, oh, they didn't actually win a title and they weren't even really a contender for a title.

Yeah, yeah. It's just like, all right. So we know that there's sort of a ceiling on how far this stuff can go. You know, yeah. Because like even if like Wimby went got traded someplace, like it would be a big deal. but it's like I don't know if I could guarantee that whatever team he would go to get traded to would be better than the thunder. So yeah, it's just, yeah, we're all sort of more realistic about it. But yeah, and to that point, Brian, I mean, Luca's great. I know you miss him.

But the Lakers are not really a part of the postseason discussion anymore. And that's also sort of, I mean, I think part of the change here, right? It is. I mean, again, I just think there's a lot we've taken for granted. We've taken for granted that LeBron James has been a great NBA player for a quarter century. Yeah, man. Yeah. That's so much of our lives. That's a lot of basketball, man. It's a lot of basketball. And, you know, there's the greatness on court part of that, which gets LeBron into every first take A block. Is it LeBron or Jordan? I don't know. Maybe it's Kareem, who's going to be the best player of all time? But then there's also just this, you know, great buffet of items for the media to, to enjoy.

Like, we've just, we've been spoiled by this so much because every time he does something, even when he does stuff that everybody rolls their eyes at, which I think has pretty much been the last five or so years. Yeah. It's news. It feeds a podcast. Like, you know, you can roll your eyes, but it's important, right? At least has this idea that, you know, this matters in the history, in the story of the NBA.

And now you're just like, eh, what, you know, is it interesting? Sure. Is he still LeBron? Sure. But it just doesn't move the needle in the same way. Yeah. Also, it just like to be frank, I feel like our fights in society are, uh, seem to be a lot more high stakes than they used to be. And then maybe nobody has.

Yeah. Maybe nobody has quite the bandwidth for like, oh man, is Brony a nepotism hire? Sure, whatever. You know, it is just like, but now back to the news. There may be some of the other nepo hires. Yeah, right. Exactly. Exactly.

So I just think that, you know, at this point, we're back in one of those Trump, you know, those Trump cycles where he floods the zone. There's so much other random shit going on, man. It's just at this point, it's just going to be. hard for LeBron to break through because he's not the player that he was. He's way out there on the West Coast. No offense to you guys on the Pacific Coast, but you know, you guys are kind of far behind us. So he's not part of the title conversation anymore. So it's just like, all right, we've kind of moved on and like just let us know when you retire for real and we'll check back in.

But, you know, thanks for letting us know about your new Canyac. When Trump loses control the news cycle, that will be a segment. Yeah. Oh, man. When would that? Yeah. What would it? It also, if we argue that, just feel free to email us and just be like, you guys are wrong. Yeah, right. He hasn't. You may think he has, but he hasn't. Right, right, right.

I feel you and I can go another round on Paul Feinbaum, Joel. Oh, man, Senator Feinbaum, let's do it. So last week, we talked about the fact that the ESPN radio host and college football analyst was eyeing. I believe that's the only in journalism term, a run for U.S. Senate in Alabama. He revealed that in an interview with noted. ESPN antagonist Clay Travis. Well, this Monday morning, Travis had another scoop. He wrote this on Twitter.

Disney ESPN has removed Fine Bomb from appearing on ESPN since his outkick interview expressing interest in running as a Republican for Senate in Alabama. ESPN has canceled all network appearances on all shows, including some that have occurred for a decade plus. Yeah, I mean, before we move on, I just because I was thinking about this, I was like, who benefits from this stuff being out there? Like, you know what I mean? Like, who would be the person that would want this information to get out that way?

And Firebom is feeding these stories, right? Like, he's the one who wants this information out there, correct? I was silenced by a liberal media company. Is Acapulco gold for a GOP primary in Alabama? Yeah, right. I mean, it establishes your bona fide. you know, you're right bona fides.

Yeah, and it gives you a whole other narrative and it reminds people, hey, I might run if you guys are interested. Like, you know, do you want to, are you interested in your boys, Senator Fibon? So, yeah. I mean, that's what's so interesting about this is that, you know,

the idea that he would run, like you and I are still trying to get our minds around that. We'll see if this actually happens. But part of Fynbaum's pitch, and he said this to Travis in the interview we talked about last week was I've been talking to people from Alabama for decades. I've been talking to you about football, this thing you care about, you know, as much as you care about just about anything else. Now, ooh, the company that was employing me to do that,

soon as I started saying I was Republicans that I voted for Trump, oh, they took me off the air, or that's the story. I mean, again, that just, that feels so pre-cooked for a, For a primary. I just, you know. Well, yeah. I mean, if you're, again, and we talked about this last episode, if, if Paul Feinbaum is going to do this, he's going to have to go all the way. Like, he can't be, as we say, a halfway crook.

And I don't mean, that's a term of art from Nas. And I'll ask you your favorite Nas song later, Brian. Excellent. Yeah. I'll be ready. Yeah. But he can't go halfway with this. He's got to do it.

And, again, one way to show, to, to. show that I'm a real right winger is to say, hey, look, they're forcing, like, they're picking sides and you see which side I'm on side of the line I'm on. ESPN has identified me as somebody that is antithetical to their leftist, woke politics. And they chose themselves over me, so I'm with you guys, right? You get it. Yeah, you get it now, right? I'm a Republican, for real.

I promise, you know. So that was Clay Travis's reporting. Fine Bomb was still hosting his show on the SEC Network. What Travis is talking about are the appearances he would make on Get Up, on first take, him appearing on the ESPN mothership to promote other shows. Well, ESPN came out and denied this, fiercely denied this, saying Finebaum was not removed from ESPN appearances. He wasn't, in fact, pulled from a single ESPN appearance

for what he said on Clay Travis's show. Is there anything less reliable than Clay Travis is reporting on ESPN? I mean, this is like you can never believe any of that stuff. But it's also, and this is where I could see ESPN being a little sore, because this is the inevitable continuation of like this decade-long dynamic where Clay Travis is like ESPN is trying to silence its conservative voices. Nobody over there has ever admitted to voting for Trump. And then ESPN has to come back and deny it. So just as a side note to this, hey, guys, up there in Bristol, Jimmy Patero, whoever you are, just a reminder, no matter what you do, you will always be too woke, you will always be too live for those group of people. So no matter what you're trying to do, no matter what you think you could do to maneuver and, you know, ban politics on the air, it's not going to work.

They already think they've got you paid. that's absolutely correct absolutely correct in every way and we use the example last week could just imagine if scott van pelt was running for senate or thinking about running for senate in his home state of maryland and imagine the same things that happened that scott van pelt had been removed from the sports center schedule on monday i mean the story would not be espn is stifling free speech the story would be espians full of liberals see we told you yeah absolutely man yeah you You got the angle down exactly. I would vote for Senator Van Pelt.

I'm a Maryland voter. We did get some great comedy out of this because Feinbaum took a call from Judge John in Tennessee and Judge John tried to bring up a touchy subject. The only other thing I wanted to say, Paul, was I saw a blurb that you've been pulled off of some of the ES. Okay, let's continue here and talk to, to Don in Missouri.

Hey, Don, go right ahead. Do you remember, I don't know if I've made this reference here already or not. You remember when Quinny Williams was asked about Kyler Murray in the playoffs a few years ago, and he just like, he's reminded, he's like, it sounded like that. It was just like double clutch. Okay. Yeah, it sounded like that. But anyway, yes, it's probably, so Monday is when this thing blew up.

Fine Bomb was back on ESPN on Tuesday, and he was back on Get Up this morning because I saw I'm talking about Bill Belichick there. Let's re-up a question we asked last week. Do we think Feinbaum should be able to carry out his ESPN duties until he makes a decision on the Senate? There's a few things that I need to know about that because it doesn't seem like ESPN has rules for its stars anymore. They can basically say whatever and show up wherever they want if you're a big enough star, right? And you tell me this. I don't think the equal time rule applies to this because Fynbaum hasn't qualified for the election yet. And nobody would be willing to enforce it anyway, right?

Like, I just, there's not a guardrail like that in this country anymore. I don't think so. I don't think so. If he's just sitting there talking college football on the SEC network, I don't think that would apply. Yeah, right. So I just, I, you know, man, it's, It's still a good question. I've had a lot of time to think about this,

and I still don't know what I think. Like, I guess the thing is, is the fine bomb is going to talk, going to do the show that he's always done. I don't think there's a problem with him being on there. Do you, do you, do you, would you have a problem with it? Yeah.

I don't have a problem with it at all. I think it's worth just saying that straight up. Like, if he's looking at running for Senate, if he's looking at running as a Republican or whatever party he wants to join up, that doesn't bother me that he's going to go out and do his SEC network show. and appear on Get Up and appear on First Take and do all the stuff he'd be doing at ESPN.

Yeah. I mean, I think, I mean, to be honest, too, I mean, it's just like he's a 70-something-year-old white guy that lives in Alabama. I could, like, even though I was a little bit taken aback, it was because I'd gotten bad information. But if I had to guess as politics, it probably would be that. And so, but that's not why people are watching and listening to Paul Feinbaum. Like, you listen because you want to hear what he has to say about Bill? and, you know, Nick Saban and Hugh Freeze or whatever. And so, yeah, like, I think that he should be able to continue on there. Now, I mean, you know, I'm probably a little bit more liberal in the

literal sense of the term in that, like, you know, hell, if he qualified for the election, I probably wouldn't even have that big of a deal with it either. I was like, as long as you're going to talk about what you talk about, I still want to hear what Paul Fondbaum has to say. And there's the Stephen A doubled standard that people brought up. If Stephen A can just tease a presidential run, which probably will never happen. But if he can tease a presidential run and stay on television, why can't Paul Feinbaum tease the Senate run and stay on television? I was thinking about this too, Brian, because I mean, I guess part of the answer here is Paul Feinbaum is 71 years old and has worked hard all of his life. But why, why doesn't he just

start up his own politics podcast? You know what I mean? To do that thing on the side, you know? Because there's different rules for Stephen A. Smith than there are for anybody else. I just don't think that happens for anybody else. You don't think Paul Fondom could do that then. He'd do straight shooting with Paul Fibombom. No, I really don't. I just don't think, I think Stephen A is a one of one, even on the tier of ESPN personalities that have a whole lot of latitude. You see also Pat McAfee.

I mean, the idea, I mean, you remember Stephen A tweeted a fundraising appeal. for Chris Christie. I remember that. That wasn't just, I'm talking politics. That was please donate to the specific candidate. I just don't think that works for anybody else. Also, I would like to draw you. Somebody reminded me of this last night.

It was just circulating on Twitter. When Stephen A. Smith dedicated a whole show to calling Jason Whitlock fat and a bitch. And I was just like, man, like, who else can do that? Who else is allowed to do that? It was right after the McAfee, Aaron Rogers thing. So it just got, it just kind of blew over. Good.

It's like, all right, I guess that's allowed now. But to your point, and I agree with you, Stephen A is very much connected with the ESPN leadership, right? Like Paul Fondbaum can get Burke Magnus on the phone or whatever, but it's a different relationship. Like Stephen A might as well be middle management, right? Or like upper level management, not middle management. Right, yeah, right. He's more powerful than that. Yeah, that's right.

That's right. I mean, he'd probably be offended that I call them middle management. But yeah, like he's been in touch with leadership at ESPN about this for a while about what he's going to do, how he's going to do it. I don't think he would have done it without those assurances, but also, like, it says something that he was able to have the conversations and get them to sign off on it. So it didn't seem like Paul, it has that relationship. And if you had any doubts about that, just see how this week is turned out. I do think there's an interesting question about why Fine Bomb wasn't on ESPN shows on Monday. There's a sense inside ESPN that they are thinking about a post-Fine bomb era, that you need college football reactors to go on shows like Get Up and First Take.

Fine Bomb does that and does it very, very well. you know, so if he's not around anymore, who's going to come on and talk about Indiana, Oregon, or Texas OU? That's one sense inside the network. But, again, if you know you are being watched, if you know that Clay Travis is, you know, outside your headquarters in Bristol with his binoculars, metaphorically speaking, watching every move that you do, it surprises me that you would risk even the perception. that you are pulling the would-be Republican Senate candidate off the air. Whether it was true or not. Now, again, is that individual producers saying, man, there's just a lot of noise about Paul Feinbaum here,

maybe let's grab somebody else for today and put them on the air? Is that a lot of decisions where they're assuming how other people felt? I don't think we know the answer to that. But it just surprised me because the easiest thing to do would just be put them on the air and have them talk about how much Texas. sucks. Great. But I just wonder maybe they, you know, they needed some time to huddle up, right? Like, and it'd been the weekend and they're just like, all right, nobody wants to meet on Saturday or Sunday, clearly. Let's have a Monday morning meeting to discuss everything that

happened. Okay, it's cool. Go ahead. But we just needed to talk about, talk it over. Right. And I, the thing is, is like, I get that like Clay Travis is going to, he's going to attack you no matter what, but you still have to do your due diligence as a corporation, right? Like, you still have got to do the things you got to do. And it makes sense to me in that in that regard. It's just like, hey, are we okay with this? You heard the whole thing? Right. Like, okay, we're good. Fine. Get back on air. Those people are cautious. I mean, there's no doubt about that. And sometimes when you're cautious, you don't move particularly quickly. And there is a scenario where you're moving slowly, making sure you have your ducks in a row. Paul Feinbaum wakes up and says, wait a second,

I'm not booked on shows that I thought I was booked on. I'm banned. This must have something to do with my political beliefs. And then we get to step three and step four. It's just the one thing that I think, well, I mean, we can talk. I'll hold off on this for a second. But I think it just suggests that maybe that relationship is disintegrating. Well, that's what I was going to ask you next.

Let's say he decides he doesn't want to run. Let's say Trump gets curious. about another Alabama Senate candidate and it's clear that the endorsement's going to go somewhere else. Paul Fine Mom come back to ESPN. I think he could there's a universe in which

he serves out as contract just doing his show right and that other stuff but yeah I mean the SEC Network pregame. Yeah but I just yeah when when things are like this when you know maybe they suspect that he's working in tandem with Clay Travis

to feed this information to people or to spin. And this and another way. He did the interview. Whether we know he fed it to Clay Travers or not, he did an interview with Clay Traffes. Right. That is already a provocative act inside ESPN world. Absolutely.

And it's just like, can we trust this guy? Like, is he in with us? You know, I mean, like, that stuff matters in corporate culture. It's like, I don't, you know, can we talk to you? Are you going to be honest with this? Are you going to be working behind the scenes to make us look bad in public? And if they can't trust each other on those circumstances, then it probably will be difficult. So if you see this kind of like fires happening until Fibomba decides, then I don't think it probably could continue, right?

It's going to be really hard. I mean, we know Jimmy Patero does not want politics to be part of ESPN. He doesn't want any politics to be part of ESPN. When he became president in 2018, that was one of the first things that he worked on. And he would point to data saying like, oh, viewers don't want us. to mix politics in there. We can argue whether that's cynical or whatever his reasoning is, but he depoliticized ESPN. Jamel Hill left ESPN. Dan Lebitart left ESPN. Like ESPN is, you know, I don't know that was a particularly political organization under the final years

of John Skipper. But whatever it was, it's less political now than it was then. The only way that you're calling people woke at ESPN now is if they just happen to not be white. You know what I mean? Because it's like nobody is, nobody, nobody's saying anything on air that you could, that you really can disagree with. Like, their conversations about the games for the large part. There's not really a lot of social and political conversation happening on their airwaves anymore. You don't think there's social aspects of grinding tape? Yeah, man, you know, I mean, you know, it's something that Marcus Spears and Dan Oloskey can do at the same time together, you know, but yeah. So, yeah, I don't, I don't think that that's, the other, the other piece of this, too, with

Feinbaum and Pataro and them, it's just like, hey, man, if, like, we don't, we don't know your motivations, right? You know, like, you, I mean, like, okay, let's, if we accept that you just in a moment of comfort with Clay Travis, decide to let all this slip, I mean, which is sort of, okay, sure, right. But it's just like you went on with that guy, you got very comfortable and talked about how we made you unhappy and all this. I was like, I just, again, we don't know your motivations. We don't know what you want to do. You're not really in conversation with us. And then the minute that we want to have a conversation about all this stuff that you shared, you had not really

shared with us before, and more news comes out saying how we're trying to silence you. It was just like, man, get your ass on. I could just see it being like that. One more note about Travis, and I think this has been left out of the reporting of this story. people mentioned it, forgive me. I didn't see it. Let me take you back two months to August 5th. Clay Travis gets on Twitter and he writes this. Disney is seeking to buy the NFL network assets for billions of dollars and combine them with ESPN assets. Given ABC News's consistent bias against President Trump, why should his administration allow this Disney media purchase to occur? what's more, ESPN is a far left-wing political organization, far more so than any news network.

Trump's FCC should zealously review any merger request and at minimum and says Disney ESPN reject all DEI programs and pledge to provide content viewpoint diversity on ABC ESPN and the NFL network going forward. Dot, dot, dot, feel free to look up and read the rest of the tweet. So here is Clay Travis saying that Donald Trump's FCC should get involved in this multi-billion dollar deal between ESPN and the NFL network. He goes on to say rubber stamping this merger should be a non-starter. Major changes and real pledges must be made on the content viewpoint diversity going forward, right? Clay Travis put this out on Twitter. And I remember this happening because a week later I was sitting in Jimmy Petaro's office asking about the NFL. merger. Now, now, Paul Fine Mom goes on this guy's podcast, and not only does he go on the podcast,

he offers up a nugget. Hey, you know, I was talking to Donald Trump's people about a possible interview in 2019, and then I was told it's a non-starter. So wait a second. You went on the podcast and you gave the president whose administration has been eager to involve itself in media mergers in the business of television and you gave them a data point you gave them a nugget a reason to get involved in this dude imagine if you're in the ESPN front office and you are presumably fairly nervous about this whole thing going through and the president not getting involved in this merger dude they i wouldn't be surprised if they were pissed on those grounds alone bro i mean just like there's a sports analogy for people just imagine that you uh have a rival team

that you play against and they're not as good as you but they've got you know they don't like you and they're trying to be your rival or whatever and it was just like hey man before the game the other night i was over there hanging out with them and you know talking a little bit about stuff and i made a little slip you know wanted a play that we we might be using on y'all a trick play or something you'd be like man you're not allowed back in this locker room dog We can't let you back in here. We can't let you back in here. And that's kind of what Paul Feinbaum did by going on with Clay Travis.

And so, yeah, I mean, the more we've talked, man, I wasn't this striding about it when this conversation started, Brian. And strident, I mean by this, I don't think he's going to be able to come back. Because just if ESPN is smart and they, I think they let him serve out this season, but it's just like, I don't know. Can we trust that? One of the most fundamental questions that any employer probably has about an employer is, can I trust you? And can ESPN say that it trusts Paul Feinbaum right now? I couldn't imagine they could feel that good about that answer.

And all that water under the bridge, I would still say, as I said a few minutes ago, I'd keep him on the air, I'd keep his regular appearances up while he looks at the center race. Absolutely. I mean, he says he has to make a decision. I would put him on the air. It doesn't bother me talking about college football while he thinks about this change in his life. absolutely would defend his right to do that under any circumstance. Absolutely.

I don't think any of, I mean, maybe some people don't want to say him, but I still want to hear from Paul Farnbaum. It's easier for me to find him on ESPN. And again, like we both, he's been kind enough to have us on his show. He's going to have to make a decision here pretty soon anyway, right? Like, you don't, they have, he said, in 30 to 45 days, and that was a couple weeks ago. Right.

And I think he has until January 23rd at the latest to declare. So, I mean, it's going to resolve itself here sometime in the next. few months and so yeah but just let it play out and then go from there let's talk about one of of fine bombs favorite topics bill bellichick oh my god university north carolina at tar heels are two and three with wins over mighty charlotte and mighty richmond oh richmond's a good fcs program okay so so my mighty richmond let me let me ask a question i asked david on monday does bill belichick ever become a sympathetic figure i mean i get it depends depends on your makeup. I am a sympathetic person. You know, I feel, my orientation to the world is to feel

sorry for people, right? But Bill Belichick is probably least equipped to generate public sympathy. He gives you nothing. He's giving the public nothing. Nothing. No tenderness, no vulnerability, very little humor. He's only been a football coach who's known for being a stoic, like to the point of it being sort of weird, right? He doesn't want to talk to people. Him being curt and dismissive in public is just part of his personal profile and winning and cheating along with it. Right. Like he's got those big deflate gate.

It was deflate gate and what security. What is it? Camera gate. Spy gate. There you go. Man, I have really become my dad. Anyway. But yeah.

Security gate. Yeah, that's something my dad was saying. Anyway. But yeah. So I think, you know, he, he's. He's been in the public eye for so long. If people were, if people were going to be sympathetic to him, I think it would have already sort of happened, right?

Like, it just, I don't feel like a lot of warmth for him. Like, when he left New England, like, did you feel a lot of warmth? Like, it seemed like everybody was ready for him to go. So, yeah, so, like, this doesn't, he's embarrassing himself, but I think a lot of people are getting the kicks out of it, don't you think? I think so, too. I think we got a lot more to go before we get to the, sorry for Belichick news cycle. Yeah. I don't know what it would have to happen. I mean, he would just have to, like, to me, it would be involved staying in North Carolina year after year and just failing to such a spectacular degree.

Yeah, which is not going to happen. Which is not going to allow that to happen. I mean, maybe if Jordon leaves him, like, I could see that, like, turn in public sentiment for him. Okay. Like, that's the thing. I mean, she's going to. I mean, let's just be real. But nobody thinks they're going to get married. I don't think. But yeah, I mean, like maybe that'll happen. And then people will feel sorry for them then. But based on what's happened now, how could you be? Because also, the sympathetic figures in this story are the players at the University of North Carolina.

The people that have to endure this season. This must suck for them. It was brutal. That Clemson game was so brutal. I felt so bad for the band. It was so bad. They are horrible. They are terrible.

They're terrible football team. So news on this front from Ali Connolly, who writes the read optional newsletter. And if you remember, Ali Connolly was one of the reporters who was really ahead on Bill Belichick going to North Carolina. Connolly tweeted yesterday, per sources, Bill Belichick has discussed buyout options with North Carolina's hierarchy. Belichick has signaled a willingness to trigger his own $1 million buyout if he can find a soft landing with another team or in media. Members of Billichick's coaching staff have already spoken to other schools that are expected to be in the college football playoffs. about taking on roles during the postseason from one coach, quote,

the rats are leaving the ship, end quote. North Carolina and Belichick put out dual statements yesterday, which I know convinced you and I that there was absolutely nothing to this report. Nothing to see here. It's fine. They're all on the same page. Man. Yeah, I mean, so I think that both things can be true.

That maybe right now they're behind him. he's going to be there through the end of the season. But I also think that Ali probably is right, but they're like, all right, at the end of this year, like, what would me leave in? Or what will it take for this to all go away? We'll it take for this to all go away, please. So we can both move on.

One more topic for you before we get to Jen Saki. Katie Porter, Democrat, former U.S. House member from Orange County, She ran for Senate last year. She's running for governor this year. And here's a clip from Katie Porter's interview with Sacramento reporter Julie Watts. What do you say to the 40% of California voters who you'll need in order to win who voted for Trump? How would I need them in order to win, man? Well, unless you think you're going to get 60% of the vote.

You think you'll get 60%? Everybody who did not vote for Trump will vote for you. That's what you're saying. In a general election, yes. If it is me versus a Republican, I think that I will win the people who did not vote for Trump. What if it's you versus another Democrat? I don't intend that to be the case. Okay.

So I think we should do a little secular grace here for Katie Porter. The best possible reading of this clip. That question is pretty garbled. Mm-hmm. 40% of Californians or 40% of California voters voted for Trump last time. time out, you're going to need them to win. Now, Katie Porter's right. If she's ringing against the Republican, 60 is more than 40, so she will not need them to win. I think the question is, and they got to it there at the end, if it's Katie Porter versus another Democrat in the general

election, because California has that weird rule that says the top two vote getters in the primary, regardless of party move on to the general. If it's you versus another Democrat, what decision are those 40% of California voters who voted for Trump going to make? You know, we know the Democrats might be split a certain way, but what's going to happen? Was that what the question was? I think she was genuinely like confused.

I think, I mean, I think Katie Porter just did some simple math. Like you said, she was like, I probably don't need them to win. The issue is that if you're a good candidate, that question is not hard enough or offensive enough to get tripped up over, right? Like, that's not even, we don't even need to get into that. You say, well, look, I'm going to be the governor. I'm going to be a governor for all Californians, right? And I want everybody to vote for me, not just Democrats. I want Republicans to vote for me.

So this is how I'm going to do it. Not that, you know, let's talk about how we're going to divide the pie up, right? Like, you just, and they get mad about it. Like, that's just, that's the sign that you're, maybe, maybe she was in a bad mood. Like, maybe she was having a bad day, right? Maybe I can allow her that some grace. But you just, if you're a good candidate, you don't get tripped up like that. The potholes multiplied from there.

Here's more of Katie Porter with Julie Watts. But you just said you don't need those Trump voters. Well, you asked me if I needed them to win. So you don't think you need. I feel like this is unnecessarily argumentative. What is your question? The, the question is the same thing I asked everybody. that this is being called the empowering voters to stop Trump's power grab.

Every other candidate has answered this question. This is not argumentated. And I said, I support it. So, and the question is, what do you say to the 40% of voters who voted for Trump? Oh, I'm happy to say that. It's the do you need them to win part that I don't understand. I'm happy to answer the question as you haven't written and I'll answer it. And we've also asked the other candidates, do you think you need any of those 40% of California voters to win?

And you're saying, no, you don't. No, I'm saying I'm going to try to win every vote I can. And what I'm saying to you is that... Well, to those voters, okay, so you... I don't want to keep doing this. I'm going to call it. Thank you. You're not going to do the interview with us? Nope, not like this. I'm not.

Not with seven follow-ups to every single question you ask. Every other candidate has answered our followers. I don't care. I don't care. I want to have a pleasant, positive conversation, which you ask me about every issue on this list. And if every question, you're going to make up a follow-up question, then we're never going to get there. I mean, I just, I'm all at a secular grace. I mean, sorry, I just, she's, again, maybe she and she had a really bad day. Maybe, you know, the thing about the interviews, too, is you never, there is a whole thing before you do an interview, like you're getting comfortable in the room, like you're having a little light chat with the person that's going to talk to you.

I don't know how any of that went. Clearly, it didn't go well, right? Because it seemed like they got off to a poor start. So maybe it was that. But yeah, man, I mean, you just can't. I mean, to use the Billichick example earlier, too, like, as a candidate, you have to be smart. Because remember when Jordan yelled out, we're not discussing that? Like, Katie Porter, they're recording all of this still.

The cameras are still on. Like, how did you forget that? Yeah. She knows that. I mean, that's just. You know, I don't get it. And by the way, you know, when you start saying, you know, you're asking me follow-ups, I thought this was going to be a pleasant, positive conversation.

Now we're getting insulting toward the journalist that you are sitting with. You were saying in so many words, I didn't know this was going to be a real interview. I didn't know I was going to be challenged. I mean, that to me is like you, if somebody said that to me, I'm sorry. like, who did you think I was? What are we doing here? That's not the way this works. And I'm offended that you think it was going to work this way.

That's what makes me think something went on before those cameras were on. Because I'm just like, because nobody has a problem with follow-up questions. Right. And you even, sometimes when you're going to do an interview like that, you say to a person, hey, look, I'm going to be pretty exacting here. And I'm going to be trying to drill down on things. And sometimes I may follow up, but just let me know if, you know, you got a problem with this question in a way,

like you try to prepare people, right? So I don't know what happened there, but it just everything went wrong. And yeah, like she thought that she could bully this person. Like she got to a point where she said, I can bully the reporter, Julie Watts. And I mean, she tried.

But the thing is, is just to your point earlier, Brian, like if you know the cameras are on, it says one or two things. You can't control yourself. Right? It's like you really can't control yourself. or if you didn't know the camera was on,

then like you're just, you're not smart enough for this job. You know, like you want to be governor, you're not smart enough to do it, apparently. Savvy enough about the way, yeah,

the way to me. And again, I just don't even believe, I don't think you can just take that off the table. Of course she knows the cameras on. Like, you know, come on.

Like, that's just not, they're sitting in front of a bank of monitors answering questions. Like, well, what else is happening? Did you see that?

So there was another clip that was circulating about Katie Porter on the, in it last night. I did. With a guy where the woman was an aide was in her shot? An aide came into the back of her shot to correct her because she was talking to, I think, a constituent or something like that. Jennifer Granholm, oddly enough, that she was talking to.

Yeah, okay, Jennifer Granholm. And so the person comes in the background is like, hey, I just wanted to correct you on that. And she told the person, can you get the F out of my shot? And it's like, again, why can't you control yourself in these circumstances? Like, it's just not great. And again, maybe she thinks this is the political climate. Like there's not the same kind of standards that they used to be. You know, Tommy Tuberville is a senator now and probably going to be a governor.

So she probably is like, well, I can, you know, I can say and do anything and I can understand that. But it's just not going to work like that. Like, that's just not, it's not going to work like that for you. Maybe I should say. Yeah. And the only thing, the one thing about this is like it is like mostly a breach of decorum. It's not something that Katie Porter actually said where you look at it and be like, That opinion is wrong, offensive, ill-informed, whatever you would want to say.

It's just like you can't just get through this interview and get through the follow-up questions. So that's one funny thing about this. I always hate to grade on decorum rather than substance. But being a governor is a hard job. There's going to be so many more difficult things that you're going to face in that job than follow-up questions. you know so yeah it just it doesn't suggest

Gavin Newsom has shown over the last couple of months right there's some people coming to Los Angeles that you may not want to come to Los Angeles say man

we need you to yeah we need you to project something that's not like I'm highly agitated and might lash out at you all right Joel this is the 16th the 16th part

of our 25 for 25 series our guest was Jansocky of MSNBC boy did we cover a lot of ground hear from Democrats, the way Democrats communicate, MSNBC and the future of cable news, and what Joel thinks about the next Democratic presidential candidate. Here's Jen Sock. All right, Joel, let's bring on Jen Soki.

She is the host of The Briefing on MSNBC. Season two of her new podcast, The Blueprint, starts next Wednesday, October 15th. And in Socki's previous life before cable news and Kairons, she was press secretary for Joe Biden, the communications director for Barack Obama, among other jobs. Jen, welcome to the press box. Thank you.

My pre-Kyron life. I love that description. It's great to be here. So we've got weightier matters to tackle today, but as a student of politics and as a person who worked in comms, I've got to ask you, what did you make of Katie Porter's interview

with Sacramento reporter Julie Watts? Oh boy. Probably a case, and I had Katie Porter on my show and she's been great in the past. That particular interview is a case study they may show in school about how not to do an interview, I would say. For so many reasons. I mean, did you guys watch it? What did you think? Well, taking issue with the question, that's where I'd start with her, right?

That you got bogged down into the question rather than just answering the question. Right. And I want us to have a good experience is sort of a strange thing to say, to put it mildly. So, yeah, I think not a good case study. Maybe she was having a horrible day. Maybe she got bad advice. Who knows, but not a good moment for the Kinme. So here's a follow up here.

Does getting annoyed at a reporter play differently in 2025 than it may have played, say, 10, 15 years ago? I think it may be. but at the end of the day, here's where I don't think it plays differently. Ultimately, that was a local television interview, right? So you are trying to speak to people who want to vote for you in the state of California. People want to be asked for their vote.

They want you to seem like you are trying hard to get it and that you are thrilled to be talking to somebody who was asking you questions. Having staffed lots, hundreds, thousands of interviews with lots of people, every politician is not thrilled at every moment to be doing an interview. But you kind of have to fake it until you make it.

I don't think that's changed. Now, there are moments, and I know why you're asking me this, because Trump, he will just kind of yell back at reporters and maybe some people like that. I still don't think that's the majority of the country. And when you're introducing yourself to people as she is, that's kind of the opposite of what you want to do. So, Jen, I want to have a pleasant, positive conversation, too, but I'm going to bring this up.

So the new season of your podcast. What should I say now? Me too. I also want to. Right, yeah. I don't want to get you, but no. Your podcast, The Blueprint, it talks about the 2024 election and what Democrats could have done, it need to do better to win going forward. So how would you have advised former Vice President Kamala Harris to navigate her relationship and ties to President Biden? Like, should she have made a more forceful break from him? Or do you think she could have and should have done more to get him to move aside before, you know, the primary? I think it would have been very difficult, and she writes about this in her book, for her to get him to move aside, her personally to, for all the reason she writes about. I mean, she had a lot of stake in him moving aside. She'd be the obvious nominee in that case. That's what she talks about. I think that's fair, right? It's easy for people to kind of, you know, backseat drive in scenarios like that. I also think knowing Joe Biden, no one was going to tell him he needed to not run for president, except for maybe Dr. Jill Biden was maybe the only person he would have really listened to. And maybe Mike Donald and a few people who were very close to him for decades. In terms of differentiating herself, yeah, I think she needed a better answer on that.

That again, also easy to backseat drive at this point in time. But when she went on the view and said she couldn't think of anything, she talked about regretting that. She should. But there are things she could have come up with at the time to say, I love Joe Biden, but we're different. And I'm going to be a different kind of president. That's true. Would that have won the election? I don't know that we know that either. Are you surprised that she didn't have that answer, though, like at the top of the mind? Because I'm imagining that's a part of the preparation process for a candidate, right? I am surprised.

And you can kind of think, I think about how if you're sitting in the, if you were sitting in the room with her at the time, you probably wait. This is what you do with presidents or people running for office. Okay, if you say this, these people are going to be upset. If you say this, these people are going to be upset. what's the impact of these different approaches to answering a question? So I'm sure, and I know a lot of people who work for her, I'm sure that they threw out options or that they weighed this, threw this out with her. And she clearly made a decision that wasn't strategically wise to differentiate herself. I also understand this to some degree in that Joe Biden, as much as at the

end when he announced he was not running, there was a deep breath or a breath of relief from a lot of people in the Democratic Party. He still was beloved by a lot of people in the Democratic Party. She was still also, even though she'd been vice president, introducing herself, she was not trying to piss off everybody either. She was an almost impossible tightrope to walk at the time. So I think you can weigh maybe this would have helped, maybe that would have helped. I don't think ultimately that was the only deciding thing. And we talked about this a lot on my last season. We're trying to because now it's been a year. So our new season is going to be very forward looking about where to go from here. And a lot of.

of the important debates. A lot of Democrats don't agree. That's a good thing of a lot of the important debates about moving forward. She may be a part of that. She may not be. We'll see what she decides. Chan, we've been talking a lot on this podcast about how Democrats can communicate in this political environment. Are you as convinced podcasts are the way to reach potential voters as everyone else seems to be? I think they're part of it. But I think it's an everything, everything all at once sort of strategy. I think I butcher that. But you know, it's everything all the time all at once is really what I think politicians need to be doing. And that requires a fearlessness and an ability to do interviews without three hours of prep, right? Because if you need three hours

of prep to do an interview, you can't do all sorts of different media. If we go back and look back at even 2020, the way Pete Buttigieg got on the scene was he did basically every interview with everybody. It was people all across Iowa, it was people in early states. It was liberal radio. It was conservative radio, it was local radio, it was podcasts. I think podcasts, and I, you know, having done one season, I'm not an expert like you guys. I've only done nine episodes. But having done nine episodes of that and interviewing a lot of people on my television show, even some people you interview in both formats, for some reason, I don't know what the psychology of it is, are more relaxed, more candid sometimes when you're talking to them in a podcast format or a format that doesn't

feel like formal television. And that is important for some politicians because they just can't get off the talking points or can't talk like a human unless they feel relaxed. So in that sense, it can be a good format, but I think it works for some people, not for others. It's not the only thing, but I think it should be sure a part of everybody's big everything everywhere all at once communications plan moving forward. So you talked about Buttigieg talking to everybody then. So there was this idea that podcasts into streaming bros, right? The Andrew Schultz, Theo Vann, so on and so forth, helped to elect Trump.

So do you think they really need to be going on those kind of shows sitting down with Joe Rogan? Is it really important for them to do that sort of stuff? Sure. I mean, look, Joe Rogan is also, I know people think about him. And I had to kind of re-educate myself on this, too, as this big, primarily a Trump supporter. He's not really that.

He had most of the people he has on are not political at all. He talks to all sorts of people. He has to kind of decide he wants to talk to somebody. He had an interesting interview with James Telerico who's running for Senate in a primary in Texas. He did a couple hour interview. I thought that was a very powerful one. Not everybody can pull that off is the thing. You have to really decide if you can pull it off.

But if you as a candidate and your team thinks that, yeah, you can pull off a two hour or three hour interview, I would say go and Joe Rogan wants you to be on, Theo Vaughn wants you to be on, I would say go do it. Sure. Absolutely. Here's another experiment in political communication in 2025. What do you think of Gavin Newsom's new Twitter account? I love it. I think it's fun. I think right now, or I should say in the first six months after the election, and I experienced this a lot as a host of a cable show on MSNBC,

is people would say to me, no offense, I just, I can't. I can't tune into the news right now. You know, I would run it to people in the airport and they'd say that. And there was this real frustration that there wasn't enough fighting back against what people were seeing in the Trump administration. Obviously, this came from people who were opposed to it. And I think what his Twitter account has done is fought back in a funny, interesting way where it sort of demeans Trump and what Trump is doing.

Do I think it's something that's going to get him the Democratic nomination for the presidency? I don't know that, you know, and I don't know that that is going to be broadly appealing a couple of years from now if he decides to run. But for now, I think people trying things and being out there and fighting a bit is good. And I see this with, you know, there are other people who are, you know, J.B. Pritzkerzman out there, pretty fearless. Governor Bashir started a podcast. It's like, are all these things smooth and perfect and ideal? No. But I think trying some things when you literally control nothing is probably still the right strategy.

So, Jen, a little more than a month ago, a wide magazine ran on a piece about how like dark money, a dark money group was offering Democratic-affiliated influencers like close to $8,000 a month to push the party line. And there was some pushback and influences denied that they had taken the money, whatever. I'm just setting up the question for everybody here. But as a concept, what did you think of that initiative? Because I guess you have both, I mean, you're in media now, but also, once in a time, you wanted to reach people like that. So, like, what do you think of that initiative? And do you think, like, liberal influences should be a little less Puritan about getting

into bed with a political party in that way? Yeah, be less Puritan. That's a bumper sticker right now, I think, is important. You know, there are, there's a disadvantage. I think it's not the right shorthand, not that either of you were suggesting, that's your way to inform to, but it's like there's no Joe Rogan of the left. Joe Rogan is Joe Rogan, right? So it's, but what is also true is that there are a lot of creators out there. And sometimes, and I've done some things with them in collaboration or thing that they just don't have the resources or like the wherewithal to know how to expend what they're doing. But maybe they're really good at explaining healthcare, right? And they just need like a little bit of extra. I think that's fine. I also think that this is something that the Democratic universe of donors and others should be supporting because you have to modernize how people are receiving information. And right now, I mean, I obviously have been out of working as a communications official now for three years, four years, whatever it is, three and a half years.

But even when I was still in the Biden administration, not that long ago, there were still a lot of people in elected office, high elected office who would say, well, if my op-ed is in the Washington, post-print version, I will reach the world. And it's like, you can't have been a whole number of people and probably not people that you need to reach. So there is, the Democratic Party is acknowledging this, and I think that's good, still has a long way to go and actually using platforms that reach voters they're trying to reach. And I think there should be lots of ways people try to do that. Don't be puritan about it. Try weird stuff. I mean, some of the stuff I've seen people do is crinion. I'm sure you've seen it too. But here we are.

Just try lots of things and see what works and what sticks. And now's the time to do it because you're not in power. And there's not, there's some elections, but like the big ones are really a year from now for most people. We watched the other day as Trump's press secretary Caroline Levitt called a question asked by Sean McCreech in the New York Times, despicable. I don't think any of us thought the question about Jared Kushner was actually despicable. But there you go. What do you make of the way that Leavitt has done your old job so far? I think she is very effective on camera.

And I say that from this standpoint. There are people who have that job. And I mean, not just in the White House briefing room, but the Defense Department, the State Department, who are scared, chitless of doing that job every day, right? You have to go in there not afraid. And she is clearly not. And I think that confidence is good. Now, I start there.

This is like a sandwich, right? You say a positive. I think what has been incredibly dangerous about what she's done are a couple things. One is what you just acknowledged, right? Which is what you just said, not acknowledged, which is that there are times when people ask a very legitimate question and she responds by counterattacking them. That's a very Trumpian thing to do. And she obviously has primarily an audience of one who thinks she's great and says creepy

things about that. So there's that. But that is the whole thing about that room is the debate and the back and forth is the healthy part. That's a part of democracy. I had plenty of back and forths of people when I was in that job. That's okay. There were times when I lost my pool when I regretted it too. But it doesn't seem like that's her thing. Her thing is like this is the strategy. I'm going to counterattack these people back. You look at what Pan Bondi did yesterday. This is clearly what they're being told to do, right? That's dangerous. The other piece that you all are tracking, but I think it's hard for people to track is she and the whole communications department has essentially reshaped who gets questions in the briefing room. And there are still very smart, very experienced

reporters in that room. But you look at the briefing transcript, which I do, we do frequently because we do a little thing on the show about the briefing every now and then. And a good percentage, a rising percentage of the questions are from people who are sycophants, who are asking questions like, I just want to say Donald Trump is the greatest leader in our country. How do you deal with the terrorists that is Hakeem Jeffries? You're like, that is not a question, you know, that is a completely not just slanted, but a propagandist statement, not a question. And that, and I say this for Dana Perino and Sean Spicer even.

And, you know, many of my Democratic predecessors was never the room many of us were in. And the reshaping of the room and who gets questions, I think. is something that's very hard to track unless you have been a reporter in that room or you pay close attention to this or you have worked in that room before. Well, I wanted to follow up on that then. So let's just, you know, a fantasy world

in which you're in that job again and you have a chance to remake that room. Like would you consider like remaking it not in the way obviously that the Trump administration has done, but just trying something different and bringing different people in or whatever now? Totally.

I mean, when I was Obama's communications director, and we all thought Hillary Clinton was going to win, which was incorrect, as we all know. One of the things that I would have recommended to them, and I remember Josh Ernest and I talk about this, is to don't do a briefing every day, do it a couple days a week, still be available and accessible to answer questions. Do maybe the other days do one day off camera because the tone and tenor of it is just different, right? Do another day where you bring in people who don't have seats in the room all the time. Do one that's purely digital. There are lots of ways to reshape the briefing room in a way that is more modern and more connected to people in the country. That is a good thing. I think the tricky thing here is that when they say that's what they're doing, that's not what they're doing.

They are bringing in propagandists. But ultimately, I think, God willing, if there's another normal administration-ish with a normal approach, to the briefing room, yeah, I think there are some things, many things, that should be changed and thought through because ultimately the whole purpose of that room is to be able to give information to the public. And it's no longer a point where it's being taken live on television, right, or that people are watching live television to watch it or that people are reading the full transcript. So it's changing the way people are consuming it and you need to rethink how you do it. But I think that's a super fun project. I hope somebody is taking on and thinking about it

out there. So far, Jen, Donald Trump has sued CBS News, ABC News, the New York Times, the Des Moines Register, the Pulitzer Prize Board. You're on television. You have a high-profile job. Do you ever find yourself thinking, I wonder if Donald Trump is going to sue me? I think we all, anybody who has a public platform right now, especially in the media, you have to be prepared for that circumstance, not think about it all the time, not make it prompt you to say less or pull back. That's the key, right? But that certainly is always a possibility. The thing that I fear more than that is the security piece and the threats piece. And I think I'm probably not alone in this. I say that because, look, I don't want anybody to see me. I think that's the same thing to say, obviously, not even Donald Trump. But I fear more about the security part. And I can't sit with that every day. But I think that anybody who has any public platform has to worry about that nowadays, unfortunately.

So many people, Jen, have asked and talk about it. Every time they're like, man, we really need Barack Obama to do something. You know, we really need him to come out and say something. We really, really need him out there on the front lines. What do you think of that? Do you think there's any truth to that? do you think that at this point that him saying anything would actually accomplish anything? You know, I miss him too, and I work from him for 10 years, right? And sometimes, and I've seen him

and things and talked to him off the record, but there are times when I'm like, man, I wonder what he would think about this, right, or what he would say about this moment. And I know I'm not alone. That's why you're asking this question. I think that as powerful as his voices, he would say, and I agree with this, he's not the future of the party, right? We don't know who the, no one knows who the future of the party is. So he can't be the voice carrying the party into the future. He has chosen some moments, interestingly, in the last couple of months to speak out more forcefully than he has in the past. And I think he makes those decisions quite carefully because there's a part of him that believes in the tradition,

which I guess is sort of thrown out now. we're not in a new different world of former presidents not speaking out. But I'll be interested to see what he does in the future. And, you know, there are lots of ways for him to be out there. Does he campaign? I think you probably will, right? This year and next year, that's my guess. That's him being out there.

But to go back to your original question here, now this is like a therapy session. I don't think that him giving a speech or a series of speeches solves the moment we're in. I wish it did. I wish it would. And if it would, I think he would do it. But I think it's much greater than that. And it really requires a movement of people and requires leaders emerging. And we're kind of in that sticky, uncomfortable, gray in between time right now where we don't know what those movements are going to look like exactly. Some of them are forming and who those leaders are going to be. But that doesn't mean he's the right person to fill the vacuum. A couple of questions about MSNBC and cable news, Jen, before you go. The three of us are all about the same age, which is to say we are members of the cable TV generation. We're youth. How do you get someone younger than us, not just to watch a clip of your show on social media,

but to actually fork out money to pay for MSNBC? Well, the business side of this is a very good question, and I'm not an expert on this. So I'm trying to learn more because I think it's so important to know. It's just like I always joke with my team. I need to know how to like drop an element in the rundown. And they're like, please don't drop elements in the rundown. Like you don't need to know all these things. The way I've thought about this is it's one of the things that's exciting to me,

in part because I've only been in this industry for a couple of years. So to me, I'm not as like, I'm not as tied with fragility to I have to sit behind a big glass desk with heels on. I actually hate heels and I've just like stopped wearing them on the show. So that's an evolution I'm rooting for. So the evolution of it, to me, is exciting. Everybody doesn't feel that way, and I totally get that because we don't know where this is going. And linear television is changing. Just put it diplomatically.

But I think about it from right now, how we think about it on our show is we have a kind of an AP role. This is like, you know, mid-level. And I hired a person who just does social media, digital content. That's not what everybody does. But to me, this is where the future is going. So this is a person who work, and we have a couple people who do this. Their whole thing is, yes, they pull clips from the show, but also to think about how we create native content to these platforms.

Point is, you can't. And even if I did a segment maybe a week ago on Bad Bunny in the Super Bowl, it was a short one. That and them clipping that is not going to be as connected with people on social media platforms, as you guys know, as me just talking to camera about Bad Bunny in the Super Bowl. right? And I think it is about thinking about your show and your and the platforms that anybody who has any show has as not just, hey, tune in at nine and I'll see you again the next night at nine. It's like, what am I saying in between? What am I, how am I engaging on TikTok? What am I

doing on Instagram? Blue Sky? I mean, there's so many things that's constantly evolving. In terms of how people pay for that, you know, I think obviously YouTube is a place where a lot of people, I'm not an expert on this that do all sorts of content, have found a way to make a living of it. How does that work with television networks and all of the requirements and legalities? I don't know. But I would just say for me, I think it's about anybody who has a show not being fragile about the formats. Because mainly it's about reaching people and connecting with audiences. And reducing the barriers for entry to me is actually part of the exciting part of this moment.

So if you had to start over then and come back into this media and climate and environment the way that it is, like what would be sort of the ideal, like, I mean, obviously you want a multi-pronged effort, right? You want to do it all. But like how would you start? Like where would you, you know, would you, what would be the ideal place, you know, former magazine, website, whatever? Like, what would you want to do? For me or just in general? Yeah, no, for you. Yeah. Look, I'm not just saying this. Like, I love where I am now. I get to work. with really smart people who I learn from every time I sit on a set with. And I get to do all sorts of things. I mean, I get to do a show, a podcast, stuff on YouTube, all these things. So for me, I'm in a great place. I am a consumer of magazine articles. As someone who's written a book, I do not want to be a magazine writer, I would say. So I love what I'm doing. I don't know what, I don't know at this moment where it's all going in terms of the evolution of the formats. I think there's a real, And I know this because I worked for Rebecca Cutler. I was like one of her direct reports.

Our show was before she became the president of MSNBC. I know that she is somebody who is here for the evolution of all of this because we did a lot of it in my old iteration of my Sunday show. So I'm excited to see where it goes. I don't know where it's going. I wouldn't want to be anywhere else. I think there just has to be a flexibility in this moment about communicating and doing content on many different formats, not just one.

I think I can guess kind of what your audience wants from you night to night. What issues are ways of thinking do you think your audience needs to be challenged on right now in this political moment? Such a good question. You know, I think that there can be a tendency to make assumptions and proclamations about politics and who's going to win, right? And what's possible? You know, and you hear people saying things like, well, they'll never be a, a black woman who's ever going to be the nominee again. And it's like, who can deem or proclaim that? No one knows that, right? I think that can sometimes be the case with saying things like, well,

anybody who runs and talks about how crime is an issue, they're just, they're going to lose because what Trump is doing is terrible. What Trump is doing is terrible. But you know what else is true? Crime is an issue people care about in cities across the country and range of communities. So I use this as an example mainly because I think sometimes the horrors of what Trump is doing make people prompt people to make assumptions about what politically plays all across the country, right? And those are dangerous assumptions to make because the truth is what plays in rural Minnesota is not necessarily going to be what plays in Brooklyn. And you have to be open to that and understanding of that and clear right about that if you're really going to

understand the political landscape. So I, I, I would prompt people to kind of talk to more people who they're not like a thousand percent. I remember my sister who now lives in D.C., but was living in Brooklyn. And she said, and I have had Elizabeth Warren on a number of times, I think she's smart and great. But she told me during that primary, she's going to run away with it. And I was like, no. I was like, the country is not where she is on every issue. It doesn't mean I didn't agree with her on a lot of issues.

My point is you have to kind of recognize everybody doesn't agree with you on everything. and be open to the big umbrella of it all and where the party and people who may be voting and maybe need to be heard from are are. And it may not be where you are. Normally we do a lightning round here, Jen, but instead of that, since you said that this was a therapy session, I'm going to ask you a therapy session question for myself, okay?

All right, so I've long had this theory that we need to we need to stop running black candidates for president because I don't think a better can handle it. Yeah, you just talked about this. And so it is terrifying to me as a black person in the country to see what the response was to Obama. And then when Kamala was running, I was like, oh, she's not going to win. I just knew it. And so tell me I'm crazy or tell me that I'm right.

But I just don't think that Democrats should ever do that again. Okay. I don't think you're crazy. But I understand the trauma of it. Believe me, like as a woman, even though. a white woman, you look at Hillary Clinton and your Kamala Harris, both eminently qualified for the job, both of them lost. You're like, should we ever run a woman again? But here's the thing. You don't know where the country is and what the country is ready for and prepared for until you see it

happen before your eyes, right? So there are a lot of people who will say, including like people I'm friends with and related to who will say, well, the only answer here is a very boring white man from the self to be the Democratic nominee. And here's the problem with that. That person who's very boring is not going to inspire people, right, is not going to inspire a lot of young people, is not going to inspire like the diverse coalition of people who needs to nominate and elect a person who's going to win the presidency. I mean, I worked for Obama for 10 years, right? So I, the whole journey for the country, which he never, there's this, there's so many thoughts I have on this,

but I would say there's this piece that Tonnhousy Coates wrote. He spent hours with Obama in the last year of his presidency. And if Hillary Clinton had won and the legacy had continued, the piece, I've never asked him about this, but I assume would have ended differently. And it ended sadly. It ended with a sad note, right? Because it was like the country has not made as much progress as we thought, right?

The piece was my president was black, right? I think that's what it was. It's such a good piece. And it's very, it feels very, but Obama never felt like he was eliminating all racism in this country by being president, right? That was something people projected onto him, in part because of the hope he brought about. But what I would say just to come back to your question is you don't know who's going. This is what I think is so inspiring about politics and exciting about politics. You don't know who's going to move people. I have no idea. I can tell you 20 people who may run the president. I can't tell you who's going to win the nomination because I don't know who's going to strike a court with people. Maybe that's a white man. Maybe it's a black man. Maybe it's in, I have no idea, right?

And there is racism in the country. There's sexism in the country. But I still think we shouldn't prejudge what the country is ready for because there's been progress made on all sorts of issues that we would have said, wasn't possible. And it is. Maybe I'm an optimist. I am. But you're not crazy, but that is my pushback to your feelings. Fair enough. Fair enough. That's what therapy is all about. You got to work it out. Right. I'm the daughter of a therapist. I agree. All right. Jen will be performing various kinds of therapy on the briefing on MSNBC. Next Wednesday, you can check out season two of her podcast, The Blueprint. Jen. Thank you so much for coming on the press box.

It was great talking with you. All right. Back with Brian and Joel. You went to a little J-school, Joel, before we get out of here today. Yeah, let's do some J-school now. And look, the way I want to start here, Brian, is how many Red River showdowns have you personally attended? 10 to 15. What? Wow.

No, that's quite a bit. That's amazing. You live in California. You haven't lived in Texas your whole life. I went to four when I was, you know, in school, so I got a good leg up there. What's the best one? Were you there for the Stoney Clark?

Stony Clark game. That was in high school, 2008. Okay. It was the best one. Sam Bradford versus Colt McCoy. It was an awesome game. Oh, man. I remember that one.

And Texas won. Well, I mean, I'm sure those are the best ones to go to. Well, as you, I've probably mentioned here before, and I keep saying it publicly in hopes that someday someone will invite me there, but I've never been to one of these games. I'm inviting you right now, because I don't want to extend any invitations that will get, know you got stuff going on on the home front there's kids involved you know dragging you down to Dallas on a fall weekend it's it's tough it's tough that you're invited just i put it that way well i appreciate the invitation i have to work it out maybe i get a two-year notice and i'll be

able to go someday um but with i was particularly interested in this i mean i'm interested in every texas oh you game because i'm from that part of the country that is the probably the biggest robbery in our neck of the woods the heartland so to speak the big 12 country and And I was tasked with writing about Archmanning this week. And he really steps into this game with the Longhorn season at a real point of inflection. And like the game is already dramatic enough. Like there's enough stakes. Like sooners of the sixth ranked team in the country, undefeated.

They look like they're, you know, back to the level that they were at, you know, during the Lincoln Riley era. But it's also a point, which, you know, Texas just lost of Florida. they lost two games. If they lose a third one, that pretty much eliminates them from the playoff race, I would imagine. So this game, in a lot of ways, there's a real referendum on Sark and Arch and all of that.

And so as I started working on this Arch Manning story that posted on the Ringer today, I was thinking about all this stuff. I was like, man, I'm still kind of wary of writing about college athletes like pros. I don't know if you have that sort of reticence now that it says when you talk about them, you know, I mean, I know they're getting paid and I know that Arch himself is like

the most valuable college athlete in the whole country. But it's still just kind of weird to me to talk about them and discuss them like pros. Do you have any of that? Yeah. I've always gone, I've always gone two ways on this because I always think, you know, people say, these are just kids. And, you know, before NIL, they're just amateurs. And I'm like, I'm sorry, they're, you know, athletes playing on TV. Right. I don't, I think we can, you know, people would get, we have a, we know, Texas fans were booing. It's like when I was a student, I booed all the time when I saw somebody

like, like, who care? I'm sorry. Wait, who did you boo? Who did you boo when you were to say? I don't know. John McAvick on principle. I booed everybody. Like, you know, you see something you don't like.

Or, you know, they make a dumb decision. Don't try to get points before half time. Boo. Boo. Booo whenever I want. But I do agree with you. And especially with Arch for some reason. Like I'm,

I have been lapping up all the, what's wrong with him content. that's out there, but there does, it does feel like it gets to a point where it feels cruel faster than it would with an NFL player. Absolutely, right. That's the thing that's sort of different about this. And the reason I bring this up is because, and I'm not, you know, comparing my piece to Will's, but Will's is the one, Will Leach, former founder of Deadspin, and he's writing for

the athletic now. And he wrote a story that, I mean, really didn't do him a lot of favors because the headline is Archman in college football's first flop, which, I mean, that just, you know, that didn't help him at all because it helped him in terms of drawing attention, but it did not help him in terms of winning the argument on the internet because a lot of people are very mad. And they're listening, they're listening all the quarterbacks, all these poor unfortunate college kids who are now middle-aged men who are reminded about how they did not live up the expectations when they were 19 years old. Can you imagine those guys today? It's like, wait, you dredge me up again? Like, I've been a flop my whole life, and now I get reminded of it because somebody called Arch Manning the first flop.

I know, Rip Beaumar, just somewhere down in Texas, you know, in VFW area. Like, man, why are y'all talking about me like this now? So this is one of those comments where I think I saw people on Twitter saying, you know, hey, read the story because sometimes writers are ill-served by the headline. This was actually the premise. Leach writes college football for obvious reasons has been devoid of flops throughout its history. Mm-hmm. Yeah.

That's not right. That's not right. Even if you're talking about the narrow NIL era, which you're talking about, like, okay, college players are paid. Is there a different level of floppitude? Well, Arch isn't the first one there either because DJ O'Galele was in commercials or at least one commercial and was, you know, like he was that guy before Arch Manning was that guy. But nobody has been this, right?

Agreed. Yeah, right. Nobody has, there's never been quite this level of fame, this level of pedigree with this, this poor performance matched up again in this era. Nobody named Manning, who was also in Warby Parker ads, has done this. Right. And that does add an extra layer to it. Absolutely. Right. And I mean, he did say, you know, in the store, he says Archmanning so far is a flop, which. I guess, you know, if we want to be nuanced about it, we can. But he has not lived up to expectations. Sure. Right. But so look, I only root for the horns if Vince Young or T.J. Ford is involved.

Okay. That's south side of Houston for people that don't know. Like, I love those dudes. And that's how, that's what get me to root for the burnt orange. But I don't know, but I kind of have a soft spot for the mannings, man. And I don't like to see kids struggle in the spotlight. I know that it is a different media environment now. I've always just been sort of on the side of, you know, we need to be really careful with how we handle college athletes, right?

Because not all of them are going to go pro. Like some of the reason they're not pros is because they're not, you know, this is not the NFL. Like, they're still theoretically at a lower level of football. This is theoretically ostensibly pseudo amateur ball, right? And Arch didn't ask for any of this, man. He just wanted to play football. And again, I imagine some of the bargain. Austin is a big enough town that sometimes you can get sort of lost in it and you can, you know, go about your life and be sort of prominent and still be mostly left alone because you're not the most famous person there.

But I can't imagine that he thought any of this was going to happen quite like this. And so I'm rooting for Arch, Brian. I want to see him do well. I would like to see him thrive. Maybe not so much that Texas is good again. but at least so that people don't blame him for it or somehow think that he's a flop because I think that it's a little bit more complicated than that. So you're rooting for Arch bawling out in Texas Go 7 and 5. Yeah, that would be cool. Well, don't you think? Oh, maybe not.

You wouldn't. Well, I mean, you wouldn't be excited about that, of course. Can I raise another objection with this article? Yeah, please. You know, Bill Simmons used to talk about the GM of common sense. I think we need the GM of pop culture references at a site like the athletic. I'll say more. Yeah, so he's talking about flops.

Oh, yeah. Culture and Ishtar is in here. You know, when I was a kid, Johnny Carson, oh, they're making Ishtar too, I understand. Like that was something that was in late night monologues. Wow, we're still doing Ishtar as a flop. Also, cop rock, which was a TV show that failed. I'm like, that's like the Jay Leno monologue joke. Oh, yeah.

You know, we don't really need this. We can just, we can maybe update this for modern flops. Well, you can just say that the athletic is not trying to reach the young audience when you third bring up Ishtar, you know? Because I mean, that is, I mean, what would that be? That would have been like us. That would have been a talkie for, you know what I mean? Like, that's how for a kid today. That would have been like, oh, well, you know, the Groucho Marx movie didn't quite live up their expectations.

I don't also know the athletics org chart so well. But I'm just, if like, Stuart Mandel had been shown this piece, I think there would be one of those things where it's like, you know what? I think we're being a little too sweeping here. Yeah. I think there are these, this has happened in college football history before, so maybe just, you know, tweak these sentences. And even if you're going to write about the phenomenon of this guy falling on his face so far, like, let's not, let's let's, you know, ease up on here because I can give you off the top of my head a dozen people who fit this bill. Can I, can I give you a theory about what happened here? Okay.

they came up with the headline before the column. They were like, oh, he's the first flop. And they were like, oh, you should write that. Because that happens all the time with writers, right? Like, you'll be saying something in Slack or on Twitter. And then your editor will be like, hey, can you make that a column? And can you make that a piece? And I bet if I had to guess, then we can ask Will.

I don't, I've never spoken with Will Leach before. But I wonder if that's what happened here. It feels like maybe that was like, it seemed like a really provocative theory that would get attention, which it did. It pissed everybody off. And people remarked that it actually united college football Twitter, which is really an amazing, you know, peace process to have put together. In defense of a Texas Longhorn, in defense of a member of the Manning family. Just imagine what it took to make all that unity happen.

Last thing before we got out of here, did you see the Dolly Parton Health scare? I did see that, man. Yeah. So Dolly Parton's sister put out a message that she was praying for it. her and then Dolly Parton put up a video yesterday saying, no, I'm okay. Thank you so much for the prayers. Thank you for being worried, but this is not, you know, I'm going to be around longer, whatever. I just want to note, and I'm certainly happy that Dolly Parton's going to be with us for hopefully many, many, many more years. But the hell scare is such a strange unit of journalism.

Yeah. I think part of it is prep because if you have somebody, especially like Dolly, I mean, talk about 100% approval rating in American life. She is one of those people. You do want to be prepared. Oh, my goodness. You know, we're going to have to write something. We have to retrospectives, something like that.

But there's also that's just weird like, is Dolly OK economy out there? You're just like, you know, it's like, you know, kind of a cousin of the pictures of somebody looking really skinny that used to be in the tabloids. Oh, yeah. Absolutely. Yeah, I just really, really strange. Well, and it's all, because the thing is, it's like you're not most often in those circumstances.

You remember when Randy Moss was going through his health scare last year, right? And people, it took a while. I don't think we knew exactly what was going on. Like Dion, this summer, right? Like when he, you know, and then he had the press conference to announce that he had bladder cancer. And it's just like, if you can't say what it is, like, don't scare us like that then. Right.

Like just, you know, I don't think we need to do that. that. And also, I mean, again, you're going to pray for Dolly Parton if you want to pray for it. But like, there's something about going on the internet. I mean, I guess that like if you're, if you're scared for your family member, then you want to get community and you want people to rally around you. But that maybe is not the best way to do it, I would think. Yeah, we're not into thoughts and prayers, Twitter here at the press box. Oh, well, do your own thing, whoever you are. Well, I'm just saying, you know, you know, but I, hey, I'm a big Dolly Partie.

I used to listen to country music, man. What was it? Tanya, wait, Tanya Tucker, you know, I was, that was still a little, you know, country music back in my day. What's your favorite Dolly Parton song? Jolene. That's a good choice.

Yeah. What you think about it? You didn't know I, you didn't think I was going to be able to do it, did you? I kind of wondered. Well, you know, nine to five was my joint too, man. I used to, I used to really, I can, Yeah, those are great choices. Yeah, man, working nine, two, five.

I'm from Texas, man. I had to know the culture sometimes. There we go. Two doors down. Also, somewhere on my metal stand. Well, I was going to say, which is that your favorite? I don't know if it's my favorite, but it's one I wind up listening to most of the time. Two door down.

All right, he is Joel Anderson. I'm Brian Curtis. Black to Magic by Kyle Crichton with an assistant for Brian Waters. Thank you, B-Dub. Coming up on the press box, David Chewaker joins us on Monday. Joel, I will talk to you next Thursday with more lukewarm takes. about the meeting. See you that, Joel. Looking for it, sir, man.