What Now? with Trevor Noah - Katie Couric: Is Objectivity Dead?

Episode Date: May 7, 2026

Trevor and Eugene sit down with author and journalist Katie Couric, who has spent decades at the center of American news, for a wide-ranging conversation about how journalism has evolved. From her early days in traditional broadcast media to her role in today’s digital landscape, Couric has seen the shift from a handful of trusted voices delivering the news to a fragmented, fast-moving media environment where competing narratives often shape how stories are understood. From the evolution of political identity to the influence of social media, the three explore how the way we consume news has changed, and what it might take to rebuild a shared sense of truth in a world that increasingly resists one. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Who is doing the news in South Africa? So in South Africa, there's the South African Broadcasting Corporation, which is similar to the BBC, right, in that it's state-funded. Yeah, it's modeled after the BBC. Yeah, it's modeled after the BBC. And then it's state-funded. People pay a fee, you know, for having a TV. It's like a nominal fee. And that basically goes to funding it and they're reporting.

Then we have a few independent stations as well. But none of them have a clear... Ideological bent. No, no, no, that would be, I think most people agree, that would be crazy. Slowly getting dead, not. We wouldn't, we just. Like, there's not the pro-apartheid network. Oh, my goodness, Katie.

Can you imagine the pro-apartheid network? Oh, my goodness, what a great idea. The PAN? Hi, we're, welcome to P.A.N. Oh, wow. Oh, wow. Oh, wow. What a favorite.

Fantastic premise. This is What Now with Trevor Noah. Oh, this is going to be fun. Yesterday we wore, both wore cardigans. Yeah. What a fashion disaster. It was terrible. Was it?

Well, it wasn't a disaster. It was more, it looked two coordinated. 100% a disaster. Oh, very Mr. Rogers. Yes, yes. Double Mr. Rogers. Yeah. That's what it looked like.

No, so I was like, no, it will never happen again. So today I had a backup plan. I was like, if he's wearing brown, I'm covered. Oh, you're going to switch it out. Okay. I really like that jacket. I don't know why you...

Well, you both do kind of have a similar thing going. He's trying to avoid me and I'm trying to fully, fully line up with him. Is that good? I'm trying to make sure that our friendship is fully aligned. That's what I'm looking for. I don't want him to be able to escape me. I want people to be like, are you guys twins? That's how closely aligned I want our dress sense to be.

How often do you record your podcast? Whenever. Whenever is whenever. So, you know, we'll fly in from South Africa and then we'll do a bunch of episodes and we'll come in. But then sometimes we're doing them, you know, like one spaced out and then it's whenever. You don't feel that you need to have a specific cadence for like to when people expect it. No. No. No. What's your cadence now in life? What do you? Well, we do sort of a trunch of them, if you will. You know, we have we have sort of, you know, a wind. just a season, but then we're not really doing seasons as much because I'm really responding mostly to news as it happens. So, you know, it's funny, you guys, because I, every platform, I do different stuff. Yeah, I've seen that. Yeah. You know, you have to be kind of multi-platform. So, like, tomorrow I'm doing a substack show. Wow. Yeah, which I do once a week. And then I do the podcast slash video cast. And then, you know, Yeah, I think that's primary.

Then we have a newsletter. And sometimes I do just kind of straight-to-camera reports on Instagram, you know, like I explain what the Safe Act really is. I think I saw one of those about, I feel like it was about Iran or something. It might have been about the Pentagon and journalism and what they're doing and how they're trying to keep journalists out of the Pentagon. There's so much misinformation. So I just try to kind of give the facts and like the timeline of what happened at the Pentagon and why they were kicking some outlets out and bringing other outlets in.

And, you know, just I think there's so much information assaulting people every minute that sometimes I just try to say, hey, this is what the Save Act does. Or this is why they're looking at redistricting in Virginia. Yeah. let me give you a little bit of the backstory so you understand. Because I think it's really hard to process everything, don't you think? There's too much of everything everywhere all the time. I always think to myself, we think that we should judge people because they're uninformed. And I think we should actually process it a completely different way.

I think people have too much information. I agree. And a lot of that, you just aren't able to pass the information. Is it good? Is it bad? where does it come from, where should it come from? Like back in the day, I mean, you were, you. How long is.

What? Because these things happen all the time, Katie. He'll say statements as if he was there during George Washington era. And he would say back in the day. So it's my job to save you from the, how long is back in the day? Give us a timeline. This is a, actually, we have one of. I am the physical manifestation of back in the day.

Yes, it is, it is me, Eugene. That will be my new Kyron. Katie Courts. Back in the day. Because that's me. No, but you were, you saw, I mean, I would argue that you came from an,

like a golden age of news in the United States. When we think to a time of news, you are from that era. And then you rose to become one of the superstars of that era. And then I don't want to sound too, you know, pessimistic about it, but I almost feel like you also seen it sort of come to an end in some ways. Oh, yeah, definitely. I think, well, you know, I guess I think most people might look back on the era of Walter Cronkite. Yes. You know, back that long ago as the golden era of TV news. Of course,

it was an era when, you know, most of the newscasters and reporters were white men, right? And not diverse at all. But there were just a handful, a very small group of authoritative figures who you went to and you believed. The trusted people. Trusted people. In inverted comedy. And it's interesting. I was thinking the other day about Walter Cronkite when he said, talked about Vietnam, honestly, and talked about how it wasn't a winnable war or whatever he said specifically. And LBJ said, if we've lost Walter Cronkite, we've lost America. Wow. And, you know, I think that I was actually thinking about that

because there was a modern day example, which now I can't remember. But it just, these people had such, there was so much trust in these figures. And similarly, with a handful of newspapers, with the Washington Post, which I read every morning growing up. Actually, my dad read it and I watched him at the breakfast table. But, you know. Yeah, that's how part of it. It was believed and trusted. And then, of course, you had this evolution.

You had 24-hour news networks. You had cable. You had then the bifurcation of liberal cable versus conservative. You had Fox News, Philadelphia. That's what you guys have over here. Yeah, we don't have that. Yeah, yeah. We don't have it.

It's just news. It's just news. You guys have these kind of people's news and these other people's news. And who is doing the news in South Africa? So in South Africa, there's the South African Broadcasting Corporation, which is similar to the BBC, right, in that it's state funded. Modeled after the BBC. Yeah, it's modeled off the BBC. And then it's state funded.

People pay a fee, you know, for having a TV. It's like a nominal fee. And that basically goes to funding it and they're reporting. Then we have a few independent stations as well. But none of them have a clear. Ideological ban. No, no, no. That would be, I think most people agree.

That would be crazy. Like we wouldn't we just like there's not the pro apartheid network Oh my goodness Katie Can you imagine the pro apartheid network Oh my goodness what a great idea The PAN? Hi we're welcome to PAM You are my replacement

What a fantastic premise But I do have a question And so is there criticism from the population that feels, or segment of the population, that feels that the news as is presented in South Africa is biased? Yeah, yeah. And how big is the outcry and what is the response by the publications or the networks? What would you say? Or the network, I guess, singular.

So in South Africa, the debate will always be after democracy, will always be with a white party rule in South Africa ever again. So there's a party called the Democratic Alliance, which is leadership is white. But obviously they're always been opposing the ANC, which is majority black. So sometimes news readers and some other news channels would favor stories that the DA are doing. But just because they're in the news, they look like they're being favored. Right. Doesn't make sense?

Then the people on Twitter, obviously, because they follow the same politicians and they get to see what they're doing. when the news comes on once a day about that specific politician, it looks like it suits the agenda of the politician. Right. But we were having this discussion the other day. We were saying the newsmakers are now trying to make their own news. If something sells, they'll go with it. If people are talking about it.

If they see it on social media, they'll obviously go for it. But if the other party is doing nothing on social media, there's nothing to talk about. Does it make sense? Yes. So are you saying that politicians are now bypassing news altogether and just speaking directly. In many ways they are, yeah.

And co-opting whatever message seems to be, you know, trending, if you will, at any moment in time. But is it how divisive is it in terms of? It's not like a, no, it's not like the U.S. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, And why do you think that is? Again, I think it's just because in most, in most countries I've been to, people have some form of criticism for the news, right?

So when I'm in England, people complain about the BBC. The BBC will even send out regular sort of polls and questionnaires to its audience. Do you feel like we're not covering this enough? Do you feel like we should be covering this more, etc, etc, etc? And people will complain about the BBC in everything. How did they handle the Epstein files and Prince Andrew? And how did they handle Israel, Palestine? And how have they handled?

People will complain about that. In most places I've been to, people complain about the news in some way, shape or form. in the U.S., what's different is your news presents different realities. That's something that I don't see in most places where it's like completely, I've flipped between channels sometimes

just to see... Oh, me too. I do that often. It's pretty wild how it's like either one news station is covering it and the other one isn't completely, or they're presenting completely different stories about the same thing.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And not even perspectives. Perspectives would almost be like, the autumnist rocket has taken off. It is flying around the earth. Why are we wasting money on this? This is the greatest thing for mankind. Those are perspectives.

Right. The one in America is like, it's like, the rocket has taken off. There's no rockets. Yeah. Wait, what? Or this didn't even happen. Yes.

Right? This didn't happen. This is not true. Or, as you said, you know, Trevor, basically just ignoring it all together. Completely. Yeah. Completely ignoring it.

It's wild. I was thinking about the Walter Cronkite thing the other day because of Tucker Carlson. And I was thinking is Donald Trump saying to himself, if I've lost Tucker Carlson, I've lost America. But I think he's not because Tucker Carlson, as powerful a voice that he has, I think, you know, is just a tiny slice. of Maga World. You think he's a tiny slice? Well, I don't know. When I think about it, I have to look at his viewers, but I don't think he is, I don't think,

I don't know. I guess the time will tell whether he and other defectors, right, like Megan Kelly and all these other people. I'm not sure if Donald Trump enthusiasts will follow their lead. I don't know. What do you guys think? So there's a strange phenomenon that I've noticed in and around Trump world. And it's that there's sort of a separation between Trump and his actions.

And I still don't fully understand how to process it. But I've noticed many people who are Trump supporters will criticize Trump's actions. But then somewhere in their sentences, they'll say, but I like Trump. Or, but he's better than the other guy. Yeah, but in some way they'll basically... Personalize it. Yeah, and they'll... That's why they call it the cult of personality, right?

They don't call it the cult of policy. This is true. Right? This is true. Yeah, but what they'll do, interestingly, is they will... They'll almost excuse him from his actions. And when he does something that they do not like... Okay, so let's use an example, a concrete example.

When Donald Trump posted a picture of himself, like an AI-generated image of him as Jesus healing the sick, or healing people when his base was like really really really angry about that understandably they were like what are you doing this is blasphemously

the amount of people in the comments of his post saying take this down this is not you I love everything you do this is this is not something must have gone wrong here

Mr. President please someone has your phone defending that action they weren't defending that action They were advising him. Not to do that. And they were incredulous that he had done that. And they were convinced that he had made a mistake.

Yes, that's what I mean. That it wasn't intentional. But they had separated his mistake from him, which I find very interesting. Do you get what I'm saying? Same thing goes with Iran. People go, this president said he's not going to go to war. I voted for him because he said he's not going to be dropping bombs on other countries. I voted for him because he said the price of gas was going to come down.

And then you're like, so what does that mean for you? and they go, well, clearly he's being influenced by the wrong people and, you know, this is not what he wants. Or they'll say he got rid of a terrible regime and he was the only person who had the balls to do it. Oh, yes. And we're not going to be in a long protracted conflict and what he did. I think there's this macho undercurrent too, you know, this. this display of raw power that people are attracted to as well. And while they may have doubts about the action

and are not necessarily thinking about the geopolitical ramifications, there's something about sort of the brute force, the Pete Hegseth, you know, the ethos of the military, that the U.S. is once again proving who's in charge. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, right. I think very sort of subconsciously or consciously appealing to some of these folks as well. It's definitely that. And on top of all of it, I blame part of it on the sort of sportsification of politics in America,

in that in America politics has become the way sports is, in that you have a team, you stick to that team forever and again please correct me if I'm wrong here but I distinctly remember watching American television and watching American people regular people get interviewed

about their lives about everything I would commonly hear people say the phrase well my mom was a Republican my dad was a Democrat oh my dad was a Democrat my mom was a Republican they'd like say all the time people would talk about how their families and then they wouldn't even say was they would say

voted. You know they go like my dad voted Republican in the last election And people would say that on the news. I'd watch interviews. They'd be like, well, I voted Democrat last time, but I'm not happy with things. So I'm going to vote Republican this time because I'm not. But it was an action as opposed to an identity. Right.

And I was going to say, I think that is so spot on, that it has become so tribal. And we're talking about why people sort of stick with Trump no matter what. I think changing or pivoting or reconsidering is an assault. to their whole identity. I think to all of us, to be honest. I think so too. I'll say for myself, if there is something that I have tied my identity to

and that thing falls in some way, my first instinct is to defend it as opposed to now questioning my worldview and beliefs. Do you know what I mean? Oh, totally. I think it's deeply psychological. I think it's primal and very visceral.

that, I mean, I find myself that way, too, because if, you know, although I try to check myself, you know, my feed is full of people who agree with me, basically. I try to look at other points of view as well. But my, you know, talk about confirmation bias. On the other hand, this isn't like Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. No, no, it's not. It is not normal. And so whenever I feel like, gosh, am I rooting against Trump?

Does that mean I'm rooting against America? And I question myself and I question my emotional response to some of the things that happen. Yeah. But I also think this person is dangerous, corrupt. and, you know, it's very difficult for me. And then I'm like, I need to note when he does something positive, right? Like even mentally. I need to be more receptive.

Oh, this was a good thing, right? Right. And I think it's hard for many of us who have been inundated with the bad things that he's been doing, the bad choices, the lack of respect for the. rule of law and the constitution, the self-enrichment of him and his family. I mean, the list goes on and on, the cheering when Robert Mueller dies, you know, just so many distasteful things that it's hard to kind of even have that little crack to say, oh, that was probably a good idea, a good policy. And maybe that's helpful, whether it's like, you know, sort of in the first

term the criminal justice reform stuff. Yeah, yeah, right. You know, which arguably was a good thing, you know, getting rid of what minimum maximum or whatever and people who were being incarcerated when Kim Kardashian got involved. And, you know, you think, well, that's a positive thing. Yes. But the negative stuff, so it's like a tsunami of negative stuff. It's hard to kind of, you know, come up and gas for air and say, oh, that's.

that's good. And then you're like, sucked under again. Right, right. Right. By the bad stuff. I'm, I'm surprised that you even experienced that, because I've always assumed incorrectly that journalists pull, you know, their inspiration and ideas from a different spiritual realm. Does that make sense? Like, I always assume that we, the people who are reading the news are just reading the news and then journalists are sort of on this ephemeral plane where news is merely like a different, idea to you. But it's interesting that you are in it. So I'd love to know how do you then, or do you even think of putting on different hats as like a person, a citizen, and then a journalist? How do you, is it even possible to do that? Or do you always have to

remind yourself that you have all hats on at the same time? I mean, I think that I have become a citizen journalist. Oh, interesting. I'm a citizen first now and a journalist second because I feel like it is such a perilous time and such a dangerous time that I am paying attention in a different way. And I think, you know, as I said, it's not just policy differences that we're evaluating here. It's not just saying, you know, if you have... feel morally repulsed by the way ICE was behaving in Minneapolis. As a citizen, that deeply offended me. And I am not going to both sides, like, this is what they're doing. This is how

the people of Minneapolis are reacting. I mean, I think looking back on it, even ICE defenders would admit, I would hope, many, that it was out of control. Things were completely. completely out of control in Minneapolis earlier this year. And so I am also someone who I feel has earned the privilege at times experiencing moral outrage at what I'm seeing. And I am not encumbered by, you know, a corporate overlord saying, you can't say that, you can't do that. Was that common in your previous job? Like, give me an understanding of what it's like. People often use, you know, phrases like the mainstream media and they don't want you to.

What is your honest assessment or even experience of working in an environment where you are under a corporation? And how much do they decide what you are or aren't going to do? Well, I think everything, well, first of all, I think there was a lot of separation. between sort of the companies and the news divisions. You know, you saw General Electric owned NBC, GE, when I was there. Yeah. And, you know, there were times where, if there was a story about GE, we would either not report it or say it's a parent company of NBC.

But for the most part, these corporations kept out. There was a very clear line between, the corporation and the news division. And they didn't, they didn't mix. And now, obviously, there are quid pro quos happening in corporate media and news division. So it is a completely different ball of wax. It's like apples and oranges. I can't say like this is how we did it back in the day because everything has changed. Trump is basically controlling these a huge multi-million dollar consolidation conglomerates, whatever you want to call it, mergers, and they can't merge without the FCC and his administration giving them approval.

So they're basically bowing down and saying, we're going to give you $16 million to, because the Kamala Harris interview was edited in a way that you didn't like. which was complete unadulterated bullshit. That case had no merit. But they gave him $16 million. Similarly, ABC with George Stephanopoulos, $15 million because he said sexual assault, I think, instead of, or I think he said rape instead of sexual assault or whatever. And normally, I think back in the day, Katie Couric, back in the day, we would probably issue an on-air apology, correction. Correction, yeah.

But I don't think anytime I worked at a network would they pay somebody because they were afraid of the ramifications if they didn't. You would feel like it would be like a badge of honor, in fact. A badge of honor to what? To be sued by a person in the administration, any administration. I always felt like journalists who came up against, like the government, I always felt that that was a badge of honor. We saw it in South Africa.

The journalists who were arrested by the apartheid government, it was a badge of honor. You know, the journalists who were in war zones who were arrested by, you know, rebel factions or the governments that people were trying to overthrow. It was a badge of honor. It always used to be this badge of honor where it's like, oh, we are now going to stand our ground and show you. They're speaking truth to power. On the other hand, I think, you know, if journalists make mistakes, right?

Oh, yeah, that's different. incorrectly or report it, then I think that's how the, how the system works, right? And so I don't think you can say sort of carte blanche that or generalized that it's a badge of honor all the time. But, you know, it's totally different now, the way they're using their power to suppress stories to change how the framework of stories or, you know, how a story is positioned. I was talking to a friend the other day about when CBS News did a 16-second reader on January 6th, and they were basically saying, Hakeem Jeffrey said this, Donald Trump said that. Yeah.

Now, if there's no universal understanding that January 6 was an insurrection, that people were killed, police officers and yes one protester but that it was an attempt to overturn an election and disrupt the peaceful transfer of power and hang Mike Pence and hang Mike Pence and throw the election

we're like we're coming to hang Mike Pence and throw the election in Donald Trump's favor then they're just they're not being truthful that is factually incorrect I think the conflict for anyone doesn't live in America is America has always gone into other countries to try and defend their democracies. And if people voted for this dispensation,

aren't their mechanisms in the same constitution to quell anything that they don't like from the same dispensation? Yes. What? I kind of understood that question. So if it's a democratic state that is voted in by its citizens, surely there must be a mechanism within the constitution of the same state that can stop things that the people who voted don't like. Do you get what I mean? But it's a yes and no. That's the weird thing, right? Yeah, I mean, the first thing about elections. Certifying the election, right?

And that's what was happening on Capitol Hill when this whole riot broke out. So I think you're right. There are steps that will ensure, right, a free and fair election. The question is, if those steps aren't followed by the frigging president of the United States, where does that leave you? But it's also weird. You know, to your question is like, one of the strange things about democracy is that you are buying something you do not yet have and you've never tested and you've never really owned. Yeah. And you're paying for it up front.

So in many ways, I think like voting is similar to buying a house. You walk in, they show you around. And then you're like, all right, I'll take it for the next however many years of my life, this is for me. And then only when you sleep in it for a week, do you go, I think this shit is haunted. Do you know what? You could have just rented. Yeah, you're like, what just happened here?

But I think that happens in democracy. We take that for granted as a system. It's maybe the best one we know right now. But I do think it's a little bit strange that we go, okay, Eugene, tell me your pitch. Trevor, I promise you pizza every Friday. All right, I vote for this guy. And then Eugene comes in and then he's like,

I don't like pizza. It's weird because I voted. for you based on like I do think it is strange that there is no mechanism to hold politicians accountable for the thing they said they were going to do what is that? They're called elections. No, but that's no, no, no, you don't know. They're called the next election. Yeah, but you see, that's too late.

That's too late. Okay, now let's use this analogy somewhere else. Imagine if you went to a car dealership and you said, I want to buy this SUV for my family. They go, yeah, great. There's seven-seater SUV for you and your family. You go, you sign it, you take it. you drive out of the lot.

When you get home, there's two seats. And you're like, what just happened? And then you phone the dealership and you're like, you said seven seats. And they're like, yeah, we just realized seven seats wasn't going to work. So we switched it to a two-seater. And you can switch it out in your next lease. Yeah.

I still have to own this car. I think what you're saying, there should be a better business bureau for the government. I think there should be a better replacement for democracy. I think they could be. No. Yes, I think so. A better replacement for democracy? For the way we run it, I think it could be.

Okay, what? Because people assume, well, I'll speak for my country. People assume, first of all, in our country, people had to explain to people, which they didn't know in this age of information, that we actually don't vote for the president. We vote for a party. And the party elects people, puts them in parliament. Parliamentarians in their different parties elect a president.

Yeah. So we don't choose who the president is. So that's the first part. But what we've done is, I think if democracy was real, would have to be able to choose in real time all the time. You can't choose once. See, this is why you're my guy. You can't choose once every four years.

So every day, an election? This is why we wear the same clothes. This is why we dress the same. Polymarketed. So here's the thing. If you vote for a president, you vote for a party. The party elects a representative.

The representative themselves in parliament elect the president. That person who's the president, who's the president now, elects people that he likes and trust. Yeah. And then they go on to elect people that they like and trust. Right. In different cabinet positions, in different ministries.

So basically what you've done is you've empowered an institution to create its own sub-institution. Yes. And everyone puts people that they trust over and over and over. Local municipality suffers because people are always looking at the bigger picture, which is the president of the country. And no matter how many times when people are dissatisfied with service delivery, when the president says,

but I don't control anything in municipal level. No one will believe them because people assume because you are on the ballot paper, we voted for you, right? And also these mechanisms of local elections and municipal elections and by elections, they never as advertised as the big Super Bowl of elections. No, they're not. Even here, people don't vote on that level in the same way.

Yeah, so I think people should be able to select the president, not from just the party, just select the individual and then also have a say in the individuals that that individual selects. So I, okay, can I pitch you my idea on this? Yeah.

I actually think the biggest issue with politics is individuals. Yeah. Let me try and explain this. When somebody goes up and starts a campaign, we know nothing about them. We do not know their ability

or inability to do things. For the most part. Worse, we don't know their friends. This is true. That they're going to elect. We don't know. This is true. They will elect their friends.

We elect them. Or where they're getting their money to run the game. There we go. Exactly. All of this. Well, no, when I came back in the day. So I think, I think, sometimes when I'm trying to solve a problem, I try and go back to the original idea of what we were trying to solve, right? Why do we have representatives?

I would argue the reason we have representatives in every system is because it was not feasible for all of us to be. contributing or discussing how to do a thing. So we said, hey, we live at this table. We are the table people. Everyone at other tables also has decisions to make. So why don't we send someone from this table? So Katie, you go represents us, please, at the National Table Convention. And tell us what other people from tables are thinking,

but let them know that we like certain kinds of tables, please. That made sense. It made sense at a time when there was no internet. It made sense at a time when information couldn't just, travel instantly. I think it makes a lot of sense. Yeah. When means of productions

were controlled by a limited few. Completely. Completely. We now live in a world where I think we use all this great technology for, in my opinion, like trashy things. Online betting.

Yeah, we have online sports betting. Yeah. Instant like decisions. And you can, to do what? To bet on a game and then go broke. And then, you know, your family's destitute and young men are like homeless and what?

we have it for what voting on like a singing competition send us your votes now that's instant we've got amazing technology but we use it for like the most gimmicky thing oh put your opinion online imagine if I know this sounds crazy

but imagine if people could a la carte vote digitally about things that a country's doing instead of having it be one day to pick one person who's going to make all the decisions but having said that you know to really explore and analyze an issue takes tons of time. The American people, and I don't know what this situation is in South Africa,

it takes a lot of time and energy and focus to really understand deeply all these issues. Ostensibly, these people are there to really learn, evaluate, have staff people look at things. Now, ideally, right? the average American doesn't who's trying to earn a living, you know, be productive in the world, take care of his or her family, isn't necessarily going to have the expertise in a certain area, I think. I mean, I think they can get involved. They can call their member of Congress, et cetera.

But do you believe that that would really work? That every, you know, if let's say there's an issue of, are you saying, for example, like funding DHS, that, we should have a national vote like American Idol and people should say how they feel. So I love that you that you brought that up because I think it's it captures two elements of politics that I think have broken down. One is the etymology of politics itself, right? From the Greek, for the people, politic. It's like it is literally the thing for the people of the people. If we the people cannot understand the thing, it is wrong, is my opinion. Why have you made it so convoluted. It is easier to understand than you make it. And I think politicians

have created a world where they've made it like, look, you, you guys cannot understand this. Let us do it for you. It's so complicated. Your tiny little brain cannot understand this. Just give us your tax and then we will do it for you. We'll take care of it. You small brain person. The politician just became Indian. Oh, no, no, no. This is just a lord, a lord of something. But this should be part of what every politician runs on and every citizen should insist on. Administrators should never be touched. So if you think of in South Africa, for example,

the Ministry of Home Affairs. Yes, yes. You see, I'm loving this. If a minister comes in, he must not touch. You see, I'm loving this. The general manager. I'm loving this. The departmental heads.

Because these appointments that are because of friendships are the ones that destroy the institution. Exactly. This guy, do you get... Now you're a political figure, appointee. Yes. destroying what the administrator has done for years and years and years and things have been working.

Then we let that happen because we assume that they know what they're doing. But this person, just six months ago, was in a political party rally. And now he walks into Home Affairs and Department of Immigration and Department of Finance and Department of Health. And he lets people that he thinks know what he's going to be doing. And political deployments have never worked. So this is what I mean about. I agree with you that most of us do not understand the intricacies of the, things going on in a bill or the issues except most of us. But I would argue that most of us

also include many of these politicians. The reason I say this, because if you talk to as you have senators, congresspeople, etc., first of all, they have a whole barrage of staff who processes it for them and then gives them footnotes. And those people, if they're influenced by the right person, choose which footnotes to give or not give. And you've seen it in these hearings sometimes is where like someone will ask a senator themselves, they'll be like, do you know what's in the bill? And then the Senate will be like, well, I mean, I know what the bill. Then they're like, do you know what's in the bill?

Yes. And then it's like, well, I look, I don't know every single thing. Did you know that in your bill about bridges, there's also a thing here about schools and then like how pigs should be shipped? What? Pigs? Yeah, yeah. There's a thing about pigs.

It's a bridge. Yeah, yeah. This is infrastructure, but there's a thing about pigs. You know what it is? We assume that everyone would decide. dispenses medicine is a pharmacist. So when we elect officials, we assume that they know what they're doing.

Yes, that's what I mean. We want them to dispense democracy on our behalf. And they keep telling us, you guys are too young to know what this thing is, let me drive it for you and I let you know when you're ready. It could be another way, Katie. There could be another way. Okay, so guys, what are you proposing here?

We thought you'd never ask. No, you know what's funny. This is how I'll even, I'll say it. Yeah. Look at what you're doing in your life now. If I had come to you three decades ago and said, Katie Couric, I think you can run your own media organization

that chooses its own stories. From the comfort of your own home. Yeah, and just not even have a time that you actually put something out. There will be no fixed time slots. There will be no time length. There will be no overlord. Do you think you would have looked at me

and been like, yeah, this sounds feasible? No. I would have said you're nuts. Thank you. That's what I mean. So and when I look at what you've done today, it's exactly that. It's citizen, you know, citizen journalism where you've taken, taken all your expertise, all your experience, all your, everything that you've gained over your lifetime. Your connections, your respect, your everything.

Your knowledge. And you've created something that is very necessary. And we're seeing many organizations that are doing this. You know, like one of my favorites, like on YouTube is like a more perfect union. Oh, yes. Some of the journalism they're doing is like, you're like, wow, why isn't this? just everywhere. Why is this everywhere? Yes. Or Midas Touch, you know, is doing some great work and courier news as well. It's funny because my friend's daughter is like the head of all digital

content for a more perfect union. Oh, okay. Yeah. Yeah, kudos to them. And so it's really interesting. But that idea seemed crazy. The idea that a person could make an album in their bedroom and then send it out to the entire world and the world could choose how to listen to it seemed like a crazy concept, you know? And then look at someone like Billy Elish. But how... I think for voting we could do it. And I think we have all the tools now.

All right. Well, let's talk about that. I mean, I'm just going to challenge both of you. So how would that work practically? Huh? No, it was you with the big idea. So I would love to hear more specifically how this would work pragmatically. Okay. Here's how I pitch it right now.

Okay. This is still in beta. This would be the idea. But there's a few things we have to address. So number one is there's a delusion of information, right? And there's a breakdown in how people understand that information. I do think AI has given us a tool that we've never had before in that AI can tell you exactly, it can translate it for you for you. Regardless of your aptitude, regardless of your proficiency in a language, AI can help you understand anything.

the way you'd understand it. All right. So that's the first thing I think is we've now got a tool that can take large amounts of information, synthesize them for you, right? So that's the first part. The second one is we already possess digital technology that requires verification and authentication. So people are trading like Bitcoin and all these things.

You've got to have your ID in there. You've got to have facial recognition on banking apps. Two-step verification. So there's a measure of. security that is often more intense than voting security right now. So it's like, okay, so there's a way to verify that this is Katie Couric who's making this decision. So that's, I would argue, handled already and can keep getting stronger.

And then the last one is the instant nature of it, instead of having bills that are built on other bills that are built on other bills that are built, that in my opinion, mean lots of things don't go anywhere. You could just have an Alacard system where people in. in their cities, in their states, et cetera, of voting on bite-sized ideas, which is how we already consume information, then you just go, hey, would you like more or less funding for the parks and this?

Here's how we're breaking the spending. Here's how we're doing this. I do think there's a way we could simplify the information without diminishing any of its fidelity and get people to make decisions as opposed to saying you can make no decision. You can just pick a person and then that's it. But there's a lot of things that go into running a country, right? Yes.

So are you suggesting that every issue, every decision, every spending cut or increase is voted on by the citizenry? No, but I do think there's a large part of it. I think right now we're at like zero is what I argue, right? Maybe not zero to be fair, because I guess people vote on, what do you call those in America? A referendum? Yeah, and also there's the other ones where people go. ballot initiatives? Yes, thank you.

Ballot initiatives. Okay. So it's not zero, to be fair, but it's very few. I'm not saying it could, it would be a hundred because I love bureaucrats. I'm going to go on record to say, as like Eugene said, my friend over here. You know why? Because bureaucrats make the world move and we've been conditioned to like hate bureaucracy and hate. No, they're the people who make sure that the bridges are going to work.

and make sure that the engineers numbers match up and they make sure that the roads are built and they make sure that the drug companies are actually testing and they're looking at the studies and the... I think some bureaucrats. I mean, I think bureaucracy has gotten a bad name and I think there are public servants who do exactly that serve the public.

But there are also bureaucracy connotes a certain kind of bloat. Blote, right? And I think Democrats and Republicans agree that the government had gotten too big and could have been more efficient. And that's not. And of course, Elon Musk took a literal chainsaw to it where it needed, you know, an exacto knife, right? And so I think that I agree with you. His one was weird, though. But, you know, I think we're in this binary world.

You can't say bureaucracy is good, bureaucracy is bad. No, I agree. That's why I'm agreeing with you. That's what I'm agreeing. You know what's funny about the Elon Musk thing? He took a chainsaw to it. I've never seen somebody take a chainsaw and then somehow cut everything down,

but also miss all the trees. Because he didn't save anything. He saved like no money, but everything was destroyed at the same time. You're like, what were you doing with this chainsaw, Elon Musk? No, no, but to your point, that's what I'm agreeing with. I'm saying, I'm saying, I think there can be a balance. He missed everything.

He didn't miss everything. I think there can be a balance where we just find a world where we are a little more involved and politicians are held a little bit more accountable along the way as opposed to making it like, I guess I'll wait four years to, you know.

I think that people, I think that election day should be a national holiday. First of all. And I think people should be fined if they don't vote. Yeah, well, wait. Wait, let me think on the second one first. Let me think on it. National holiday.

I'm in. I'm in. Find. I'm in, Katie. I'm in. Wait, now, I wish I knew at the top of my head. Does Australia, some country, somebody find. You have to.

You have to vote. It's mandatory, right? And what happens if you don't? I do think you get penalized in some way. That's why people vote for like Darth Vader and stuff there. It's quite common. You get penalized. I think you get fined.

Okay. So penalized come from the word penalty. Yes. So you get... Okay. Yes. That's exactly what it is. But don't you think I just feel like...

Why don't you say penalized? Because you could have said penalized. Because I think it's penal. I don't even think it comes from penalty. I think it might come from penal something else. Yeah, but penal colonies were penalty colonies. Penitentiary colonies. Pelotan. Peloton.

I don't know. We're going to continue this conversation right after this short break. So here's my thing about voting. First of all, I think it's politicians. But wait, can we agree we're in? By the way, you've got our votes. National holiday.

We're completely in. And penalty? I'm in on this. If you don't go vote. Yeah, because it's a holiday. It's not exercise your democratic responsibility, not right. Because I think at some point it becomes a responsibility instead of a right. Okay.

So here's my thing. I think politicians are the reasons why or are the reason why normal citizens hate bureaucrats because they've used words like red tape and bloated they've used those words to excuse them not being efficient so they've said I would love to do this

but there's so much red tape but if I put someone that I know who can cut through the red tape then for four years someone is putting someone that cuts through the red tape and as soon as they get there they don't cut through the red tape because maybe there's no red tape

that's how things work if you've ordered a thousand buses from Malaysia it takes one year to make the buses, ship them over here for six months. I mean, Trump came insane. It's going to drain the swamp. I'm going to drain it. You got to drain the swamp.

Who doesn't want the buses to come? And then you go there and you're like, what did you drain? I mean, turns out it's not a swamp. It's a bathtub. You can't drain the bathtub because we got a bath. We got a bath. That's what it is. You know what?

You need to be penalized. But doing that accent so well. So the second part is, I think there should be categories of who can vote and how many times can they vote. Whoa. What? What are you living in Chicago? Because here's my thing. There's banks who have more security than governments when it comes to voting.

Okay. And there's also buildings that are run more efficiently than governments. Okay. So we can combine those to we go. People in some buildings who have kids can vote if they place. needs to be kid friendly or not. But if you don't have kids or you don't have a dog, I mean, sit this one out.

Oh, this is an interesting idea. So we must go... You're going like granular with the voting. Yeah, so if we go, Katie, how many kids do you have? And you go, I've got three kids. They go to school here. Here's their age. And then we go, okay, in the voting ballot paper,

you get more of a say because you are creating a future for your kids. Oh, this is an interesting idea. What do you think about that, Katie? I don't think that's a good idea. Why? Why not? I mean, you're saying that people with kids should have more.

than one vote. The same way people with kids get to board the plane first. Yes. So, no, I'd like to know your thoughts on the way. People with dogs get preferential treatment at the buildings and at the parks. I want to hear what kids. Because I'm not, I don't own a dog. But when I see a dog lover rolling with their dog in a dog park, I'm like, I understand.

You wanted this to happen. And this is benefiting you. But I, if I was left to vote for your comfort and your dog's comfort, I can tell you now, you and your dog wouldn't be here. But no, this is an interesting. What do you think of that? I don't think, I don't know. I've never really thought about it.

And I just don't think it's practical. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. You tell me how. All right.

So what do you do as census and are you, you're saying that people. When you're already starting to vote, obviously the government already knows from the birth certificates of your children, how many children you have. Can I tell you something? It sounds like a crazy idea. When you said it, I thought it's crazy. When you explain it.

there's a little bit of sense to it in that like... It also feeds into Project 2025 where they want more people to have more kids, that they feel like that people should be procreating in a much faster rate. Can I tell you, can we just pause it? Can we take a tangent on that? So what if people say,

okay, I'm going to have more kids because I want to have more votes? Is that a good reason have children? No, they would never... It's not a good reason, but your body's not going to cooperate. Like, good luck just makes. And no partners as well. Yeah, you're in trouble already.

I mean, like, the weird thing about the human body is everyone can say, like, I'm going to have more kids, but your body might be like, no, you're not. You know, it's just a weird. I think it's a, it's not a good idea. Okay. And I can't really, really get into all the reasons why, because I have to really think about this. There we go, Katie. But do you, would you live in an apartment building that's not kid friendly when you have kids? No.

This building says we don't want to hear children playing, we don't want to hear them laughing, we don't want to hear anything. No, I wouldn't. You wouldn't live there, right? But why do we do that with a country? Why do you do that with a state that doesn't allow us to express ourselves and our needs and the things that we care about on a granular level but on a gigantic scale? Well, I think you do by voting for people who you think have policies

that are going to be better for your children. But we've discovered that they don't even know how the Department of Health works. It is true. They've told us. They're like, I'm a politician. Okay, okay, how about this? I'll pitch this to you. Before we get to our crazy ideas, can I pitch something?

We haven't gotten there yet. No, no, no, because we are, no, I'm saying before. Oh, the crazy ideas. Because we haven't won Katie over it. Okay, okay, okay, okay. All right. And also Katie's coffee has run out. That's why I think she's so skeptical.

I'm good. I'm good. Let's, let's, okay, how about, how about this? Yeah. Could I pitch to you, how would you feel if I said, nobody should be allowed to run a, an area of the government that they don't possess an expertise in. How do you feel about that?

Good. Okay. Okay, so you would agree. Because I think it's strange that somebody who has no experience in the field of medicine or science can go and run the fields of medicine and science. Yeah. Okay, okay, okay. No, so you can work with you there. Of course.

And then here's another one. Here's another. What's that have to do with being able to vote more because of kids? No, no, I'm just trying to see where we can bring you. Of course, I. You know I think that. No, no, no, no. I'm trying to like, I'm trying to see.

Okay. Oh, are you, are you trying to see where we can. Okay. Not even, no, no, no. I'm just trying to see where we get. Here's my other one. Here's my other one to add to because now we're going, we're not going extreme. Actually, we're going.

These are mediocre. Yeah, yeah. We're trying to win this vote. A voter of one. Every, every politician that runs to run a certain department must run it. Yeah. Their campaign together with an elected bureaucrat from that department. I'm not mad at this.

So they're like, Department of Health, yes. And then there's Steve, who's been at the Department of Health for a long time. I like this. And then he endorses me because Steve thinks, should I come in here, there's things that I can do at Capital City that he can do. But there's things that he can do inside there that I can do. So his running mate is a bureaucrat. What if the person who's coming in to power has meaningful and important reforms to institute?

You get the bureaucrat who is basically adhering to the status quo and saying this is the way we've always done it when the person coming in might say, we need to change this. This needs to be done differently. This is a good point. How do you respond, Eugene? They'll need to convince the bureaucrat why as an outsider

they think that would work when the bureaucrat has been there for 20 years. I don't know. I'm feeling it's getting gumbed up now. Because now they have to convince a bureaucrat. Now I'm a little bit with Katie on this one. Okay. if I've been there for 20 years and I'm telling you that's how we do a podcast

This is how it's been done The podcast has been going out In fact the fact that you exist as a politician To want to try and run this department It's partially due to it. And then you come and you go No My constituency says

It could be better here Then here You see how we're getting to my voters again But we're not going to go there Then the person says Okay I think if you change this studio And if you change this location If we change this microphone

Then the person who's a bureaucrat that goes No If you change that this is what would happen. If you don't change this, this is what would happen. But you're saying give them equal authority, right? Yes, because they are running together. I don't know.

Now I'm with Katie. I'm sorry. So you want the politician to be in charge? I don't know. I mean, is it, you're saying that the politician has to have expertise. So in other words, the person is running the CDC has to have expertise in health, public health. Yes. Yes, you should at least have some sort of, yes.

So if that's the case, that person to me, should have the authority to, and hopefully you have decent people who are intelligent and knowledgeable and take information from the people who are already there. But that person has to be in charge because I'm just different, yeah, I just don't like your plan. I'm sorry, Eugene. Sorry, Eugene, you failed. Can I ask you a question. When you, I'm assuming over the years you've developed countless sources and, you know,

people who are insiders and just people who have like told you things about so this could be an incorrect assumption but i'm assuming this because of your time in journalism have you heard from people inside what we call the administration and and have any of them signal to you that like they're sort of not sure or they you know how do they even manage that incongruency between what they think should be and what is i haven't heard that many people who are currently inside the administration because I think, first of all, they are uber paranoid about leaks there. Oh, wow. Okay.

You know, whether you're working at the Pentagon or wherever, I think that, and also, I think if you're covering something, you have to be at the Pentagon to really have these inside sources. Right. That's why reporters have different beats, right? So they develop sources and have an expertise in that area. But I do know a lot of people who have left the administration, who have been fired from the administration who then are speaking out. For example, I interviewed a senior level FBI agent

who talked about kind of what she had seen happening in the FBI, the sort of the wholesale firing of people with expertise, for example, in the Iranian terror threat, right? Cash Patel just gets rid of this whole unit. Or because some of these agents were investigating some of the perpetrators of January 6, they got fired. So people like that are much more open to obviously talking about what's happening inside the administration. I think most people who are unhappy have left or are too afraid to talk about why they're unhappy. You know, Liz Oyer was fired as the chief pardon attorney at DOJ. Now she has this very, very vibrant social media presence. And she's talking about what's going on in the DOJ. I'm sure she has sources that some people left who she

worked with. But I think it's very difficult, at least for me, and maybe White House correspondents who are actually on site and can develop these sources. But I think most of the people in the administration anyway, not necessarily in the federal government. I'm sure there are a lot of people, but they're terrified too. You know, you speak out and you get shit can't. Right. Right. So I, I, I, don't really have a lot of people inside this administration who would be able to talk on the record about, or even off the record, about their displeasure of how things are being done. I've always been fascinated about how the beats work. So if somebody is, when they say someone

is stationed at the Pentagon or at the White House, what does that exactly mean? Because I don't assume, as a journalist, you get to like walk around the White House freely and investigate things. Well, you used to be able to, well, I'll talk about the Pentagon for a second because I was the Deputy Pentagon correspondent at NBC, only for a year before I became a national correspondent on the Today Show and then co-anchor of the Today Show. But basically, when you're a deputy or any Pentagon correspondent, whether it's for the Atlantic or the Washington Post or NBC News, you develop sources, you walk around the e-ring, which is the big pyramid. Wait, slow down, Slow down, sorry, so slow down, because you're saying it, and I don't understand any of it.

What does developed sources mean? Well, you talk to people, you know, you introduce yourself to people, you talk to people from different, you know, arms of the, you know, from the Navy Air Force Marines. So you just go around and you're like, hi, I'm Katie Couric. I'm a reporter and nice to know you. Well, yeah, or I remember getting a tip from somebody, you know, my first week at the Pentagon. No ways. and said, hey, this is happening. Are you interested?

What was the story? Do you remember? Yeah. It was about a guy who had secrets. And it ended up, yeah, yeah. I think his name was, he's being accused of being a spy. Oh, wow. Yeah.

And that person tipped you. So help me understand this. why do they do that as opposed to, you would assume if you work at the Pentagon and you know that somebody's a spy, you would just go to your, like your superiors and be like, hey, this person's a spy. Yeah.

Why would they come to you? I think the person was already being investigated. Okay, okay, okay. And I think they thought it was a good story that it was worth being in the public domain. Okay. And that it was worth reporting on. I mean, I think people have various motivations

right? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. For telling a report or something. It could be for their own self-anggrandizement. It could be making them feel powerful. Could be because they truly believe in the public's right to know. Yeah. But anyway, so you would walk around.

You would talk to people. You would meet people. You would meet them, you know, getting an egg sandwich in the morning. I mean, all kinds of ways, right? That's fascinating. And you would walk around. I would just walk around that Pentagon, like do circles, around what they called the E-ring.

Just 10,000 steps. And I would talk to people and introduce myself. And now they have limited your ability to walk around the Pentagon without an escort. There are certain parts of the Pentagon. You can't walk around. You know all the different restrictions they've tried to place on reporters at the Pentagon. They first of all kicked out. They got rid of people's workspace.

They made the New York Times and I think NBC. news and another publication leave because we used to have desks and offices. So you'd report from the Pentagon. Like we had a soundproof booth and they'd come to us. And so they kicked some of them out. They did more administration-friendly news organizations, invited them in. Then they said you had to sign an agreement saying before you reported on a story, even if it wasn't classified information, you had to clear it with the Pentagon.

Oh, wow. with the Pentagon people. And then a judge said, you can't do any of this. And now they're still trying to put the Pentagon reporters outside the Pentagon proper. They're trying to annex the reporters and keep them out of the building. I mean, they're just trying to make it very, very difficult. Now, reporters to their credit from the New York Times and all the legitimate news organizations haven't let, it stopped them. But one kind of guy

correspondent told me that one of her sources is afraid to meet her at a restaurant, right? Or is afraid to be seen talking to her at all, you know, which isn't surprising. But it's just very, it's much more difficult and it has a chilling effect on what people are going to feel comfortable talking to reporters about, right?

Right. They're going to be so scared. And I think that Pete Hickset has really made it clear that he will not tolerate any leaking. But that's when you get information about things that are going on that perhaps shouldn't be going on that warrant the public's attention. So they're doing, it's really upsetting. They're really trying to muzzle reporters and tie their hands behind their backs

and make their jobs very difficult. And it's just not right. I sometimes, like how you explain now makes sense of what I always think. I sometimes feel sorry for hardcore journalists who are invested in telling people the news because of how much information just gets lost in between. So if you think about it in South Africa right now, what they're trying to do is they're trying to pass a law that incentivizes a whistleblower. So if a whistleblower comes out in a department and says 16 billion RAND was stolen,

when the person gets convicted, the person gets a share of the money recovered. Whoa, what? Yes. I didn't know this. Yes, so they first get protection while the case is being investigated. And then afterwards, they get a cut, a percentage of what was recovered. So I think of the news and I think of the era of maybe CNN during Desert Storm. You'd find these journalists in there telling the news, they were the source of the news.

They were reporting live from there. So I can imagine someone who has a source, who works at the Pentagon, whoever gets this information, gets the story out, but they go on social media and there's so much disinformation about the same subject that they fought so hard for. Yeah. All the meetings they had, the life, their livelihood that they're risking sometimes is a journalist to print a story that is true and there's potential ramifications for a lot of people. Well, I still, I mean, there is still incredible journalism happening. You know, I think about ProPublica, you know, a nonprofit news organization. And they were the ones who figured out how many of the people who were being arrested and detained by ICE were not guilty

of committing serious crimes. And it was something like 85%. Right. Right. And others. And so, and then you have like the New York Times or the Atlantic or the New Yorker it was, New Yorker in the New York Times keeping track of how the Trump family has enriched themselves to the tune of over four billion and county. This was a few months ago, so I'm sure it's much higher. So, you know, I think that you're right. Everything becomes diluted in this media landscape where everyone has a voice and an opinion and pretends to be a journalist. But I still believe that for well-informed people, and I think media literacy is more important than ever, I think that we have to have people who understand how to how to consume information and to judge information and the accuracy.

But I think that those stories do break through. And then what happens is, you know, for all the belly aching about mainstream media, whatever that is now, you know, it's these big organizations, news organizations, some of them, who are invested in news gathering. they're reporting on stories, and then those stories are then ingested by other people and explained to their social media followers. So a lot of these single sort of social media opinion givers and reporters are taking the reporting, the core of the reporting done by these news organizations.

And basically, I don't want to say plagiarize. but they're basically reporting what these other people have been working so hard to report. So in a way, it has a ripple effect. And so these news organizations are doing a great service and even amplifying it, even if they're putting it in their own words, is a positive thing because it is the result of oftentimes weeks, if not months, of reporting. If that makes sense. No, it makes complete sense.

I wonder like how you grapple with as a journalist when to put free speech or the freedom of the press above or below what you may perceive as the interests of the country. Because this is always fascinated me. You know, America will be conducting a military exercise or something. And then I'll see in the newspaper, they'll go, well, the military plans to do. da-da-da, and they plan to, blah, blah, blah, then I'm like, do other countries not read newspapers? Because it seems weird that you can, you can say, you can report. What is going to happen?

Yeah, like, I'll read in the newspaper that they've just discovered that the military is planning to do X, Y, Z. Well, that's what happened in South Africa. There was a joint military operation that was ran with the U.S. Army and the South African Army and the President didn't know about it. And then someone reports, it came up. Yeah, it was reported in the news. Yes, but now. Then he had to call the general info and inquiry.

Imagine how weird that was. But this is what I mean. Yeah. This is what I'm saying. He found out in real time with the rest of us. Yes. But what I'm saying is as a journalist. I think there are national security considerations that I think you pay attention to.

If there, if, if, I'm trying to think if there was an example like that when I was at the Pentagon. You know, Panama, for example. I think. I do think that you do weigh sort of national security considerations with the public's right to know. You know, and I think it's a case-by-case situation. So I think that a lot of, I don't know now in the current landscape, who knows, right? But I think most legitimate journalists in a certain situation wouldn't necessarily preempt a military action. I'm trying to think of examples and report on them prior to them taking place.

but they might. I have to really think about that and look back on different cases. It's such a strange one because I don't know if people... So, okay, like an example, let's use a hypothetical. Nicholas Maduro,

the U.S. military going in and getting him and then bringing him to the U.S. That's what we call it now? What do you want to call it? What do you mean getting him like they're giving him a lift? They got him. He wasn't in a sleepover.

He was not like... Yeah, I mean, I would say got him for a sleepover. Yeah, no, that would be picked him up. Got him means I got him. You get him saying. That's why you say got him versus picked him. If I said like, hey, what happened to my friend Eugene the other day? I'll be like, oh yeah, I picked him up.

I've never been like, I got him. Oh, but you could also say I'm going to get Eugene later so I can't meet you at three. I'm going to get Eugene. Yeah, yeah, this is true. I guess it depends on like the inflection. Maybe say snatched. Snatched. Yeah, if Eugene doesn't want to come to your house.

Snatched him. What word would you use? Okay, I'm going to use snatched then. They went and snatched him. They went and snatched him. Right? That type of story or even, let's say, Iran, when you look at how the public, and obviously is not all of the public,

but when you look at how the American people have responded post some of these things, maybe Venezuela people weren't as attached. So they're like, we don't understand what's happening. We don't understand why we're doing this. But then like with Iran, the American public seems to be against this en masse. most of the people in America are going, we don't want this and we did not want this. I wonder if a journalist has known...

Especially it was a billion dollars a day, right? Is that what it is now? A billion dollars a day? Oh, man. That's a lot of Ozempic people could be buying. People are like, there's no money for healthcare, but there's money, man. If someone could have reported that,

because somebody knew something ahead of time, I wonder if that type of reporting, which seems to go against the sort of interests of the administration go in the interest of the country. Because if the country knew beforehand and then the country goes, we heard this is going to happen, we don't like it. There's a good chance it wouldn't happen. Well, I think it was pretty clear that something was going to happen in Iran, you know, with all the ships that had been deployed and all that, right?

And you think about the lead up to the war in Iraq, right? The whole argument that the Bush administration was making about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that turned out to be wrong. And I think the reporting on that was pretty strong, right? But it was strange because that was sort of post-9-11. And there was a tendency, certainly for Afghanistan, but later for Iraq, to not question sort of the administration as vociferously as they should have been

in the run-up to the war in Iraq. And the White House correspondents and a lot of journalists were roundly criticized for not questioning. what was happening more. But they were definitely reporting on it. And I think, yeah, I'm going to go back and look at sort of how military operations, if anyone scooped a military operation, if it had a negative impact on the execution of that operation. That would be fascinating too. Yeah. Yeah, I'm sure there are a lot of cases. I'm, yeah, I can't think of any now.

We'll be right back after the short break. How do you or how have you, I should say, because I think you've done a really good job of it. How have you managed to be Katie Couric, the person and Katie Couric, the journalist, for as long as you have? And sort of maintained, especially on the journalistic side, the prestige of that role, and not lost it because people, like, know who you are. You know, you've spoken about your family. You've spoken about loss. You've spoken about death in your life. You've shared so many things as a human being. And yet at the same time, I don't know how to explain it. It's almost like it hasn't celebrityified your journalism, if that makes sense.

It's tainted it. Yeah, yeah, because you know sometimes sometimes sometimes some news people or some journalists start to like become the stories in some ways. I wonder how you've how you've, have you purposefully looked to strike that balance And how have you done that? Not really. I mean, I sort of don't feel like I am two different people. And at times, I think I have become the story, right?

In a way, I use my husband's death to become a cancer advocate, right? And so that is when my personal plight and my journalism have intersected, right? In terms of trying to inform the public about colon cancer and colon cancer screenings. I mean, they still call that the correct effect, right? Well, the fact that, yeah, colon cancer screenings increased 20% after I did a colonoscopy on the Today Show. I know. It was crazy. Sorry for your last, by the way.

Thank you. I appreciate that. But I don't know. That's kind of, I don't even know how to answer that question. I am a person and I'm a journalist. And listen, I try to do the best I can in both roles, right? Yeah, I don't really see a delineation between, you know, of course, I have my personal life that I don't necessarily share with everyone. And then I have my professional desire to keep people informed.

But I don't know. I've never been asked that question. I don't really know how to answer it. How do you take a break from being informed? It's hard, you know. Selfishly. It's really hard. Because the volume and velocity of stuff coming to you, if you kind of check out for a day, I feel like, oh, my God.

You miss a war. I feel like I don't know what's going on. You lose a billion dollars a day. Right? And you're like, oh my God, wait, what? And there's so much to keep up with. And I was just rereading a couple of stories, you know, preparing for our conversation. And I was like, I have to really understand why the CDC kept this report about the COVID vaccine from being made public.

I know they did it. I saw the headline, but I don't know enough about why they did it. And what did they say? And well, I just went. Because I also read that, but all I thought was that they were just like, we don't think that this is valid. They, they question the methodology. That's what I mean. Which was, you know, this morbidity, mortality weekly report, which must be really a fun read.

that is published by the CDC and has never changed how they go about analyzing information. They, because, well, they kept it, they blocked it because it didn't fit with their narrative because it showed the COVID vaccine decreased emergency room visits by 55% and hospitalizations by 50%. And this is a CDC and, you know, department. of, you know, RFK juniors. What is his, it's, what is RFK in charge of you guys?

Was the health secretary? Yeah. Health and human services. Health and human services. Sorry, health and human services. Sorry. The Department of Health. I'm getting my acronym.

Yeah, well, no, we call it the Department of Health. Health and Human Services. You know, they are clearly anti-vaccine. Right. Anti-COVID vaccines. So they are suppressing a report that showed the positive impact of the COVID vaccine. Trump's vaccine, may I add,

I don't know why my man gets no credit for that vaccine. He put Operation Warp Speed into effect. You remember this? Yes. And in fact, somebody was talking the other day on Capitol Hill. And he was pushing it home. Trump was the one of his proudest accomplishments.

It was one of his proudest. And he should be proud of it. And now, you know, obviously it doesn't fit the narrative. So. Now he's stepping back from the responsibility of it? No, not even. It's like what happened was weird.

Trump was responsible for like he was at the head of spearheading this COVID-19 vaccine in record time. Not just the rollout, but the acceptance of it. Getting the entire scientific community to research a thing to put into place a system that normally would take up to a decade or something and saying how do we run certain processes concurrently to make sure that we can get this out as quickly as possible so the world can come back to life. It was a fantastic thing. It's a fantastic thing.

Trump was also proud of it, by the way. And of course, MRNA. vaccines and this whole approach is actually responsible for this new immunotherapy that they think has a lot of promise for pancreatic cancer. So not only was the COVID vaccine a positive, it also led to a lot of other vaccines for other serious illnesses and a new kind of, you know, therapeutic approach. So but in this world where black is white and white is black and up is down in town is up. It didn't fit with,

it didn't fit with what the base and the narrative were going with. And so what was strange was Trump said it at one of his rallies I remember. He said,

he's like, the COVID vaccine, it was my vaccine. I did it. And then the crowd's like, a lot of people, but they don't like that. They don't like it.

So I don't talk about. I don't talk about. But he was like, yo, I did that thing. It's not Biden's vaccine. It's my vaccine. But because the people,

his people didn't like it. He was like, all right, fine. But it is mine. But I, fine, nobody wants to talk about it. I'm not going to talk about it anymore. This assault on science is so infuriating, especially someone like me who's done, tried to devote so much time to cancer research, to raising money to support science. And this, this idea

that, that, you know, people don't believe the scientific community and the way that Anthony Fauci has been demonized is just, in my view, a disgrace. Yeah, I think it's a, you know, it's one of those things where hindsight is 2020. So I remember when we had Dr. Fauci on the show and I asked him this question or a version of it. It's like, how much do you feel responsibility to inform people of what's happening? Because at the time, the thing I said as well about like the CDC and all of it was they were giving mixed messages. You know, so first they told us, don't wear masks. Please do not wear masks.

Masks are not for you. Don't wear the masks. and with a mask. And then all of a sudden they were like, everyone get a mask. And we're like, what the hell just happened here? And it was like this many feet away from other people. No feet. Indoor, no.

And then when you realized they were trying to like manage people, that was like the only criticism I had was I went, regardless of your intentions, and I think parents see this a lot. Sometimes you think you're going to lie to your kid for a good reason. Right. And your kid will appreciate it. I think they should have been more transparent.

that this is a new virus, we are learning about it every day. We're learning about transmission. We're learning about how deadly it is. We are learning and we are really doing this as we go. Sweden did that. Yeah. And I think that that would have perhaps made people less critical of kind of, oh, wait, now this, now that. Actually, on the other hand, well, we've reevaluated this.

And I think that science, you know, there's an art to science too. And it's cumulative and you don't necessarily have all the answers immediately. And I think the scientific and medical community did an incredible job of taking this pandemic and trying to understand it. But I think there was something lost in communicating what they were learning to the general public. Yeah. It's a shame. I think it warrants the kind of... Oh, no, like the world ending demon. It's like, it's extreme. But it's also, again, it goes back to the sports of it all. Right. If you ask sports fans what should happen to somebody who's made a bad tackle,

depends on the team. Someone would be like, ah, come on, that happens. Get a, walk it off. The other time's like, no, kick him out of the game. Eject that person and ban them even. That was the most flagrant. So I think... The tribalism is just...

Yeah, that that has marred how Americans in particular, I find, discuss any issue. But I also think. This is something I've always wondered, even in journalism. When did that thing, not that you immediately know, but why do they put Republican or Democrat before somebody's name in an article? Like, why does American news report things like that? Or they'll even say a win for Democrats as child care law passes. Then I'm like, but why don't they just say child care law has?

past. Win for the people. I've always wondered that. Why do they, in my opinion? I guess in a two-party system, you have to. I guess maybe it's a way of figuring out people's priorities and getting back to elections, you know, what they care about and what they choose to focus on and move the needle on, right? What promise seems delivered and by who? Yeah, but what I mean, okay, so it would be different if If the headline said, Democrats promised child care law, it has now been passed. I know this is not a sexy headline, right? But that is what happened. But if they go, in a win for Democrats, child care law passed to me, it makes it seem like

the Republicans have lost and the Democrats have won. And the child care law doesn't have anything to do with the children in the law. It just has to do with who passed it. I mean, I don't know where you saw that headline. Oh, no, no. This is a headline I'm paraphrif, but I could pull them. There's always like in a winful, you know, and then the other one is just when people speak, so they'll go, Republican Katie Couric passes law on or says that we need to have fewer this.

And sometimes I think if you could remove that R or D before the issue, I think people would approach it with a more neutral and honest opinion. Perhaps. You know? Did you ever see that quiz? that the New York Times that you didn't see this but you'd love this though you'd love this

how do you know I didn't see the quiz Ah Brian you don't read I know this so no so it was here in the New York Times they put out a quiz it was around like when Hillary Bernie everyone was running

so I think I got 2016 somewhere there and the quiz was you just choose your issues will tell you who you should vote for oh wow And I remember in the building, we did this in the office, and everyone ran this quiz, right? And I was working at the Daily Show at the time.

And so, you know, some people were liberal, some people conservative, something. But everyone had their idea. They were so confident. They're like, oh, I know I'm going to get Hillary. I know this for sure. Oh, I'm definitely going to get this. I'm definitely going to get that person. It was literally that.

You just, do you think America spends, A, too much money on the military? B, not enough many. C, just the right amount. D, you know what I mean? They did that for every issue. And at the end, they would go, this is the candidate who aligns with you. The amount of panic and angst in the building

when people got their results. And it even went viral at the time. But I remember people going, this can't be right. I'm not a Bernie voter. And you're like, no, no, no. But everything you want, he wants. Your issues align with the candidate.

And that's when I realized half of the time, we are not looking at the issue. we're looking at the person we associate the issue with and then we're making the decision based on that. But circle back to my earlier proposition of how elections should be running. This is not election time.

We're not going back to this. You're voting on the issue. No, no, no, no, I agree with. But what I'm saying is, do you get, I mean... Don't agree. Katie, please, you are a journalist. You know this tactic. He's printing a retraction.

I'm not printing a rejection. I'm not putting a rejection. No, no, no, I said I agree with issue based. But you said quickly, you passed. No, no, but I originally agree with issue based. No, I had already agreed with it. Okay, sure. The thing I didn't agree with you on was the bureaucrat buddy coming to elections.

Like a bureaucrat buddy. Yeah, bureaucrat buddy I didn't agree with. Yeah, that I didn't agree with. But do you understand what I'm saying? It's like I wonder, maybe responsibility is the wrong word. But there's one part of journalism that is finding out the facts and the information and what is going on. And verifying them. There's another part that is framing it.

How is it put to people? Packaging it. Yes. And that's the thing I sometimes, I just find myself wondering, because I didn't grow up like that, is like why is it necessary to have that person's political affiliation when they were just saying or doing something? Because then I think it limits a person's ability to just go,

I like or don't like that. Or to say a Republican can actually have a good policy. That's what I mean. That's exactly what I mean. That's a good idea. Well, hopefully these things are bipartisan. I mean, I'd like to go back and see the headlines that you have in mind. I mean, I think that people just, I don't know, you know,

just very, very traditional and very, I think has the way it's been done with Republicans and Democrats. And I don't know. I don't see a problem with that. You don't? Huh. You know, when I realized how powerful it can be was, when we did a piece on how there was a town.

I forget where this was. But basically someone was running for mayor in a city. And in this city, and I think there's a few places like this, you're not allowed to say whether you're a Republican or Democrat when you're running for mayor. You just run. Really? Yeah. And this place has like one of the highest rates of people voting across party lines.

Because they don't know which party the person is from. So they just go, who's running? Eugene. Eugene wants clean water. Eugene thinks there should be more cows. There should be fewer windmills. Parents should have more votes. People should vote on issues instead of individuals. Exactly. And then they go like, okay, we've also got Katie Couric. Katie wants more journalism, more desks at the Pentagon, more egg sandwiches. And more deep throats. And she wants more colonoscopies. And this is her platform that she's running on. Yes. Trevor wants. The people vote. Trevor wants. Good times.

So you're saying the obsession with two parties is polarizing. No, no, no. I'm saying the identity of it first. Yeah. I believe limits people's ability. If I met you and the first thing you said to me was, hi, Republican Katie Kirk, no matter what, my brain has now put you in a certain space. Even if you said, hi, Democrat, Katie Kirk, I'll be like,

like, okay, my brain has put you in a space. Hello, Liverpool supports or Trevor No. Your brain already goes, if you're a Manchester United supporter, you're like, I don't know about this guy. For me, the joy is you meet people, you talk, you discuss things, you experience life. And then at some point, somebody goes, you're an Eagles fan? Oh, man, I'm a Chiefs fan.

I don't know you're an Eagles fan the whole time. Okay, okay. That's what I think it robs people of, honestly, in my opinion. No, I understand what you're saying. There was a Heineken commercial a few years ago about people. putting together a bar. Did you ever see this? Building things together. Yeah. And nobody knew anything about anyone's background. And there was a trans person there. There were just kind of a whole kind of slice of life. It was a complete gamut. Yeah. And it basically, I think this is sort of the point

you're making to kind of get rid of your preconceived notions and to be more open minded for different perspectives. By the time they finished doing the bar, they all kind of, had done something together, they had talked to each other, they'd gotten to know each other, and it removed all these kind of, you know, very specific, you know, preconceptions about each other. So I think if that's what you're saying, I understand. I mean, I don't know about removing the D and the R if that's going to be the solution. Oh, not solution. I just like a, it's like I'm pitching an amendment is.

where I go, because to your point, you know what I loved about that commercial in particular, was they brought people in, they knew they had very extreme views about certain issues. They made them work on something together. They would work and they would struggle and they built something together. And then afterwards they'd get them to say why the other person was so good and why they worked well together. And they'd be like, oh man, you know, Eugene really builds well and Katie is such a wonderful teammate. And they had all these effusive things. And they said, Now we want to show you a video and they gave you like a video. And the person described who they were.

Yes. And then it was like, hello Eugene. Here's a video. And it was Kate Curric. It's amazing. It's amazing. And then you get the video and it's like, I'm Katie Couric. Man, if there's one thing I hate, it's South Africans.

Short South Africans who are comedians with glasses. I hate them with all my heart. Me too. Or more like I am a woman. I believe in a woman's right to choose. I believe in this. I believe in LGBT rights.

I believe in this. And it just kind of all these differences evaporated. And it was very interesting. It was beautiful because people said... People saw each other as humans not as...

There you go. There you go. Ideologs. I sometimes... Do you think that that's also part of the role of journalism is to make everyone in a society see the other people in that society? Yeah, but I think it's really hard now because I think when you're, there's so much

fragmentation and you want to get an audience, there's a real, there's an advantage to appealing to people who feel strongly one way or another. And it's less of, let's talk about the nuances of this. story. It's more, as my friend Kara Swisher says, like engagement through enraagement. How do you get people, especially social media and these platforms, obviously, it's all about the attention economy, how long you're going to stay on the platform, how much you're going to engage on the platform. And so I think that there's not an emphasis on kind of a conversation where two people could show a different point of view. I mean, I guess Abby Phillip does that in some ways on her CNN show.

But that show frustrates me too sometimes because, well, like last night, or I saw a clip, or maybe it was last night, that they were talking about all the very incendiary things that President Trump has said. Yeah. And this one Republican kept insisting that he was really changing the dialogue, but he would not, or changing kind of the temperature, lowering the temperature of debate or whatever he was saying. And yet he would not concede that some of the things that Trump has said are wrong, wrong. You know, you don't cheer when Robert Mueller dies. Right. Yeah. You know, a true patriot, you know, and so many things. I mean, we could list chapter and first, all the things, the incendiary and just honestly, you know, disgusting things that Trump has said and done.

And he would not, he would not just say, you know what, that was wrong. He shouldn't do that. It's sort of like he didn't want to give an inch. No. But there's no reward in that, I find now. Well, that's what I'm saying. Yeah. In society.

So it's like, he is describing, he is on a team to get back to your sort of team point. and he does not want to do anything that will make people doubt his loyalty to that team. I would even argue. So the environment just isn't receptive to kind of this give and take. It's everyone is sort of has picked their side. Yeah, but I would even argue in that instance,

I would levy some of the blame on the producers of the show because I would go, you know full well that you are not bringing somebody here to have a meaningful discussion you're bringing somebody to play a part against somebody who's playing a part. Because when I watch those shows... It's costing.

Yeah, the people are very much... You can say whatever. And it'll be like, oh, Donald Trump choked a puppy. Well, let me... I mean, who likes puppies? Come on, let's talk. And you're like, you don't think that. But because your job here is to be the pro-Trump

or Republican person, and your job is to be the pro-democrat pro... I almost go like, I'm like, oh, we actually haven't created a show about discourse and dialogue. we've created the theater of it that makes both sides feel seen. And it feels like a way to try and grab both sides. But it doesn't feel like a meaningful way to actually have a discussion.

Yeah, I agree. And I guess the question is, again, I think just because I've covered so many administrations, do we normalize some of the things the Trump administration is doing by giving it weight in an argument? right and are these policy differences or is it something more dangerous right and and the question is do you legitimize that by having that conversation i don't know yeah if you if you apply the normal way of doing things to an abnormal thing are you now making the abnormal normal normal yeah essentially is what you're saying. So when, I mean, we, we, we find you at a point in your journey. You know,

it feels like one of your many evolutions. What is your, what is your dream? What is your like, if you look at what you're doing now in life, where you're trying to go with it, what do you hope it becomes and what do you hope it fills in society? I mean, I don't hope it becomes anything, I hope that I can continue to give voice to people who have the wisdom and the experience and the understanding and the knowledge to share what we're all witnessing together and to give it a perspective that I think is right. You know, I ask the questions. I don't always have the answers, but if I want to talk to somebody who I think does, who can give an honest appraisal of what's going on, and that's what I want to help share with the world. If that's helpful to people, if that's

the way they see the world, I mean, obviously I'm giving them a platform, so there has to be some kind of level of me kind of feeling like their views are worth exposing and airing and putting out there for the public. But that's what I hope to continue to do. I think, you know, I gave a speech last night. I got an award and I was talking about how science is refuted, how, you know, the Constitution is being ignored, how expertise is being derided. So all those things I want to give voice to. And that's all, I want to be of service to democracy in any way I can. And to the values that I hold dear, you know, scientific discovery and advancement, the rule of law, you know.

expertise. You know, I was reviewing this book by Tom Nichols. I think it was written in 2017. It was called The Death of Expertise. And why people don't trust people who have a deep well of knowledge in a certain area because everyone is an expert now. Everyone has an opinion. And then I think the democratization of media means that everyone thinks everyone's opinion

holds the same weight. Yeah. But it doesn't. There's so many opinions without portfolio out there. I want to talk to the, about the COVID vaccine with a scientist who has studied it,

you know, and who will really truly understand the impact of it, not somebody who's trying to kind of perpetrate a narrative about the, you know, the vaccines are unsafe. You know,

nothing is 100% safe, by the way. And I think that that needs to be. transparent to the American public. But, you know, so trying to use my ability to elicit questions and to ask questions that I think most people have and to be able to turn to somebody who really understands an issue, who understands, like, the role of NATO in the 20th century and, you know, post-World War II and what it is done and what is it, it has met. while acknowledging that perhaps some countries haven't paid enough, right, into NATO,

but kind of understanding the framework, I want to talk to a historian who can talk about that. Not somebody who just says NATO sucks and they're not paying their fair share, right? It's the nuance. It's the nuance and the complication. And I think, yeah, your endeavor is valid because, I think it does something, one of the first things you said in explaining this is you said, I paraphrase you, but basically you said something to the effect of, I want to report on the world and the realities that we are all experiencing. I think that is one of the most important things we take for granted is just giving people

a view of a reality that we do share. I always say let's argue about reality, but let's not dispute it. We can argue all we want. Science, yeah. Yeah, but let's not dispute reality itself. And also, you know, it's messy. Yeah, it is messy. There's no clear-cut answer on some of these things.

You know, my daughter often talks about the ability to think dialectically. Yes, and. And I think we've lost our ability to do that. Yes, two things may be true at the same time. You know, the regime in Iran was terrible and, you know, was able to survive for too long, a brutal theocracy, right, that was doing all kinds of terrible things to its people and to the region and potentially to the world, right? You can say that. Was it right to do this now and what were, what was the rationale? Right. So I think that also. And the way it's been done. And I think this tribalism has made people really wary of dealing in the gray areas and in the complexities of situations.

Yeah, scared to be wrong. Yeah, I think you're right. Scared to be wrong and messy, I think. Messi is the big one. Yeah, because I think being scared to be wrong foils debate from the onset. If you run the risk of being wrong, you will never allow your opinion to be challenged, number one. But I think what this conversation has helped me realize is the importance of journalists. Because I think a lot of people who consume short bites of media on social media do not understand that their favorite influenza that tells them the news, got that news from a journalist who verified the sources, who wrote the story, who broadcast the story and someone takes it and runs with it.

So we still need and we should have a deep appreciation for hardworking journalists, like such as yourself and other people that you know in the industry. Yes, definitely. I'm so glad you said that because I'm, I'm working on a documentary or trying to develop a documentary about the evolution of the news business because, you know, I got into this business in 1979 and how it's changed. Back in the day, Katie. And we should call it back in the day. And sort of what it means and and and how important it is to have a common understanding of truth in a democracy. Yeah, that's the thing. Right. And we have lost that. You know, people call it truth decay. Yeah. And, you know, what that means in terms of keeping a democracy strong. Yeah. It's one of the, it's part of an immune system is the way I think of it.

Right? Yeah. A body is a messy thing. Its systems are strangely messy, but they all work in a direction. So, like, sometimes you feel bad, like you feel sick because your body is fighting to make you unsyed. sick, but you feel bad because of your own body. Does that make sense? Yes, your immune system. Yes, but it's weird if you... Oh, wait, wait, no, a virus gets in there. Yeah, but the immune system is the thing that we're experiencing, actually, is like your body is making you feel bad. Yes, the reaction.

Yes. We're experiencing the reaction. That's what I mean. And that's what I mean by the messiness of it all is like sometimes I think we take for granted that the correct way or the best way we've figured out for things to work is the messy way. Is like the journalism will, we'll reveal messy truths about your country and your people and outsiders and outsiders. And if you, if it's good journalism, it will force you to grapple with those truths. Right. Right. You know, like, like you're saying. And to think, and I think, I think, unfortunately, I think all of us have gotten intellectually lazy where we immediately go to, you know, our side of the argument. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And it's not like, well, wait, what, you know, maybe this should have happened differently. Yeah. Or, yeah.

Maybe that person has a point. You don't have to agree with them on everything. But our ability to kind of look at something critically and dialectically, I think, has been lost in this very binary black and white in, you know, world we live in. Good, bad. I mean, again, I find it gets complicated when you're talking about a president who does the things this president does. Yeah. You know? Yeah, completely.

Because I do think, you know, it's been said it's not left right, it's right, wrong, right? And it is very difficult to kind of do those, you know, moral equivalencies when you feel like one side of the ledger is really wrong, if that makes sense. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. So that to me is the real challenge, you know, you know. know, it's, it's not two different perspectives on policy. Like, how do you solve the homeless problem? Yes, exactly. It is a way of doing business that feels wrong and unjust. You know, building of what, $400 million ballroom that is going to eclipse the White House without going through the proper

process of getting permission or loading the people. Oh, it's law for everyone except me. Right. You know? And so I think that's where it's become really difficult and challenging, I think, for a journalist. Well, thankfully, difficult and challenging is sort of what you've specialized in. I think it's what many towards Eugene saying great journalists have specialized in. Difficult and challenging was, you know, covering a Gulf War, difficult and challenging was, you know, tracking a drug smuggling ring.

Difficult and challenging is finding a source informing people, trying to make it palatable or even digestible for a public. Genuinely, all I can say is I think myself and many other people, we're grateful to people like you because we don't realize how much of our knowledge is based on as Eugene said the work of other people and then what we do is we turn around

and we go I don't need that I don't need the news and I don't read the news because you know I actually heard this thing the other day about Howard I'm like

yeah where do you think you heard it from where do you think that person heard it from people just make it like it comes out of thin air I actually saw a thing that said it's like yeah the same journalists

that you will vilify the same ones are the ones who put out the news about how something that was reported a while ago has now changed. It's the same place. Like I've always found it funny that people will go, the New York Times said this. The New York Times put our story now saying that something they reported on 10, 15 years ago was like wrong. Not a correction, but they're saying like, hey, actually we've just discovered this.

And then people will go, see, the New York Times put out this thing where they found out that this many years ago they were wrong. I'm like, yeah, but where did you hear this from the New York Times? So you should be grateful that the thing exists in its imperfect state because it is still providing a service. But I also think people have to take the responsibility of being informed seriously. We want to be lazy, Katie. Why are you doing this to us? And if they, you know, like someone, I was talking to some people in Virginia about the redistricting vote. And one of the people were saying, somebody I was talking to said, you know, people felt like it was morally wrong. Jerrymandering is wrong. But I said, did they understand that this started in Texas

by, you know, a mid-sensus year request by the president of the United States to redistrict in Texas so there would be more Republican seats? Do they understand that was the genesis of all this? And then it happened in California and then North Carolina and then Missouri and now Virginia. And people don't pay attention and don't understand, they have to be informed. And they needed to understand, well, Virginia is doing this because it started in Texas. And if the Democrats hadn't responded in California and Virginia, then the chances, then it would be very lopsided for the midterm elections. But it's sort of like, and did you know that in 2018, the Democrats proposed legislation, I think it was 2018, to end gerrymandering, period.

Yeah, full stop. And no Republicans voted for it. So I just, I think people just need to to have the background and educate themselves before they have an opinion. I think that the assault on journalism is probably more on the journalism profession itself, because it's not made as sexy and as essential. You know, people talk about policemen. Well, that's because everyone thinks they are.

teach. Yes, exactly. So I think maybe the battlefield where else we would see a journalist reporting in the battlefield, I think the new battlefield is exactly where the plagiarism is happening and the misinformation is happening on social media. I think now the journalist needs to hold that phone in front of their face as they held a microphone during the Gulf War and say in this battlefield, this is the truth and this is not the truth. Because right now I think we've just left it all up to people who have nice phones and nice lighting and too much time on their hands to tell the stories. I think the journalists need to go. So that's why I'm happy when I see big publication with social media accounts.

I was actually about to ask. Is there a reason that you decided to go? Because you have gone to exactly to what Eugene said. You've done that. You've gone to where the people are. Well, that's, I mean, it was pretty obvious. It didn't take a brain surgeon to see where the puck was going. Excuse me, Katie.

No, not you. It didn't take a brain surgeon, though, people in my profession to see that that linear television news was declining. Right. That people were getting increasingly getting their news and information online. And that you had to then, and people, I think, in legacy media organizations were kind of caught flat-footed because they had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. You know, they talk about analog dollars and digital pennies.

And, you know, this is where they were making the money. They didn't want to cannibalize their product. But as, you know, their viewers got older and older, and everyone else was looking at their phones for information, now they're finally catching up. And you're seeing, you know, network and local, even reporters, even though so many local newspapers, like 2,500 have closed since, I think, 2004. but you're seeing them adapt to these new platforms where people are getting their information. And by the way, I listen on Instagram to somebody from the New York Times, even if it's a reporter and opinion person. I listen to somebody from ABC News online.

I still pay attention and consider the source of the information. And that's what I mean about media literacy. You know, people need to understand there are certain standards from. different news outlets and organizations that are adhered to, you know, where information is vetted and sourced and edited and, you know, verify. As accountability. Yeah. And I think that it's been very hard with this flood of people just kind of giving information

influencers. It's like, I'm sorry, where did you get that information? Why are you saying this? Where did this come from? But people can't, it's hard to discern who is legitimate. And who's not when there's a sea of people all kind of talking to you on your phone. Yeah. No.

Well, I mean, like I say, it's one, it's literally it's one step at a time. It's one challenge at a time. I love how much vigor you have for it, by the way. Because like a lot of people would be like, I've done my time. I'm done. But you still have like the. I love it. That's what I mean.

I can see that. You know why it's selfish because I love learning about the world. I love understanding. So when I'm talking to somebody about a subject, if I'm talking to a former military person about the challenges of the war in Iran and drone warfare and what's changed, like, I want to learn that. You know, so I feel like selfishly I'm learning something every day. And if I then can help by my ignorance or my desire to become more knowledgeable, can then help someone else be like, oh, wow, I didn't know that. That's interesting or whatever.

I feel like I'm serving myself and hopefully other people at the same time, if that makes sense. That makes complete sense. That's where you know you've reached your ultimate purpose. I mean, I'm, in the same speech last night, I said I became a, a journalist because I love to write and I'm very nosy. And I am sort of insatiably curious. And I it's hard because I feel frustrated. I think about, God, all this stuff I don't know and understand. But if I can carve out a little bit every day and learn something new or understand something more deeply, that's so great. It's the greatest gift. Isn't it? I mean, and I think people need to

to be open to new information and knowledge. And it's just, and then when you have an opinion about something, you know, and I, like some of the stuff that we've talked about, I don't know, right? And I have to go and study something before I have an opinion. Yeah. And talk to legitimate experts and really learn about something. You can't go study the things. We just need opinions now, Katie.

But do you know what I mean? No research required, Katie. Verbal clickbait. This is podcasting, Katie. Someone asks you a question. You go, this is the answer. This is podcasting, Katie. Trying to be informed here.

What are you trying to take your jeez job? But, right? I mean, I don't want to give an opinion. Like when you were asking me about national security versus the public's right to know. I saw you do that. Yeah, I saw. Well, I would like to go back and really identify incidents. where that happened or didn't happen, so I could talk more intelligently about it.

Can I tell you? That is probably one of the greatest learnings we've had on this show over time is that the people who oftentimes have the most expertise and the people who are oftentimes the most well-versed in any particular discipline also operates with higher levels of doubt than everyone else.

It's a powerful and beautiful humility to see doctors, scientists, journalists, but I mean at the top of their game going, I don't know, I need to, yeah, I'm not sure about that. Let me, I actually don't know on. And you go like, wow, oh, this is in a strange way, it's like going, an expert is somebody who knows so much that they know how little they know. Yeah. Right. Do you know what I mean?

They truly like, they go, yeah, I don't. And then the rest of us are genuinely like, I'm an expert in this. It's like, what do you know? I mean, I've watched a few videos. I've seen a few things. I know. But that thing there is a gift that I hope you don't ever take for granted.

Yeah. That doubt, because in your position, I'm not in life. I was in your position. I would be like, yo, let me tell you everything about the news. I know everything about everything. You can't tell me nothing. But for Katie Carrick to go, I don't know. Let me go and read up on this.

Let me go and even for me, just in that moment, it inspired me to be like, oh, yeah, don't forget that you can always go back and read. You can always go back and learn and you can always admit that you just don't know. I mean, I think that I've been doing this long enough and I'm old enough to have the confidence. You know, I'm sure there was a time where I would have just like been blah, blah, blah, blah, you know. And even now, I think, oh gosh, am I going to sound dumb or uninformed or uneducated about a certain thing? Like what would David Sanger, the National Security correspondent for the New York Times say about this?

what examples would he give but I'd rather admit that I don't know than to say something that's wrong all great debates are filled by the risk of being wrong that's what I think you're a real one you've just proved it Katie I don't know no you have you're a real one thank you for joining us no this was really fun

and Dean so nice to meet you I really enjoyed talking to you in your new turquoise Zara jacket and this was very interesting you know You guys raised a lot of issues, asked a lot of questions, proposed a lot of interesting ideas. Interesting. Challenge sort of the status quo and the way things are done and made me think a lot. So thank you. Thank you, Katie Kirk.

This was genuinely a joy. Thank you so much. Thank you. What Now with Trevor Noah is produced by Day Zero Productions in partnership with Sirius XM. The show is executive produced by Trevor Noah. and Jess Hackle. Rebecca Chain is our producer. Our development researcher is Marcia Robiou.

Music, mixing and mastering by Hannes Brown. Random Other Stuff by Ryan Harduth. Thank you so much for listening. Join me next week for another episode of What Now.