The Press Box - The FBI Seizes a Reporter’s Laptop, and National Championship Storylines. Plus: CNN’s Abby Phillip!

Episode Date: January 16, 2026

Hello, media consumers! Bryan and Joel discuss the FBI raid of a Washington Post reporter that resulted in her laptop and phone being seized (01:08), and how journalists need to protect their information under Trump 2.0. Then, Joel gets a chance to give his take on the Lynn Jones–Jacksonville Jaguars press conference saga, including what journalists need to do coming out of this situation (14:07). Next, Bryan and Joel dive into some football notes, including a conundrum surrounding Carson Beck (26:01), Michael Irvin’s new podcast with Netflix (29:59), and Tony Romo’s partial explanation for his poor performance this weekend (32:42). Lastly, the show ends with Joel interviewing CNN’s Abby Phillip about her book on Rev. Jesse Jackson (38:04), her transition from reporter to anchor (57:15), and the future of cable news (1:09:58). All that and more, here on the Press Box. Hosts: Bryan Curtis and Joel Anderson Guest: Abby Phillip Producer: Bruce Baldwin Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hello media consumers. Welcome to Press Box Thursday. It's Brian Curtis. It's Joel Anderson. It's producer Bruce Baldwin. Coming up on the press box, a Washington Post reporter had her laptops and phones seized by the FBI. Why you should be scared. Plus, the most interesting stories tied to Monday's National Championship game.

We'll get Joel's thoughts on the most important press conference in Jacksonville Jaguars history. Didn't involve Urban Meyer? He did not involve Urban Meyer. Also, Tony Romo had a cold and a very special guest. Joel interviews Abby Phillip about a new book or CNN show, Scott Jennings, and much more. First, Joel, let's start with the Washington Post story. Hannah Natanson is a reporter who covers everything from government firings under Trump to Venezuela. on Wednesday, Hannah Nathanson was subject to an FBI search warrant.

It was part, the post reports of an investigation into a government contractor accused of illegally retaining classified government materials. Continuing here, federal agents searched Natenson's home in her devices, seizing her phone, two laptops and a garment watch. One of the laptops was her personal computer, the other opposed. post-issued laptop. Investigators said Natinson told Natinson that she is not the focus of the probe. The warrant said that law enforcement was investigating

Aurelio Perez Lugones, a system administrator in Maryland who has a top secret security clearance and has been accused of accessing and taking home classified intelligence reports from secure government facilities. That sounds really terrifying.

You know, if I was Aurelio Peres-Logon, is there some sort of way that they can charge him with the death penalty? I mean, I guess the espionage act isn't like one of the the ultimate punishments like the death penalty? Donald Trump, I believe, has wondered such things aloud about certain actors in the government, at least about what penalties could be imposed on such people. Yeah, I mean, I don't think that this is an administration

that is concerned about body counts or like propriety or anything. It's just, I mean, if I would not want to be in that situation, if I was Mr. Perez-Logonis, but, you know, I wish the best for him and I hope he has really good representation. Now, legally speaking here, the post notes, the feds are going after this contractor, not Natanson. He's accused, she's not. But the way the government is going after the contractor is by taking the reporter's tools, her laptop, her other laptop, her phone, her watch. This is a change from Biden where the rules where such a search warrant was prohibited. And what's interesting here, as a follow-up post story notes, under previous administrations, reporters have been subpoenaed for information. And such actions are usually challenged in court, but raiding a reporter's home early in the morning, a more intrusive step that limits the ability for a court challenge is exceedingly unusual, if not unprecedented.

according to Gabe Rotman, an attorney and vice president policy for the reporter's committee for the freedom of the press who said he could think of no comparable examples. Yeah, I mean, that's, can you just imagine waking up and there's federal agents outside your door? You're a reporter. I mean, I strained to believe or think about like what, what you're even thinking about when you're faced with that sort of situation, you wake up early in the morning and how dire the circumstances must feel at that point. Also, man, I'm going to kill you if you ask for my computer or my phone, man. I don't want to give you my phone or my computer for any reason whatsoever.

You know, not that I'm hiding anything. It's just like, no, man, I can't give it to you. We're going to have to tussle. Absolutely not. I mean, look, there's like the convenience of it. Like, I don't know what I'm going to do without my computer or my phone. and if you're a reporter, can you imagine that? I mean, when do you get, I mean, that's the thing.

I mean, these are, I mean, there's obviously much more important existential questions. But I'd be like, hey, when I'm going to get my computer back? Because they mentioned it like she can't do work right now because they've got her computers and her phone. And like just literally like, yeah, how am I supposed to move through the world without those things right now? Post-you-tell-Tilts, we're horrified for Hannah, who's a wonderful reporter and scared for ourselves. trying to think through how best to further protect sources and secure our reporting and devices. And that really is the question here. Do reporters need to guard their materials in different ways under Trump?

Let me go ahead and answer that. Yes. Better question. How can reporters guard their work materials, their phones, their laptops under Trump? I don't know the extent of the details of the ways that it's just, was being, you know, transmitted or communicated. But as far back as a decade ago, I was a part of a group of journalists who started communicating and encrypted apps, right?

Like, so a lot of the information, you know, that we share between each other, between encrypted ads. I'm not going to say which one. I'm not going to say the journalists are, obviously. But we've been thinking about this for a decade now because even then it was clear that this administration was going to be hostile toward the press. They even, compared to now, they were almost restrained the first time around. But even then, it was a worry.

But especially now, like using the encrypted apps and I don't, I mean, the thing is, man, if they come to your house with a subpoena and they want your stuff, I actually don't know how you stop them. But you should always be thinking about how you're communicating, what you're saying in public. And yeah, are you following that sort of like protocol right now? Yeah. And I would just want to stop, though, one, talk about. what you're the distinction that that post story raised and that you're talking about there it's

there's difference here right the fed subpoena you you go to your publication you grab those highly paid lawyers that most big pubs like the post have and say okay here we go we're going to fight this in court right we're going to battle this out whether you have the right to do that when you show up in the morning at someone's house with a search warrant that all goes out the window right you're give you a chance to negotiate that way. That's right. And that's the major and interesting distinction here. In terms of stuff reporters can do,

and maybe this is the list where you and I should start, in addition to those encrypted apps, as long as you don't, by the way, see and send them to Jeffrey Goldberg. Just make sure to do that when you're communicating. The posts Sarah Ellison, Patrick Marley, and Colby Idkowitz, in another piece, went to some reporters and said,

what are you doing? Well, one said, they had actually turned off their phone's facial recognition. Really? The idea being, hey, let's say people show up my doorstep in the morning. And they take my phone. Well, they can hold it in front of my face and unlock the phone. But if there's just a normal four number password on there or six number password on there,

I actually have to enter that. And potentially, I could refuse to do that buying myself time and then maybe you get into the legal challenge we just talked about. I was wondering about like, what's, you know, what sort of obligation are you under at that point? I mean, there are no rules. There are no more laws anymore. Right. I mean, just, I mean, we live in sort of a lawless society right now. But can you just say, no, I'm not going to punch in my pin code.

And that be okay. I don't. That's the kind of thing I think would be happening or being covered in seminars right now. Yeah. At the Times and the Post and every publication of that nature. Like, what are your right? what should you do? Let's hope this doesn't become a regular thing,

but again, we're at the one-year mark of the Trump administration. Yeah. The one-year mark of the Trump administration where there has been this constant, constant, you know, addition of new things that Trump is doing to the press. We started with suing media outlets.

We moved on to the Gulf of America. Remember that one? Oh, yeah, man. That's right. Limiting access inside the White House, all but forcing reporters to leave the Pentagon calling a reporter Piggy and now we're here. Right. Well, I mean, people kind of overlooked it also in the buildup to that first administration that he would put reporters and sort

of a pin in the middle of the rallies and sort of encourage or foment, you know, anger and violence toward the reporters that were there. Like, as to say that you're not necessarily safe here, right? And so like, this has all been a part of it from the very beginning, right? So the escalation kind of, you know, waxes and wanes, but it's still there. It's always present in this administration. Think of the trust you have to earn as a reporter, especially at a place like the Post, from people who are afraid to talk to you even on background. Yeah.

Because that will have repercussions, and we see Natinson reporting on all these government firings, right? A lot of people who are not used probably to being called by reporters who are just like civil servants. talking to her. Now imagine having to re-earn that trust after your laptops and phone has been seized and say, hey, no, no, no, I didn't do anything here, right? I would never give you up. If I made a promise to keep this information confidential, I wouldn't, I wouldn't tell anybody.

Right. The thing is, they just took my laptop away. Right. you cannot guarantee the security of the information or their safety, right? And so, yeah, I don't, I mean, that is always one of the questions that I think about when I go talk to people as a reporter. I'm thinking, why is this person talking to me? Or like, why would this person talk to me?

Like, it is always something that I'm thinking about. And I'm trying to be aware of and let them know that I'm aware of that so that we can have like an honest conversation about what they're comfortable with, right? But especially now, like, you really can't guarantee them anything. The only thing that you can hope, and you read some of this in this particular story, is that the people that you're going to talk with or to exchange information with, that they feel mission-minded, that they feel like, oh, like, there's a moral component of this, and that's why I have to help you to push back against this government overreach or whatever.

And, like, those are the kind of people that you're hoping are willing to talk to you but they're always sort of putting something on the line and maybe they're willing to do it as well. It's an interesting too for the Trump administration because they get to go after this one particular contractor. And you know Cash Patel and company have already tweeted about this story. Of course.

But then you get to put a little bit of doubt in anybody's mind who would chat digitally or otherwise with a reporter. Oh, hey, you know. some laptops got taken up. Think about that next time. I also found myself thinking, how is this going to get worse

between Trump and the press over the next three years? Marty Barron tells the post this administration is salivating for an opportunity to incarcerate journalists. That's one way. Yeah.

It could get worse. I do have a happy postcript here from Brian Stelter's Reliable Sources Newsletter this morning. Okay. I'll read you this paragraph here. After Natenson woke up to FBI agents at her door. She did what she usually does. She went to the office. In the afternoon after

Natanson met with post lawyers and security experts, colleagues gathered around her desk in the newsroom asking what they could do to help. Natanson exhorted them to get back to work, especially because she can't right now with her phone and computers in the government's hands. The best thing you can for me, she told a group of colleagues, is keep reporting. That's very admirable. And I would say just I remember there was a my wife was part of a journalism fellowship in Stanford many years ago or a decade ago and there were there was a journalist from the Ukraine then and he was sort of like a government dissident like he had to like he could not live in Ukraine it was actually very very dangerous for him to be there because the Russian government was

you know after him or whatever and I remember thinking man what a unique existence that must feel like, like, you know, to know that you're considered an enemy of the government and like the actual, you know, act of reporting and doing your job could put you at risk, put your life at risk and that you might have to, you know, stay ahead and away from the government. And I'm like, you know, kind of feels like that might, that doesn't seem unrealistic for a lot of people here to have to be dealing with in the next few weeks, months, years, however long this thing goes on. So yeah, man, shout out to Ms. Natanson, who is a very young reporter as well. I was very shocked at like her age.

She's very accomplished for how young she is. And yeah, it's just really scary. Yeah. I hope that people still hold their resolve going forward because we're going to need it. In other news, does it make me a total weirdo that I spent the last 48 hours wondering what you would say about the Lynn Jones press conference story? from Jacksonville. Yes. It does.

Well, nobody could possibly have anything else to add to this. Do you really want me to talk about this, Brian? I do. I really do. I feel, you know, like Candice Buckner's writing a column in, you know, Washington Post yesterday. We're getting a whole other round on this. Like, here we go.

Let's do it. I honestly have more to say about this. Okay. You have more to say about it? I have more to say about it. Do you want to go first? Do you want to go first? Do you want me to go first then?

Why don't you go first? I'll come back around. after you. Okay. Well, I'll just go with the basics. I got three things that I can offer here. I would not have done what Ms. Jones did, but that's a personal choice. I don't like people knowing who I am. I don't like drawing attention to myself in a room. I very rarely even ask questions in that sort of format because I just, you know, usually the question I have, I just kind of want to, I baby them. I don't want people to know what the response is going to be. So I wouldn't have done it. But that's just me.

That's a personal choice. When you get into that sort of a room, do you ask questions typically? If I have to. Yeah. But again, that's just the job I do. If I was a beat writer, there's no other way. You're not going to pull aside the coach every day. Sometimes you have to ask questions there.

I feel like, and I don't know how it works anymore. I remember when I used to have to cover the Texans, and Dom Capers would be up at the front of the room. And then, you know, he might just walk away off to the side, and then it'd be a gaggle of reporters, like trying to get a few last questions before he walked off. And I would always kind of hope I could get my question in that way. But there's always the bonus material.

Yeah. But what's the difference between that? Because aren't all the other beat writers standing around for that too? At least the like serious. Fewer. And it's not going to be on TV. And it won't get on TV at that point then. Okay. So you're saying the public nature of this is what it's not, it's not just what she said,

but the idea of standing up and saying that on television and have that put and made into a clip that everybody can watch. That's part of what bothers you. Yeah, that's a part of it. Yeah. I'm not even saying it'd bother me. I'm just saying that like, that's just something that I wouldn't have done that. Yeah, I wouldn't have done it. Okay.

The other thing, and I don't know if there's any way to legislate this, and I'm not trying to offend anybody that has, I don't think journalists to talk about this in public. People can see us and hear us talking about this. And all it does is reaffirm all the worst things that people think about us, that we take ourselves too seriously, that we're, you know, not sympathetic or empathetic people that, yeah, that we don't come into this job and think of the people as humans. If there's not a lot of humanity that we extend to the people that we cover or write about. And so I think that you can have an opinion about this. I do think it's a little weird if you have strong opinions on it, but fine.

But if you do have an opinion about it, I would just, at least for me in the future, I don't think the public needs to see that. That's a conversation to have in your group chats, list serves, whatever else. Because I just remember when Aaron Andrews, it was just a couple of months ago, it was just like, you know, sometimes I have to sacrifice. I have to work on Thanksgiving. And it wasn't like she was complaining. She was just saying my job has some.

Completely taken out of context. But yes. By her own. And people like, oh, you guys, that's crazy. You guys, I would love to be away from my family on Thanksgiving to cover the Cowboys. You know, people got out mad at her. And I just like, I just as, you know, for the sanctity of our business and our sanity, I just would not talk about this. What about you? Would you? Well, first, I'm going to put aside the meta quality of what you just said, since we are on a media podcast here. Right. Where we do talk about such things. I think I agree with you that when beat writers defend themselves, defend the way they ask questions,

defend the way they want to conduct a press conference, they get nothing but, you know, a truckload of manure dumped on their heads by people. Yeah. They seem self-serious. They seem like people are taking something way, way, you know,

with much more gravity than it should ever be taken. On the other hand, and I said this on the Tuesday podcast, I think we have to be able to, explain to people why we're doing things the way we're doing it. If we agree that beat writing as it's been done for decades and decades, and it's still being done by the newspapers, by the athletic, by places like that, if this is the way to do the job,

we have to convince people that that is a good way to do the job. Right. And we have to convince them that they should pay our publication so that we can continue to do the job that way. Like I read Candace Buckner's column. She's absolutely right that there's this huge disconnect between journalists and the greater public. Well, then the question is, how do you close that? What do you do?

Because if like you look back at the, you know, if you're back in the world newspapers and network news, that was the primary way that news was communicated. Information was communicated in that style and that impartial just the facts, here we go kind of style, plenty of exceptions. But that was the house style of American media. it is not the house style anymore because people look at social media, they're the YouTube, they look everything and podcasts and they don't hear it. So it sounds strange to them. And that kind of seriousness about it sounds strange. So we have to figure that out because otherwise they're not going to, they're not going to subscribe to your publication. They're not going to subscribe to the newspaper

if they don't believe that's a way to do it. Yeah. I sort of see that I, you know, I always just come back to your work should sort of speak for itself in the way that you go about in today's journalism climate yeah man because because people are going to because i don't think you're convincing anybody on the internet anymore about the value of a particular thing like i think people are going to engage with your work based on the work itself and then people will will render judgment from it but trying to argue on behalf of the sanctity of the postgame press conference um i just don't know that you can win that argument in public and i don't know that i don't know that people came

or that it matters to them anymore. I do understand what you're saying because I do think that it would be helpful. I think that if people care about this in particular, they will come to this podcast or they'll come to stuff like this. Like they'll seek out information to get a sense for what journalists are talking about

and why this is a big deal or whatever. But like in general, if you're just tweeting out to your 800,000 followers, I don't think Lynn Jones is a professional reporter and here's why. I just don't think that that's going to be, I don't think that's, that's doing any, providing any value to the conversation. All right. Let me just put it in a slightly different way.

Okay. Forget the whole Lynn Jones discourse for a second. Yeah. I'm sitting in the Texans media room. Mm-hmm. I'm asking questions. I write a smart, well-reported, informative beat story. Yeah.

On a Tuesday. Here's what happens immediately. all the Texans fan accounts and websites grab whatever information I have. They put a much more aggressive spin on it, pro Texans, anti-Texans, whatever it is. Because they're allowed to and I'm not. Everybody under the age of 40 only sees what they do. They don't see what I do. So I can let my work speak for itself.

I can do things in this time honored way and my newspaper is going to go bankrupt, right? It's going to go away. So this is what I'm saying is it's not just like us winning an argument because I think we can win an argument. I think you and I can sit up there and say, here's the reason this is important. Here's the reason why you get information this way.

I'm just saying like if people don't buy that, they're not going to subscribe the newspaper. We're not and these people aren't going to have jobs anymore. Yeah, I just don't know that there's anything to stop that. You know what I mean? because I don't think that, I don't think that making that argument, I mean, because it is funny, and you and Dave, they did talk about this the other day about how all these other bloggers and all these other media sites are basically, you know, they're cribbing off of us, man.

You know, they're using the, they're using the basis of our work. Or, you know, when we used to be reporters, maybe I should put it that way. Yeah. They're using us, meaning beat writers. Beat writers, yeah. We're still reporters, not beat writers. But yeah, people are using that information. and repurposing it, whatever,

in adding an inflammatory opinion to top of it. I get it, but I just don't know that there's a way to win that argument right now, without paywalls, without truly distinctive reporting and writing, because I just don't, you know, I don't think people are going to be like, you know what, man, the Houston Chronicle did really have that story first. and this guy that works for Texansagreate.com,

you know, sort of took their reporting out of contacts and didn't credit them. I just, I don't know that there's a way to win that, but I do take what you say seriously. I do think for people that care, it is valuable to explain to them what we do or why we do it. But I just think at large, it's just sort of a losing battle. And a battle that I choose not to engage in. Okay.

Fair enough. You have something else? Oh, yeah, right. Yeah. So the other piece of this, is that when I was a young journalist covering an NFL team, and I just remember I didn't know how to get close to anybody, man, like as a reporter. Like I didn't know how to get people to talk to me off the record,

where their information was coming from. I felt sort of lost. Ms. Jones covers a lot of things. She's black press in Jacksonville. So I can't imagine the Jaguars are like her primary beat, probably a piece of it, but not the main thing. I can't imagine she gets many opportunities to speak. with Liam Cohen or be recognized by him.

So this, at least to me, I'm thinking, was an opportunity for her to do the sort of beat sweetening that everybody else gets to do outside of that room. We got to see it. Because, you know, people were all, I'm sure that a bunch of, you know, when they're texting or running to them in the hallway of the football facility, tough years here, coach, man.

But, you know, guys look good. I'm sure, you know, next year thing. You know, they're doing all that kind of beat sweetening in the background. and we just happen to see it in public. It's not, and the only reason of people are saying it's unprofessional is that they got to see something

that's normally private and public, but that kind of shit is happening and reporters are saying that to the people that cover all the time. So that's why I just, it's hard for me to get too outraged about this because I know what it's like to feel like I don't know how to get access to the person,

access to the person. I don't know how to talk to them. I don't know how to make them remember me or want to talk to me. And so you think up ways to do it. And I can't help but think that maybe that was one way that she did in that circumstance. And people can agree or disagree on whether or not that was the right thing. But I'm just like, man, come on, bro.

I completely agree that there is tons of hidden beat sweetening out there that we will never see. And that we see this one quotation from a press conference. And we're like, well, you would never talk to your subject. That way people talk to their subjects that way. They may not use those exact words. Yeah. Keep your head of young man. Yeah, they may not say that, but in so many words.

Absolutely. Let's talk about the college football national championship game. Yeah. I want to talk to you about the quandary of Carson Beck, if I can use a word that has perhaps never been attached to Carson Beck before. So Carson Beck is the starting quarterback from Miami, playing Indiana on Monday. He started at Georgia for two years.

Right. He didn't win a championship. He moved on. and college football writers now, and certainly the TV people are casting him in that familiar way. Right? He was at Georgia.

You know, he was looking for a place. He's landed in Miami. Right. Classic nobody believed in me kind of talk. All of that is more or less true. The other thing that's true is that Carson Beck is one of the highest paid players in college football. This is true.

Four million. Yes. So he could be at the same time and nobody believed in me guy and one of the highest paid players in the sport. I find that funny. I mean, I think the thing is, where people are riffing off of here is that like, and again, how many people really were being critical of Carson Beck in public? I don't know. But the Georgia fans, it did seem like they were kind of tough on him in the final few weeks of his tenure there and on the way out the door. They made it seem like, oh, yeah, getting that guy out here. We didn't need him anyway. He was a loser, so on and so forth, right? And so that's why they're sort of trying to cast him in this way. I mean, and he does look sad.

Does that help? I remember when Miami beat Notre Dame earlier in the year, and they interviewed him after the game. And they were already kind of starting that talk up. Like, you know, how does it feel? You know, you came here after the difficult times of Georgia and now you're here. It was kind of like already trying to get to that sort of of emotional tenor.

And I just wonder, you know, he looked sad. I think he may have gotten emotional. And so I wonder if like that's a big part of it, right? He just has a very empathetic face. Yes. It's true. Like when he was high stepping into the end zone the other night, semi against Ole Miss, that was, I'd not seen that Carson back.

First little bit of swag we'd seen from him, right? It's really funny. Yeah. I also think this, I think, you know, I have a little bit of experience this department. I remember college football players are really hard to write about and think about. Because the data set of material that you're working with is so small. Oh, yeah.

That's what I've always said. There are only two kinds of features on ESPN's college game day. You ready for this? Okay. I wasn't recruited by the team I wanted. Yeah. And that's pretty much the Carson Beck story in slightly different terms, right? That's the Fernando Mendoza story who wanted to go to Miami.

That's everybody. There was Joe Burrow at Ohio State. like everybody was I wasn't recruited by the team I wanted number one and number two I'm doing this for someone special oh yeah I'm doing this for somebody special parent a friend somebody in bad circumstances those are the only two features you ever see written or or put on TV about college football players because that's all people could do oh they don't give you any access I mean very few schools give you any access to players anymore right like they limit it as much as possible. The only exceptions in my career, Washington State under Mike Leach and USC under Pete Carroll. Oh, my God. Well, that was like Grand Central Station. Just everybody, everybody with a ticket, you're in. Let's go. You could go in there watch practice, man. You could go inside a little

practice. I mean, it was great. You know, I got John David Booty outside. What is that that center called there? The Heisman Center, whatever it is. Yeah, I mean, for hours, just alone. And that just doesn't happen anymore. Speaking to Miami, can we just once again, Marvel at the journey that Michael Irvin has been on in media terms?

Michael Irvin was sent home from the Super Bowl three years ago by the NFL network after a woman in a hotel lobby had a complaint about him, about inappropriate behavior. That was three years ago.

It was suspended for the first half at 2023 by the NFL network. He was gone from the network completely the next year in 2024. Now you watch college football. And what do you see? Michael Irvin on the sidelines. Networks cannot get enough of it. We got a tweet the other day from Netflix.

A new podcast, The White House with Michael Irvin. Leaning in, man. If people don't know, the White House was where the 90s Dallas Cowboys went to do all of their off-the-record stuff. They partied. Yes. That's where they went to parties. Now we're Michael Irvin is back with a podcast named after that particular house.

That, like, that's a thing that's happened. The comeback started with the Cowboys dock where he was the MVP of that doc. MVP. By a mile. Yeah. Now we're on the sidelines of Miami. We're getting out the belt after the game. That's Twitter content.

Like, it's just, I just want to note that. He's irresistible. People cannot get enough of Michael Irvin once. You know what I mean? And Michael Irvin is very smart about making sure you never forget that he's in the room. You know, like he always wants, he always lets people know, I'm here. You know, just in case you missed me. I'm here right now.

He's really good at that. And I think it's why he was the player he was, right? Because that also puts a lot of pressure on you, right? If you're going to be the guy that always has cameras on him and attention, and he thrived at that as a player. And he's a really good talker, right? Like, he was a great talker because he really, he has this really good way of like balancing between being vulnerable, right? And talking about his mistakes and the things that he did.

But also just like being audacious, like the alpha guy. Right. And so, yeah, like, it's hard to stay away from him. I was, I would go to his YouTube channel man every night again and see what he had to say, you know. So now can go to Netflix. Now I can go to Netflix. Check out the White House. The White House.

I thought, you know, I actually thought that this was going to be about the White House. by the way. And I was like, Cowboys Doc was about. Yeah, I was yeah, remember that great scene where all the players like,

we can't talk about the White House. Michael was like, I will tell you about the White House. I'll talk about it. Yeah. And the house was not, so it was just so shockingly unimpressive, just very typical suburban Dallas home,

by the way. But yeah. A couple more quick football notes. Tony Romo was just dreadful on Sunday during the Bill's Jaguars game. Yeah, man. That was a big story before Lynn Jones, before we,

before we transition. to a different meta-media story. Romo offered a partial explanation on Sirius XM with Adam Shun. By the way, you referenced it earlier. Were you fighting an illness in the game on Sunday? Oh, yeah, we had a bunch of guys sick, but yeah, we were just grinding through it,

but you're not going to miss a playoff game. It's too much fun. And by the way, we got a few records. It's been fun watching them. And our coal crew and everyone gets so excited about it. It's fun to watch. It's a good one. It's always a special when you get a bunch of people watching.

It is playoff season, so it's important. Somehow Tony Romo's doctor's note was as boring as Tony Romo's commentary was during the game. So I don't remember listening to him during that game. Maybe I may have to sound off when that game was on. Did he sound like that during the game? Yes, he did. Okay, yeah, because he still sounded just, I don't know. I hope he's okay.

I hope he's okay Richard Deich Yeah No longer at the athletic He's gone on to To other pastures now Okay All right

Broke's story for Sports Business Journal That Al Michaels is coming back For one more year At least one more year Okay To call Thursday night football for Amazon All right The other thing I want to tell you about

What Bill Simmons calls the Shakeies game Which is the early afternoon You know Graveyard Shishish playoff game on Saturdays. The NFL has all these options. Like what is going to be the early Saturday game? The sacrifice that game.

What is the sacrifice game? This year it was Panthers Rams. The Panthers were the ideal team for the Shaky's game. That's right. According to the ratings, 28 million people watch the Shaky's game. If I'm doing my math right and I try to stay away from TV ratings as a rule, that would have been the fifth most watched television program of any kind in

2025. Jeez. The Shaky's game. Panthers Rams. I mean, I marvel and I talk about this. I mean, I'm a, you know, we're both college guys, college football guys.

We're both college guys as well. We can college guys. I marvel at how poor the NFL product is during the regular season. Like, I think there's just a lot of god-awful games that I just have like no interest in. And that kind of fell into that. Like, I was, I remember thinking, oh, the Panthers or Amazon, I don't have to see that. And the 28 million people signed up for it, man.

I just, okay. 20 million people. That's crazy. And I saw people doing the whole, you know, like, you know, oh, my God, you know, that's the playoff games are on streaming, that whole wrap. I'm not going to do my whole thing about complaints about streaming. But I'm like, do you see how many people watching Amazon game on Saturday night? Like, you know, which was Packers Bears, which is an incredible game. Yeah.

And other ratings news, the Golden Gloves is on Sunday. Okay, yeah. Is that as far outside of your field of vision as it is mine? I was aware of it. I saw some Nikki Glazer jokes. I saw some. Yeah, I heard about it. I saw the chatter.

The jokes she made about CBS, CBS, CBS, cute. 8.7 million viewers down 7% or nearly 7% from the year prior. Here's a question. Do we have to do the Golden Globes on a night when there is an NFL playoff game? Man, that's tough. I mean, but I guess they got to have it at some point because this is award season. So is that what is it like the college football calendar where we just have to get this stuff done? Because Patriots Chargers, which was not a good game, 28.9 million viewers, as you knew it would on Sunday night on NBC.

You're like, we're going to wait, we're going to have this award ceremony where Leo is in the room and we're just going to feed it to an NFL playoff game. What did you think was going to happen? But I mean, the Golden Gloves is kind of the JV. I mean, no offense to the people that want to go to goes. And shout out Amy Polo, you know, our colleague. So we want a offense to our colleague. No offense. But didn't that like the JV?

Yes. The JV Oscars anyway? It is not the Oscars. Yeah. It's just funny. It's like, yeah, we're saying, well, put it up against the playoff game. Let's see what happens. Like, we can sacrifice that.

That was their shakies game. There's some other stuff coming later. All right. Here we go. Joel talks to a very special guest. Joining us on the show today is Abby Phillip, the illustrious anchor and host of News Night with Abby Phillip on CNN. It comes on 10 p.m. Eastern.

She's also the author of a new book titled A Dream Deferred, Jesse Jackson, and the Fight for Black Political Power. Not so coincidentally, we're recording Thursday, January 15th, which is actually MLK's birthday. This is not the national holiday. The national holiday is on Monday. And it's a national holiday for now. We'll see. Anyway, Abby, thanks so much for joining us. On that now.

Yeah, right. Thank you for having me. It's good to be here on MLK's actual birthday. Absolutely, absolutely. So look, before you started this project, I just wanted to know, how much did you know about Jesse Jackson? I'm just sort of wondering what click for you during the research that made you think, I would really like to spend the next few years in my life reading, reporting, and writing about this guy.

Well, first of all, I didn't know that it would take as many years as it did. Okay, okay, okay. But, you know, I knew, I think, what everybody else knows or thinks that they know about Jesse Jackson. They know him as a civil rights figure. They know him as an activist. They know him as somebody who just seems to always be everywhere and who has been around in public life seemingly forever. But the reason I actually decided to write this book is because I'm a political journalists and I've been covering these campaigns. I started covering politics in 2010 when I was

working at the White House for Politico covering Obama. But it was in the 2016 campaign when I was covering Hillary Clinton and you remember the Bernie Sanders moment happened. And that was, that was the first, I think, time where in my generation, people were starting, young people of my age, frankly, were starting to be attracted to this kind of populist message coming from Sanders. And then on the other side, there was Donald Trump who was offering another version of that message. And a lot of people were telling me at that time, well, you know, you can't really understand what Bernie Sanders is doing unless you understand what Jesse Jackson did. And it clicked for me that a lot of people are really not that aware of his

presidential campaigns. You know, I think they know him as the activist, but most people don't know him as a politician. And if they do know that he ran for president, I don't think that they understand what I quickly learned, which was that he came in, he was the second runner up in the Democratic primary in 1988. He came close to being the nominee. And for that to happen, you know, 20 plus years before Barack Obama hit the seat. I think that would be, it occurred to me that, first of all, that needed to be sort of really investigated and looked at and, you know, how do we really understand this moment and what Jesse Jackson had to do with it? But it also needed to be memorialized just for a whole generation of people who just, I think this would be new information for them. I just want to circle back one quick second for this.

what took you so long? Because you said, you didn't say it was going to take so long. So what happened? Is the person that I wanted to write a book, you know, and people say, you should write a book? And I'm like, that seems really hard. So what took you so long? Yeah. I mean, writing a book is hard.

I'm not going to lie. A lot of things happened. So 2020 was when I, you know, was committed to writing the book. And I thought, you know, because I was covering the campaign at that time. And I was thinking, you know, it's a presidential cycle, usually after a presidential cycle, things start to cycle down, and then you kind of have like a year or two of a little bit of a lull. That's a perfect time to write a book. Well, then the 2020 election happened. Donald Trump refused to concede the election. January 6th happened. I got my first show.

I found out I was pregnant. There were a lot of things happening. But I also think it's just a sign at the times. I mean, the political system has never downshifted. Really since 2016. We have not had a down cycle of news since then. So we're just in this perpetual rat race of just, you know, thing after thing after thing happening. And so as somebody in the middle of that, I mean, I completely miscalculated about what would happen after 2020 thinking, you know, this is going to be the end of a chapter. It's going to be slower. We're going to have time to work on books. It was a bit of a different story. Well, wait. So I'm asking you this. And I have to to the people listen. I'm asking you this is selfish because I wouldn't know how you did it then.

So like how did you even find time then? Because right, you had a kid. You have a CNN show. You have, you know, all this other stuff going on. Where did you find the time? How did you make time for it? Nights and weekends. Nights and long weekends. I mean, I didn't take a book leave. I mean, I was, I launched my first show. About two years later, I got this court show that I'm in doing now. move to New York. I mean, so it's been kind of relentless, and I think it's been important to me to stay in the political news moment. So, you know, I would come home after doing TV until eight or nine or even 10 and try to like hunker down for an hour or two and do some research or write some things. I would take long weekends that, you know, otherwise I would be spending with my family. And I would go

and lock myself in a hotel room and just write 20,000 words and just, you know, it just was one of those things where, I mean, it was really difficult because also the, it's like fast-twitch, slow-twitch muscles. You know, as a daily political journalist,

which I've been my entire career since I was 21 years old, I have been covering the minute-by-minute of politics every day of that time. And writing a book is a completely different skill set. It is a, it's a slow twitch exercise. It's a long process. And you have to kind of reset your brain in order to even focus on the task in that way. And so I actually found that it was very helpful for me to do that, to lock myself away in a room for days at a time where all I could do is just think about them.

because it's very hard to have both slow twitch and fast twitch going at the same time in on in the day to day. And for the people who do it, I, you know, my hats off to them. It's incredibly admirable, but it is incredibly difficult to do, I think. Before you started, I saw that you told Reverend Jackson that it was going to be a real book. So what did that mean and what was his response? Well, it meant that it was going to be a book that that talked about all of it, including some things that maybe he didn't want to talk about. And where I would have to really dive into the controversies, it was not going to be a book that was about only the highlights. Because there are things that you could, you know, projects that are like that. And this was not that. And I did, you know, I did have to tell him that at a certain point because, first of all, I would say he was very supportive from the very beginning.

Okay. And as a huge CNN fan, he loves watching, you know, he was very welcoming to me. But I think he, given, you know, just who he is, he saw it as an opportunity to say, like, well, we can do this together. And I think that that's a different kind of project because I just felt like this book, needed to be, there are plenty of people who are skeptics of Reverend Jackson. And I want those people to read this book also and to know that it's not going to paper over the things that they have questions about. And so, you know, I had to politely convey to him that, you know, I want your

participation, but I'm not going to ask your permission to explore the things that need to be explored as I'm telling this story. So are you saying in a way that he wanted to turn this maybe into a memoir a little bit? Like have you write the book of his life a little bit? Yeah, perhaps. You know, I mean, I think, yeah, which happens. I mean, that is a very normal thing to do. I think, you know, one of the last books on John Lewis, I believe, I can't remember

who wrote it. He's a famous biographer. But that book was done in very close collaboration with John Lewis. So this is a very common thing that happens. I just think that there are different genres of books. And, you know, Reverend Jackson is the type of person, as I explore in the book, that he is the master of narrative. He is the master of his own narrative. And he always wants to be in control about what is said about him.

And so that I completely understand. It's just that this is, I think, needed to be in this moment. different kind of exploration because because I also think that the truth is Joel like a lot of people have negative reactions when his name comes up and speaking to those people to say look I acknowledge that but this book is actually about the whether you know there are plenty of people in public life who have flaws it's not about papering over those flaws but it's about asking what is the actual impact? What is the actual legacy? And can you explore someone's legacy without lionizing them, making them some kind of hero, but treating them like a real person? And I think

that just acknowledging that ambivalence about him, including in the black community, was important to do because I think that's also part of the sort of arc and the narrative of his life. I have so much that I want to ask you that I'm just going to encourage the people watching and listen to this interview to read the book because there's the slur that comes up during the campaign. There's the MLK skepticism, the folks that in the civil rights movement, and you know, the other personal stuff that people have. So anyway, please read the book. There's a lot. There's a lot. There's a lot. There's a lot. But to that point, the early part of the book is dedicated to his rise and how he got connected to Reverend King, who actually dissuaded him from going to the seminary to go work for him.

So can you talk a little bit more about their relationship, please? Yeah. I mean, it is a complex relationship because you have Jesse Jackson, who was a relatively young man, and he was kind of precocious and gifted and handsome and a quarterback. And he really had a lot of confidence and belief in his own leadership ability. and very early on sort of identified Dr. King as somebody who he wanted to emulate. So then he immediately tried as quickly as he could to get in Dr. King's orbit.

And I've heard there were so many different stories about moments between the two of them. But, you know, generally speaking, it was the sort of thing where as a man and a young man in his early 20s, Reverend Jackson would want to have a speaking slot on a program where Dr. King was speaking and then you have these other guys who are around him being like, who do you think you are? Right. Yeah. And at a certain point, you know, I think what's interesting to me is that I think Dr. King actually really valued Jesse Jackson's skills. He saw the talent. He saw the leadership skills. He saw the speaking ability and wanted to nurture it. But there were times when they butt heads where he said to Jesse Jackson, you don't understand what it takes to be a leader. You don't

understand the challenges of it. You just want the glory, right? And so there were moments where Dr. King, who we now know, I think, also suffered from depression and mood disorders. He really was struggling with leadership, and I think felt like Jesse Daxson didn't understand the challenges of it. He just wanted the praise, right? And so there was always this tug of war between the two. But, you know, I think Jesse Jackson always saw himself as the person who had the most of what Dr. King brought to the table. He felt like he had the charisma. He felt like he had the speaking ability, the ability to bring people together, the ability to raise money, the ability to rally thousands of people. He felt like he had all of those things.

And I think Dr. King saw some of that, but also felt like, hey, young man, hold your horses a little bit. You're going a little too fast. The other King acolytes, this produced really decades of tension between Reverend Jackson and the others in Dr. King's circle who were not so patient and felt even more that Reverend Jackson had ulterior motives for. wanting to take up the mantle of Dr. King, especially after his assassination. Sure. In terms of taking up mantles, I'm sort of curious about, you know, who do you think Reverend Jackson's heirs and politics are now? Like whether it's and whether how they regard the system or even stylistically, because like, for instance, Senator Warnock, right? You used to be a pastor at Ebenezer Baptist Church. So who do you,

In whose speeches or tweets do you hear these echoes of Jesse Jackson right now? Yeah. I mean, I think in the moral dimension, I think Senator Warnock absolutely has that because it's inherent in the sort of black religious tradition that Jesse Jackson came out of. And it's really difficult to find politicians who have that combination of political acumen,

the ability to actually to bring people together, with words to weave a narrative about who people are and where they want to be and who also have that moral dimension. And I would argue, honestly, right now, I'm not sure there's anybody who has all of those things, right? And that's not to say that Reverend Jackson was perfect in those things, but those are the elements of what he was bringing to the table politically. But on the political side, I mean, I think that you see Bernie Sanders. I mean, Bernie Sanders told me for this book that he was picking up where Jesse Jackson left off.

And their relationship is so interesting because when Bernie Sanders was one of, he was one of two white elected officials to endorse Jesse Jackson in the 80s. And back when he was mayor of Burlington and he got so much crap for it from the white people

in Vermont. And it's shocking. But, you know, one lady slapped him in the face after he endorsed Jesse Jackson. And, you know, so he, even at that time, I mean, they were talking about the same things. American workers who are left behind, systems that aren't working for average Americans and are set up for the rich and the powerful, all of that stuff. So I think Bernie Sanders, first of all, he's there, right?

Jesse Jackson endorsed him back in the presidential campaign in 2020. But then you have newer people, AOC, Zoran Mamdani. I mean, Zoroamandani literally uses a Jesse Jackson slogan. He used it in his campaign. Our time has come. That comes out of a Jesse Jackson Democratic campaign speech. So there are some figures. A lot of people talk to me about James Talarico,

who does also have the kind of moral component and is trying to kind of weave this populist message. So I think that there are bits and pieces that are out there. But fundamentally, I think Jesse Jackson's understanding of how to talk to people about what we have in common and how our economic futures are entwined was one of the most powerful elements of his political career.

And it's probably the one thing that Democrats need to figure out the most in this moment because I think that's where the political energy is on both sides of the aisle in terms of there's a lot of populist backlash on the left and on the right. On the right, it's not so much what do we have in common. It's like who's taking our jobs and, you know, what all of that. But there's the populist backlash is the common denominator. And can you speak to that, I think, becomes one of the biggest challenges. For some folks may or may not know that Reverend Jackson was hospitalized in November.

And it looked, you know, I mean, there were people asking to pray for him and everything. I know that you have some contact with the family. How is he doing today? Yeah. I mean, the last time I spoke to his sons, I mean, he has done much better. And he has been an incredible fighter throughout this process. I mean, he has far outlived his prognosis for the neurodegenerative disorder that he has, which was thought to be Parkinson's now, it's something slightly different but related.

And so in that moment in November, I think it was legitimately a time where I think the family and his medical team didn't know how he was going to pull through. And he has and he's gone home. He spent some time in a rehab facility. Now he is at home with his family. And so he's really, he's really powered through. And when people go to see him, he's often sort of saying to them, here I've got this long list of things I need you to do, and that's just very much what he's like. He's just sort of, every time that I sat down with him to talk to him for this book,

even as his ability to speak really was compromised by this disease, you know, he would say to me, you know, I sent a message to the White House about negotiating with Putin about Ukraine. And I mean, he had like the whole world. on his agenda in terms of the things that he wanted to address. And so that is what he has been like, honestly, for the last 60 years, literally. So let's go from Jesse Jackson to you. Okay.

So you were a reporter and a writer, right? In the reporting career, like, I guess you, I'm assuming you never assumed it was going to steer you to the anchor chair, right? So what do you think helped you most? for making that transition. Yeah, I mean, I did not think that it would end up with me in this role. But I think what's really helped me in television is the fact that I spent a lot of years just doing the dirty work. I mean, of just reporting and being edited and understanding how to talk to sources and also having a kind of healthy skepticism,

not just of what you're writing about, but of yourself and what you know about a situation. And so I think that reporting underpinning really helped me focus less on that part when I started doing the television performance and work on my television performance because, you know, the reporting and the journalism came naturally by that point. It was muscle memory. Like I, you know, I could pick up the phone.

could sort of in my head write the top of the story, which is essentially what you're doing when you go on television and you start reporting and you have 90 seconds to do it. I could write the top of the story quickly in my head. And then it allowed me to work on the other parts of being on television, which are the performance elements, which I was much less familiar with. It takes a lot of practice. It does not come naturally to me or to many people, frankly. It's just, It's a little bit like acting where you just have to kind of, you have to really be aware of your body and how you're presenting yourself in a way that is not normal, not at all. Well, is there anything you miss about being like a daily print reporter or the things, you know, things you could do in print that you can't do on TV? Is there any of that stuff that you miss? Yeah, I mean, there are some things. Look, I don't miss the deadlines, for sure. It's just not even a little bit. I don't miss that.

I do miss sometimes, you know, there are a lot of times that there are stories that come across my radar and I'm like, man, this is a good story. Like, it would be great to just like dig deep into what's really going on here. And I do miss that. And I miss what you can do in print, which is that you can have nuances. You have the space to give all the caveats and to tell the different elements of the story. to, in TV, there's much less room for that. There's less time. And really, at the end of the day, day to day, you're discussing and analyzing the top line. And in most stories, there's way more

than just the top line. There's the top line and then there's all the other stuff that underlies it. And I think sometimes there are some stories that I'm just like, this really, really could use a deep dive. Even if I'm not the one to do it, I miss working. You know, I mean, when I was working at the Washington Post, you know, we would often just kind of sit around the newsroom and be like, man, that is so weird. We should find out what's really going on there. And then those questions would lead to some very important stories. And I think that that sometimes, I think I miss that relationship with my peers. I hate to break it to you.

But in many ways, you and your show are the face of the new CNN. My mama, for instance, is a cable news hawk. Like, she's all on it. She don't know who Jake Tapper is. Maybe she knows who Jake Tapper is. But she recognized it. But she knows who Abby Phillip is, okay? And so I don't know how much you think about that.

But, like, how much input did you have on the creation of your show and the direction of it? And did you want it to be something else initially? Like, how did it become what it became? Yeah, I mean, there was input from the beginning. My bosses kind of came to us and said, you know, we're going, because this was, you have to take your mind back to this. This was not that long ago, but it was a crazy time. The Trump-Biden debate had happened. And we were literally at the Republican National Convention.

And it was between the RNC and the DNC. And everybody was like, is Joe Biden? going to drop out. Trump had just had an assassination attempt. I mean, it was a truly mind-boggling time in the news. And, you know, they were like, we just need a place where we can unpack all of that. And, you know, I was sort of like, I get that, but do people really want an hour of discussion? You know, I mean, I wasn't sure.

But then as we were developing it, I said, look, if we're going to do this, we got to really commit. We have to really commit to the ideological diversity at the table, which I think is what makes the show. The fact that we are not filling our seats with liberals and never Trumpers. We are actually trying to find the people who represent that portion of the country that supports the president, that likes him, that supports what he's doing. And we really have it out. And that process over time, I think, became very, it was very experimental. And we didn't really know where it was going.

But I think that what our guiding focus was, was does it feel like, does it feel authentic, right? Does it feel like the real conversations that people want to have? And sometimes those conversations would get a little bit messy. and loud and unpredictable. And I think that has been what's made the show. It's what's differentiated the show from others that are on television. And I think, you know, it's made it a little bit controversial for some people, fine. But I also think that we are trying to not be so careful that we are playing it safe every year.

night. We are not trying to play it safe every night. We are trying to have the tough conversations with the people who actually have different viewpoints. And that angers some people on the right. It angers some people on the left. But that's the real deal conversation that the country is having and that the country needs to have. Well, you, I'm glad you brought all that up, right? Because, I mean, it does seem, first of all, just extremely difficult to referee, like, to be in the middle of that and to be the traffic, or I guess maybe a traffic cop is maybe the way, but refa traffic cop to navigate all of that. But obviously there's a lot of people that have criticism of that.

They say, well, what's the point in staging these sort of debates? Why wouldn't it be more productive to have one person at a time? Does interview one person? Why do you think that this sort of set up is better than doing it that way? Because the push and pull of viewpoints is important. I think that is the whole point. It's that sometimes, I think, first of all, there's a lot of value in one-on-one conversations, and there are a lot of people that I would love to just sit down for an hour with and just really unspool this stuff.

But I also think we learn a lot about people's viewpoints when it's challenged immediately in the moment. And I do not want to be the person to always do that. I don't need to be the person who always does that. I think that our panelists sharpen each other. You know, iron sharpens iron. Like when someone comes to the table and says something that they really believe, but that has never been challenged before to them, that changes the way they think about their arguments.

Sometimes it can strengthen the argument. Sometimes their argument falls apart. But we watch that happen in real life. I think that there is debate is a thing that has inherent value. And so, yeah, one-on-one conversations are great. But I also think the inherent value in the debate is that in that moment, you can really see people thinking, sometimes for the first time, about what happens if you take that argument a little further down the road?

And sometimes that's the role that I play, where I'll say, okay, that's what's what you believe, but then what if this happens with the next president? And we can have, we can draw out those conversations because we're there for an hour. And I think that makes a huge difference. A lot of people ask you probably about Scott Jenner's. So I'm going to have to ask you about Scott Jenner's, right? So there are a lot of like liberals and left type folks who can end up on these shows. We know that, right?

And there's a big pool to pick from. When you're trying to pick conservative guests, what are you looking for in particular? Because again, I mean, I think I think I don't know if you think it's a fair criticism, but not a lot of people say, well, you have somebody like Scott Jennings on who's mainstreaming, you know, disinformation, you know, some people might consider to be bigoted talking points or whatever. And it's like, there's no need to platform that people have got plenty of space for that. So why Scott Jennings and what are you looking for when you're trying to bring somebody

like that on there to debate all these other folks? I think what we look for in all of our guests is effectiveness. Are you able to articulate your point of view effectively, respond quickly to that point of view being challenged? And also, are you willing to show up? That is an underrated part of this whole thing. There are many smart people out there in the world on the right and on the left, but a lot of them are not with. willing to have their viewpoints challenged in real time. And so say what you will about Scott.

He shows up. And he is an effective spokesperson for his point of view, which is not an isolated point of view. It is actually, it is a representation of a huge chunk of this country. And I would say to the people who are upset about whoever on the right, it's the it's the job of you or someone else on the other side to effectively be able to counter that. That is called politics. In politics, you have people making arguments on one side and arguments on another side. And if you can't engage in that activity of saying, okay, I'm going to take on

that other viewpoint. I'm going to tell you why it's wrong. And I'm going to convince you otherwise. If you can't do that, you're not really engaging in politics. You're engaging in demagoguery. So I think we want people to show up. We want people to engage with one another. There are plenty of times when Scott and I disagree. And people are able to see it happen live on television. And he comes back night after night to engage in the conversation. I give him an enormous amount of credit for that. I really think more people should be willing to do that. And, you know, I mean, I don't know, I guess some people would rather just not hear it. Fine.

It doesn't make it go away. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's just that you're not hearing it. And so that's, to me, I'm not sure ignorance is bliss in this impolese. in this polarized political environment that we are in. I think that we are in a moment where we really need to put it all out on the table and really understand what our political debates are about and really work through them as difficult as that might be.

You have time for one more question? Yeah. Okay. All right. cable news. People aren't watching TV, not watching anything all the way through. How do you try to address that? Or how do you try to address that with your show, given that dynamic? Because you're right. Like the cable news is a declining share of audience, right? Yeah. And I'm obviously not like telling anybody anything they don't already know. Everybody's on their cell phones. And so much of

our show is consumed on social media. And I mean, if I'm being honest, Joel, I don't know that we are actually addressing that or that we can, if that makes sense. But I think that what I think about it as is part of the broader challenge of meeting the audience where they are and trying to find better ways to serve our audience without saying, well, why aren't you subscribing to cable? You should just come on over here. we have a job to do, which is to say, we see your habits. We're going to make sure that we're going to put this content in front of you. That's one of the reasons that CNN now has a subscription service.

If you don't have cable, you can subscribe and you can just watch the show. You can watch the show on demand. You can watch it live. I think that is a piece of the puzzle. But I think we have a ways to go in finding ways to package the conversations that happen on the show, some of which are actually very interesting and important when you watch them in their entirety and package them so that people can find that context because I don't love the clippers. I don't love the people who spend all day long and all they're doing is clipping 15 seconds

to prove their particular ideology. And so that's on us to figure out, okay, how do we bring more contextual content to people where they are. And I think as we are, as the show is sort of maturing, you know, we've only been doing this format for about a year and less than a year and a half. So we have a ways to go in terms of continuing to refine the distribution of what we're doing on the show so that people see more of it, even if they are not sitting in front of their television every night at 10 p.m., which many, many people.

are not doing. So, you know, I think it's, it's for me that's like an aspiration. It's a frustration and it's an aspiration. But I think that there are actually some exciting opportunities there. Okay. I want to do a lightning round with you, but I've already not kept you too long. We can do it. We can do it. We can do it. We can do it. Yeah, let's do it. All right. Let's do a lightning around. Bruce is going to, we just pretend to the music. Okay. Okay. All right. Lightning around. What panelists have you tried to for the show that you just haven't been able to yet? Oh, man. Okay.

From Shark Tank, my brain's not working. Mark Cuban. We've been trying to get on for a while, even though, you know, you would think that he would want to do it. And he always says nice things about the show, but he has not come on. So if you're listening, Mark, we want you to come on, sir. All right. That's what's up.

Yeah, maybe he's a, well, you know, Brian is a Mavericks fan, And so maybe, you know, Mark O'Harede or something like that. Yes, maybe, yes, through the ether. Through the ether. There you go. Most memorable moment from your reporting on the Jesse Jackson book. Going to his hometown with him in South Carolina, it was one of those things that it literally came to be like maybe a few days before I just got on a plane.

And I went when he told me he was going. and we just drove around town and he showed me all the places he grew up where he was born where he used to play football where he used to sell peanuts at the games where you know

the library where he did his first protest so that was a really special moment and a special trip growing up who is your favorite TV anchor or host news or just in general in general I mean

I would say it's hard to pick one I would say somewhere between Oprah who I watched every day as a young person You watched Oprah as a time? Do you not remember coming home from school and just turning on the TV and having Oprah on?

It would be on like 4 o'clock where I was Yeah that's exactly what we used to do I mean we used to come home turn on the TV Oprah was on we watched we'd watch Oprah and but also I would I have to say you know when I think about the anchors, TV personalities who I remember so distinctly

and admired so much, Soledad O'Brien. I just, she's one of those people that I would, you know, I just remember Soledad O'Brien, watching her on CNN. She was such an authoritative voice

and then seeing a woman of color doing that. I think it's one of those things that just leaves an impression on your, on your mind. I live sort of in your area. I live in the DMV. Okay.

I don't live in Virginia. I live in Maryland. But I always think it's really reductive when people think of the DMV and the areas around these like coastal cities and all that sort of implies, right? So when people come to the DMV, where should they go to get a feel for the place where you grew up? Ooh. Oh, that's kind of hard.

Okay. So I'll just preface this by saying, elementary and middle school, I lived in Germantown, Maryland, which is on the other side, Montgomery County. It's a little further north. I actually think that is a great place to go because, you know, we, I went to high school for like one semester at Seneca Valley High, but we used to live, like, basically across the street from it.

And it was kind of this, like, very suburban, like, football games at night on Friday, nights type of vibe, but the community was a lot of, a lot of immigrant families too. And so, I don't know the Germantown is quite like that anymore, but I think that you kind of have to see. And then when I moved to Bowie, I mean, I would say like the Bowie Town Center like rotation that kids used to do, just walking around in a circle essentially in the Lue Town Center, is kind of that's kind of what that experience was like that's what so.

Last two. What's the next book on be about? I don't know. I don't know. I mean, I do think I kind of want the next thing to be a little bit more personal. Not like about me per se,

but just about something that that says something about who I am, how I see the world, and why I think other people people in the world might share that experience. No clue what that's going to be. Trust me, I'm saying this having not actually, you know, I'm not working on a book. But I am thinking about, I am thinking about that and I thinking about the ways that I think that that sometimes the most

effective books are the ones where people feel connected to each other as a result of them. and sometimes by telling your own story, you can actually build connections with other people. And I think I want to be able to do that. Last one. Why you have Van Lathan on, man? What's, what's all? Now, Van's my dude.

I'm clowning. But what? Don't be a hater. No, man. First of all, Joel, you should come on the show. You should. I'm not TV ready. I'm sorry.

You should. Look, I mean, I of a band is great. he is actually one of my favorite people to have on the show because he's in a category of people. There are a few people like that who I think when he shows up at the table, I think he represents just a non-typical cable news person. He is not a cable news person. He represents all the other people in the world

who are not cable news people and who just have regular points of view that are profoundly important and don't get heard enough. I just don't think regular people are,

their voices are not being heard enough. And if there's one thing that I think we have tried to do and I think maybe we've been pretty successful at it because we've been trying to find these voices that you wouldn't typically see on cable news is we try to find people who maybe you're,

he's, band is not a regular person. I was going to say, that's far from regular. But I think he understands how to speak about and to and for those people. And so I'm always looking for those voices on the

right and the left who can be that for our audience. Fair enough. Fair enough. You want to put them on there to me. So with that being said, Joel, the invitation is on the table. You're welcome to join us anytime. Come on over.

I don't think, I don't think, I don't think, I don't think America needs to see more of me, but I appreciate the offer. But anyway, well, before I go, I've got to shout you out, Abby, in your show for recently earning two nominations at the upcoming NAACP Image Awards. One is outstanding news information series, a special, and the other is outstanding host in a talk or news information series is special. So people, you can vote for Abby if the spirit moves you. Let it move you. Please, thank you. Please do vote if you feel so moved.

And I'm deeply honored to be recognized, obviously, by the NWACP in the George Awards. It's pretty amazing. Speaking of things that I never imagined would happen for me, here we are. That's great. That's great. I know you deserve. You've earned it. So anyway, the book is a dream deferred.

Jesse Jackson and the fight for Black political power. Thank you, Abby, so much for joining us today. I really appreciate it. Thank you so much for having me. Great to see you. All right, likewise. That is the press box. he's Joel Anders.

I'm Brian Curtis. Production Magic by Bruce Baldwin. Little Commerce, follow us on Instagram at Pressbox Ringer. Putting all kinds of good stuff up there. I put a picture of Jordan Ritter-Kahn's new book up there today. Oh, man. All right.

Jordan, we've got to check that out. Yes, absolutely got to check that out. Coming up on Tuesday, Shoemaker's back, and we are going to mark the one-year anniversary of the second Trump administration. It's only been one year, not 10. We're going to mark it with Susan Glasser who writes the letter from Trump's Washington

column for the New Yorker. Cannot wait to talk to Susan? That's a big get. It's a big get. And Joel, guess what? You're in L.A. next week. I can't help it, man. You guys can't keep me away.

I'm going to be there. We're so excited. You and I are going to tape the press box in person. We're going to have that up a day early. It's going to be on Wednesday. And then guess what? I'm going to do a little bonus podcast. Oh, I thought you, man, I thought you about

to talk about we're going to get a burrito or something, man. Well, that's priced in. Okay, all right. You know, you know, there was always a burritos involved, multiple burritos. Multiple burritos, yeah. But we're going to have a very special guest and do another podcast in person. I get three episodes of the press box next week. They will all contain more lukewarm takes about the media.

See you then, Joel. Look forward to it, man.