Hi everyone, I'm Kitty Kuric and this is Next Questions Question. Hi everyone, this is a special episode of Next Question. I'm coming to you from my hometown of Arlington, Virginia. My guests are the founders of Axios, Jim Vanda High and Mike Allen. The occasion is Jim's new book, Just the Good Stuff, No Bs, Secrets to Success no matter what life throws at you. It is filled with hard earned advice about life in and out of the workplace. Jim and micro journalists and people of enormous character. It's part of what's driven their success. First in founding Politico and then Axios, I often turned to Jim and Mike to understand some of the big, thorny issues we're grappling with these days. This conversation ran the gamut the future of media, the twenty twenty four election, AI, and the try else and tribulations of starting a company. I thought it was so interesting and important, and I had such a good time talking to these two. I hope you enjoyed as well. So here's my conversation with Jim and Mike. First of all, I'm here in Axios headquarters in Clarendon, Virginia, in my hometown of Northern Virginia. So I'm happy to be talking to Jim Vanda Hi and Mike Allen, two people I admire greatly. We're talking about Jim's book, but I thought we first start by talking about you two, oh boy, and your bromance.

Hi everyone, I'm Kitty Kuric and this is Next Questions Question. Hi everyone, this is a special episode of Next Question. I'm coming to you from my hometown of Arlington, Virginia. My guests are the founders of Axios, Jim Vanda High and Mike Allen. The occasion is Jim's new book, Just the Good Stuff, No Bs, Secrets to Success no matter what life throws at you. It is filled with hard earned advice about life in and out of the workplace. Jim and micro journalists and people of enormous character. It's part of what's driven their success. First in founding Politico and then Axios, I often turned to Jim and Mike to understand some of the big, thorny issues we're grappling with these days. This conversation ran the gamut the future of media, the twenty twenty four election, AI, and the try else and tribulations of starting a company. I thought it was so interesting and important, and I had such a good time talking to these two. I hope you enjoyed as well. So here's my conversation with Jim and Mike. First of all, I'm here in Axios headquarters in Clarendon, Virginia, in my hometown of Northern Virginia. So I'm happy to be talking to Jim Vanda Hi and Mike Allen, two people I admire greatly. We're talking about Jim's book, but I thought we first start by talking about you two, oh boy, and your bromance.

Are bromance?

Are bromance?

How did it begin? Fellas? I mean, you guys have known each other for a long time. Did he have you at hello? Jim?

How did it begin? Fellas? I mean, you guys have known each other for a long time. Did he have you at hello? Jim?

He had me at first speed. So we were on the Lido deck, So you're a call. So back in the back, in the or in the two thousands, there was all those trade protests whenever we would travel with the president, right and there was one in Genoa, Italy, and they had to lock down the city and they had no where to put reporters, and so they brought in this creaky, clunky old cruise ship that they put us in on. And it was about four o'clock in the morning, and I had to write. I was working for the journal, so I had to write for the Asian Wall Street Journal europe Wall Street Journal. And Mike was down there, had already filed and I walked by him and he had a bunch of beers laid out, and he looked at me and he said, for speed, to see who could slam a beer faster like any good Wisconsin boy. I said yes, and then lost, unfortunately.

He had me at first speed. So we were on the Lido deck, So you're a call. So back in the back, in the or in the two thousands, there was all those trade protests whenever we would travel with the president, right and there was one in Genoa, Italy, and they had to lock down the city and they had no where to put reporters, and so they brought in this creaky, clunky old cruise ship that they put us in on. And it was about four o'clock in the morning, and I had to write. I was working for the journal, so I had to write for the Asian Wall Street Journal europe Wall Street Journal. And Mike was down there, had already filed and I walked by him and he had a bunch of beers laid out, and he looked at me and he said, for speed, to see who could slam a beer faster like any good Wisconsin boy. I said yes, and then lost, unfortunately.

And do you remember it that way too, Mike?

And do you remember it that way too, Mike?

I remember winning absolutely.

I remember winning absolutely.

How did this great partnership begin? I mean, you both are superb journalists. I've seen your bylines for years and always admired your work. How did you two get together and say let's put on a show?

How did this great partnership begin? I mean, you both are superb journalists. I've seen your bylines for years and always admired your work. How did you two get together and say let's put on a show?

You know it? Like you We were journalists, right, We didn't think we're going to become entrepreneurs. And we had this idea to start political when I was at the Washington Post. He had been at the Post, but one to Time magazine. Once we had this idea like, hey, we could take on the Post if we had the best and brightest reporters like Mike's at the top of that list, and so he was very much part of those conversations. The more we thought about starting Politico back in six o seven, the more magical it felt, and it kind of took on a life of its own. And Mike was the first hire, and it was kind of off to the races from there, and we weren't we were friendly. I don't know that we were like obviously we're like talk a thousand times a day now, but back then, like it was sort of a building a friendship. And then once you go through starting a company. Particularly what people don't remember back when we started political everyone wanted us to fail. Part of it was that there's probably too much too wanted us to yes and like, and so you really bonded over like everyone's rooting for your failure. You're trying to take on the post. I was probably popping off too much publicly, making other people even root louder for our demise, and you just you bond in a way that it's hard to explain to someone who hasn't started up a company, because it's almost like, you know, it's like you're in this fox hole together and like you just you see things about people's character that you went otherwise see and you really get to know who's the real deal.

You know it? Like you We were journalists, right, We didn't think we're going to become entrepreneurs. And we had this idea to start political when I was at the Washington Post. He had been at the Post, but one to Time magazine. Once we had this idea like, hey, we could take on the Post if we had the best and brightest reporters like Mike's at the top of that list, and so he was very much part of those conversations. The more we thought about starting Politico back in six o seven, the more magical it felt, and it kind of took on a life of its own. And Mike was the first hire, and it was kind of off to the races from there, and we weren't we were friendly. I don't know that we were like obviously we're like talk a thousand times a day now, but back then, like it was sort of a building a friendship. And then once you go through starting a company. Particularly what people don't remember back when we started political everyone wanted us to fail. Part of it was that there's probably too much too wanted us to yes and like, and so you really bonded over like everyone's rooting for your failure. You're trying to take on the post. I was probably popping off too much publicly, making other people even root louder for our demise, and you just you bond in a way that it's hard to explain to someone who hasn't started up a company, because it's almost like, you know, it's like you're in this fox hole together and like you just you see things about people's character that you went otherwise see and you really get to know who's the real deal.

Did you realize at the time that the media landscape was ripe for disruption? I mean this, you actually were very prescient because it was before iPhones became ubiquitous and people were they were replacing people's TV screens and in many ways newspapers and people were getting information digitally. Magazines were folding, YadA, YadA, YadA. I mean did you think about that as you started Politico.

Did you realize at the time that the media landscape was ripe for disruption? I mean this, you actually were very prescient because it was before iPhones became ubiquitous and people were they were replacing people's TV screens and in many ways newspapers and people were getting information digitally. Magazines were folding, YadA, YadA, YadA. I mean did you think about that as you started Politico.

Yeah, and that's something that has totally changed. So now everybody realizes the world is changing. Then this has changed, right, right, And this was two thousand and six, two thousand and seven that the world was changing, and the big media companies had no idea. They were being warned and told, and you were inside them, like you're almost famous, grated people ever to be on TV. You were at the big three networks, the very definition of legacy media. Jim, I've been at the Wall Street Journal, than Washington Post. I've been at the Washington Post and then Time Magazine, so the most traditional of paths. But we could see that the world was about to change, how people consume, how people deliver news. And here's the learning for your listeners. And I love that you've become a fellow builder, a fellow entrepreneur, a very successful one, by the way. Was the tools were there, the Internet had been invented, and yet at the networks where you worked at the Washington Post and Time Magazine, everybody covered the news as if it were coming on at seven am or six point thirty pm or the paper was gonna be in your driveway. And so there was a huge opening for Politico to come in with more expertise, more speed, more voice, more passion. There was an underserved audience and we barreled it.

Yeah, and that's something that has totally changed. So now everybody realizes the world is changing. Then this has changed, right, right, And this was two thousand and six, two thousand and seven that the world was changing, and the big media companies had no idea. They were being warned and told, and you were inside them, like you're almost famous, grated people ever to be on TV. You were at the big three networks, the very definition of legacy media. Jim, I've been at the Wall Street Journal, than Washington Post. I've been at the Washington Post and then Time Magazine, so the most traditional of paths. But we could see that the world was about to change, how people consume, how people deliver news. And here's the learning for your listeners. And I love that you've become a fellow builder, a fellow entrepreneur, a very successful one, by the way. Was the tools were there, the Internet had been invented, and yet at the networks where you worked at the Washington Post and Time Magazine, everybody covered the news as if it were coming on at seven am or six point thirty pm or the paper was gonna be in your driveway. And so there was a huge opening for Politico to come in with more expertise, more speed, more voice, more passion. There was an underserved audience and we barreled it.

You know, Gosh, there's so many things I want to talk to you all about. But one thing that comes up when you make those comments, Mike, is legacy media took so long to wake up and smell the coffee and to see that we were undergoing a major transformation in media. And I'm curious. I have a lot of theories about why. I'm curious what your theories are. Why were they so slow?

You know, Gosh, there's so many things I want to talk to you all about. But one thing that comes up when you make those comments, Mike, is legacy media took so long to wake up and smell the coffee and to see that we were undergoing a major transformation in media. And I'm curious. I have a lot of theories about why. I'm curious what your theories are. Why were they so slow?

I don't think it's just media. I think big institutions become complacent. You delude yourself into thinking you need to protect the place where you're currently getting the most money, right you used to have.

I don't think it's just media. I think big institutions become complacent. You delude yourself into thinking you need to protect the place where you're currently getting the most money, right you used to have.

They didn't want to cannibalize what they were doing.

They didn't want to cannibalize what they were doing.

Circuit City, Blockbuster, right, There's like a lot of stories of companies that could have had made the Kodak, could have made the Pivot, saw the pivot coming, didn't make it. And it's just hard to take a big institution with thousands of people.

Circuit City, Blockbuster, right, There's like a lot of stories of companies that could have had made the Kodak, could have made the Pivot, saw the pivot coming, didn't make it. And it's just hard to take a big institution with thousands of people.

It's like turning around a cruise ship, isn't it.

It's like turning around a cruise ship, isn't it.

Jim, Yes, And it's like in people are just it wasn't built that way. It was built for size and durability. It wasn't built for agility. And that's the identity and predictability. And so we had such an advantage jumping in and saying, you know what, we're just going to listen to what the consumer is saying. Now, we're going to adapt to it. We'll keep changing as long as if the consumer is changing, and we'll stop. We didn't have a legacies, we didn't have to like stop doing bad things. We could just do good things and do things that we know drive value. And I think that's that transcends media. I think it's all you always. I think it's hard for people to realize. One of the reasons that people have so much anxiety is that starting in seven, once you have the phone and once the internet has connectivity to enough people, basically the world started changing at a pace that our brains can't keep up with, and I think that causes a natural anxiety. It also changes business cycles and budgeting, meaning like every business changes in a month what it might have changed in years, and so it just requires this a level of adaptability and agility that if you don't have, you're ultimately going to get left behind. And that's why you're probably having more fun with a startup company doing what you want to do as you're watching it explode as you would have at the heyday of like being the most powerful anchor in the history of television. It's just they're two different things, built for different eras.

Jim, Yes, And it's like in people are just it wasn't built that way. It was built for size and durability. It wasn't built for agility. And that's the identity and predictability. And so we had such an advantage jumping in and saying, you know what, we're just going to listen to what the consumer is saying. Now, we're going to adapt to it. We'll keep changing as long as if the consumer is changing, and we'll stop. We didn't have a legacies, we didn't have to like stop doing bad things. We could just do good things and do things that we know drive value. And I think that's that transcends media. I think it's all you always. I think it's hard for people to realize. One of the reasons that people have so much anxiety is that starting in seven, once you have the phone and once the internet has connectivity to enough people, basically the world started changing at a pace that our brains can't keep up with, and I think that causes a natural anxiety. It also changes business cycles and budgeting, meaning like every business changes in a month what it might have changed in years, and so it just requires this a level of adaptability and agility that if you don't have, you're ultimately going to get left behind. And that's why you're probably having more fun with a startup company doing what you want to do as you're watching it explode as you would have at the heyday of like being the most powerful anchor in the history of television. It's just they're two different things, built for different eras.

Even in twenty eleven, you guys, when I did a syndicated talk show, I felt like I was riding on the back of a dinosaur. I mean, you could sense that the world was changing, and yet you were clinging to this old way of doing things. And for somebody who wants to be an early adapter and wants to be where the puck is going, it was very frustrating for me.

Even in twenty eleven, you guys, when I did a syndicated talk show, I felt like I was riding on the back of a dinosaur. I mean, you could sense that the world was changing, and yet you were clinging to this old way of doing things. And for somebody who wants to be an early adapter and wants to be where the puck is going, it was very frustrating for me.

Well, the key thing is what Jim said about knowing what the consumer is going and what the consumer wants. So the first two words of the Axios Manifesto are mission statement, audience first. And when we started we were reader first, and then we got video and podcast and events. So now we're audience first. But a media company had never been designed that way. Media companies had always been designed for the ego of journalists like you and me who want airtime, or who want calm feet thousands of words on the page, or it was designed for the needs of the business side, the publisher. Oh, we're going to make you spend time on site even though you have no time, right like, I'm going to clutter up your page with a bunch of videos that you're not going to watch.

Well, the key thing is what Jim said about knowing what the consumer is going and what the consumer wants. So the first two words of the Axios Manifesto are mission statement, audience first. And when we started we were reader first, and then we got video and podcast and events. So now we're audience first. But a media company had never been designed that way. Media companies had always been designed for the ego of journalists like you and me who want airtime, or who want calm feet thousands of words on the page, or it was designed for the needs of the business side, the publisher. Oh, we're going to make you spend time on site even though you have no time, right like, I'm going to clutter up your page with a bunch of videos that you're not going to watch.

Can you click bait? And we're going to piss you off, so you read what we're talking about, right.

Can you click bait? And we're going to piss you off, so you read what we're talking about, right.

Right, like all serving either the journals to the publisher. We flipped that the bottom line, Yeah right, we flipped but no, this is key for axious actuals. Flip that actuallys by the way, it means worthy and Greek always worthy of your time. We never waste your time, We never insult your intelligence. We took that and we flipped it and we said, okay, if we were a consumer, what would we want? What do we want as readers? And that was the white bulb moment for smart brevity. We realized that what you want is the big idea said clearly on a very elegant, clear iPhone screen, well, tell you what's new, why it matters, give you the power to go deeper, and the audience loved it and thanks to our co founder Ry Schwartz. It's also a beautiful business.

Right, like all serving either the journals to the publisher. We flipped that the bottom line, Yeah right, we flipped but no, this is key for axious actuals. Flip that actuallys by the way, it means worthy and Greek always worthy of your time. We never waste your time, We never insult your intelligence. We took that and we flipped it and we said, okay, if we were a consumer, what would we want? What do we want as readers? And that was the white bulb moment for smart brevity. We realized that what you want is the big idea said clearly on a very elegant, clear iPhone screen, well, tell you what's new, why it matters, give you the power to go deeper, and the audience loved it and thanks to our co founder Ry Schwartz. It's also a beautiful business.

Although it's not profitable.

Although it's not profitable.

Right, Well, it depends how I mean.

Right, Well, it depends how I mean.

That's why I know that you have said that because you're investing, so you are diversifying your portfolio and as a result of that, you are putting money into exploring other for sure avenues. So talk about that because I think that's another thing that is really sometimes puts a strain on a business, Like it's profitable when you're going to give back to your investors and all that.

That's why I know that you have said that because you're investing, so you are diversifying your portfolio and as a result of that, you are putting money into exploring other for sure avenues. So talk about that because I think that's another thing that is really sometimes puts a strain on a business, Like it's profitable when you're going to give back to your investors and all that.

I mean, One, it depends on what your investment structure is and kind of what you're trying to do. Right, you could run a very nice boutique media company have profitability and not do the things that come with scale. Like for us, there's an ambition to it, right Like we were animated by this idea that if you get more good information in the hands of more people, they're going to make better decisions in the country benefits, Like it really is what animates.

I mean, One, it depends on what your investment structure is and kind of what you're trying to do. Right, you could run a very nice boutique media company have profitability and not do the things that come with scale. Like for us, there's an ambition to it, right Like we were animated by this idea that if you get more good information in the hands of more people, they're going to make better decisions in the country benefits, Like it really is what animates.

Us, and I feel like it. Journalism is a public service.

Us, and I feel like it. Journalism is a public service.

Public service, professional service. I got to understand how people can operate in this world when everything's changing so fast if they're not better educated on what's real and what's not real in AI and Information China, all of that, and so that very much is what animates us. So then when we think about that, one, you want to invest in things that it's fine to be in deficit, if you're investing in things that you're highly confident are going to be very profitable over time and give you different revenue streams. And then for us, a big part of our investment is local, which is a real experiment, maybe probably the hardest thing we've ever taken on, so critically critical.

Public service, professional service. I got to understand how people can operate in this world when everything's changing so fast if they're not better educated on what's real and what's not real in AI and Information China, all of that, and so that very much is what animates us. So then when we think about that, one, you want to invest in things that it's fine to be in deficit, if you're investing in things that you're highly confident are going to be very profitable over time and give you different revenue streams. And then for us, a big part of our investment is local, which is a real experiment, maybe probably the hardest thing we've ever taken on, so critically critical.

That people are engaged in local news, they're more likely to vote, they're more likely be interested in national elections. And I think twenty four or one hundred newspapers have folded since two thousand and four. I mean it's a crisis really in a democracy.

That people are engaged in local news, they're more likely to vote, they're more likely be interested in national elections. And I think twenty four or one hundred newspapers have folded since two thousand and four. I mean it's a crisis really in a democracy.

Yeah, I mean we tell our staff all the time, if we can earn thirty cities, is if we can get local right, where we could get to one hundred or plus cities where it's profitable in every city, that will be a bigger achievement than doing Axios and Politico combined, because it's that hard. Nobody in the digital era has shown any success rate in doing local at scale. You have a couple of one off projects in a couple of cities, and so like, that's a fun thing. But we're not just doing it as a public service, even though there's a public service dimension to it. We're doing it because we actually think it'd be a really good business that over time if we can get smart professionals at local, high end niches and then national news to be reading us. We know how to monetize that through events, paid subscriptions, advertising, sort of the things you can do to make money off of media. And so we feel blessed like we're one of the companies that can continue to invest in them at and as you know, like media, it is hard. I get one of the hardest businesses to do at any kind of size profitably. The flip of that is we get to have more fun, you get to get paid to be intellectually curious, and if we nail it, we get to make people smarter so they make better decisions and.

Yeah, I mean we tell our staff all the time, if we can earn thirty cities, is if we can get local right, where we could get to one hundred or plus cities where it's profitable in every city, that will be a bigger achievement than doing Axios and Politico combined, because it's that hard. Nobody in the digital era has shown any success rate in doing local at scale. You have a couple of one off projects in a couple of cities, and so like, that's a fun thing. But we're not just doing it as a public service, even though there's a public service dimension to it. We're doing it because we actually think it'd be a really good business that over time if we can get smart professionals at local, high end niches and then national news to be reading us. We know how to monetize that through events, paid subscriptions, advertising, sort of the things you can do to make money off of media. And so we feel blessed like we're one of the companies that can continue to invest in them at and as you know, like media, it is hard. I get one of the hardest businesses to do at any kind of size profitably. The flip of that is we get to have more fun, you get to get paid to be intellectually curious, and if we nail it, we get to make people smarter so they make better decisions and.

To make a ship ton of money.

To make a ship ton of money.

Jim, well, if you see it right, if you're if you're you're selling a.

Jim, well, if you see it right, if you're if you're you're selling a.

Company, good for you, guys. But I mean it's worked out very very well and for sure to delight.

Company, good for you, guys. But I mean it's worked out very very well and for sure to delight.

The audience, which is a great twist that that in all the years we've been.

The audience, which is a great twist that that in all the years we've been.

I think your card should say Mike Gallon delighter of audiences.

I think your card should say Mike Gallon delighter of audiences.

I'm mean, as long as I'm delighting casey, uh, I'm good. But we've had people since day one, people think us for Axios and you know, uh, working in legacy media, people rarely thank you for NBC.

I'm mean, as long as I'm delighting casey, uh, I'm good. But we've had people since day one, people think us for Axios and you know, uh, working in legacy media, people rarely thank you for NBC.

Well, legacy media has I mean, it is such a tough landscape now as we've seen this digital shift, and I'm curious what you all think will happen to these legacy media companies, say even five years from now, because we've seen them now playing catch up, trying to really basically put the analog product on a digital platform. But that doesn't really work, does it. I mean, how do you see things shaking out in the next five years? Because I have young people saying to me, I want to get into media, and I try to encourage them because I feel like our jobs are critically important, and yet I sometimes struggle in terms of giving them advice.

Well, legacy media has I mean, it is such a tough landscape now as we've seen this digital shift, and I'm curious what you all think will happen to these legacy media companies, say even five years from now, because we've seen them now playing catch up, trying to really basically put the analog product on a digital platform. But that doesn't really work, does it. I mean, how do you see things shaking out in the next five years? Because I have young people saying to me, I want to get into media, and I try to encourage them because I feel like our jobs are critically important, and yet I sometimes struggle in terms of giving them advice.

It's certainly getting harder to encourage someone to go into media just because economics are hard. But what I tell those people is like, listen, if you are smart, you're curious, you want to help people get smarter on topics that matter. There are jobs there, really are. It might be different. You might not be working for a big TV company. You might be working on TikTok or Instagram. You might be working for a smaller, niche brand. You might be working for an axios. Like we're not the size of the New York Times, We're not the size of NBC, and so I think there are opportunities. I think the big institutions listen. I think there's some newspapers that are household names that are going to be fine. The New York Times has a wonderful business model.

It's certainly getting harder to encourage someone to go into media just because economics are hard. But what I tell those people is like, listen, if you are smart, you're curious, you want to help people get smarter on topics that matter. There are jobs there, really are. It might be different. You might not be working for a big TV company. You might be working on TikTok or Instagram. You might be working for a smaller, niche brand. You might be working for an axios. Like we're not the size of the New York Times, We're not the size of NBC, and so I think there are opportunities. I think the big institutions listen. I think there's some newspapers that are household names that are going to be fine. The New York Times has a wonderful business model.

Washing and Post is struggling.

Washing and Post is struggling.

Washing Post is struggling. But the journal I think is doing okay and good. Bloomberg is fine, FT is good. There's a decent number of papers that think will be fine. TV is you know, it's a lot harder, Like the consumer is just consuming content differently. The young people are very they're basically habituated to getting it in smaller chunks on social media, in a feed, in a voice that matches their passions, their locations, their demographics. That's not going to change. And so somehow these TV companies are going to have to figure out how the hell do we integrate into that, or is even an opportunity for us to integrate into that. So I think big TV is in probably a lot more trouble than big newspapers just because that's a harder shift to make, and they're just they operate at a cost scale that's really really high, Whereas you could see AI being very helpful to your company, into our company in terms of it just it cuts down on the cost of distribution. There's a lot of back not journalism stuff that gets done that you could see AI being very helpful in That might allow companies like yours, companies like ours to be able to put more effort and more money and more mind share into the journalism itself. And so there's going to be a real benefit to not being big and lumbering. I think over the next.

Washing Post is struggling. But the journal I think is doing okay and good. Bloomberg is fine, FT is good. There's a decent number of papers that think will be fine. TV is you know, it's a lot harder, Like the consumer is just consuming content differently. The young people are very they're basically habituated to getting it in smaller chunks on social media, in a feed, in a voice that matches their passions, their locations, their demographics. That's not going to change. And so somehow these TV companies are going to have to figure out how the hell do we integrate into that, or is even an opportunity for us to integrate into that. So I think big TV is in probably a lot more trouble than big newspapers just because that's a harder shift to make, and they're just they operate at a cost scale that's really really high, Whereas you could see AI being very helpful to your company, into our company in terms of it just it cuts down on the cost of distribution. There's a lot of back not journalism stuff that gets done that you could see AI being very helpful in That might allow companies like yours, companies like ours to be able to put more effort and more money and more mind share into the journalism itself. And so there's going to be a real benefit to not being big and lumbering. I think over the next.

Couple of years, right being nimble, I think is going to be the key before we talk about AI, because I'm fascinated with that. I want to talk about mass media because I've said for years now in graduation speeches and whenever I can, just because I think it makes me sound smart, that mass media is now an oxymoron. Right, there is no such thing as mass I'm curious about your approach with Axios and initially Politico. I mean, you had a very I won't say narrow target market, but you were not trying to serve the world. Talk to me about that, because sometimes I'm still I'm a generalist, right, I care about all kinds of news and information. I'm interested in so many things, And for our readers and people who follow me on social media, who I hope to serve and educate and enlighten, I kind of am all over the place. Is that a bad business model in this day and age? You guys, I'm actually using this to get business advice from you, guys.

Couple of years, right being nimble, I think is going to be the key before we talk about AI, because I'm fascinated with that. I want to talk about mass media because I've said for years now in graduation speeches and whenever I can, just because I think it makes me sound smart, that mass media is now an oxymoron. Right, there is no such thing as mass I'm curious about your approach with Axios and initially Politico. I mean, you had a very I won't say narrow target market, but you were not trying to serve the world. Talk to me about that, because sometimes I'm still I'm a generalist, right, I care about all kinds of news and information. I'm interested in so many things, And for our readers and people who follow me on social media, who I hope to serve and educate and enlighten, I kind of am all over the place. Is that a bad business model in this day and age? You guys, I'm actually using this to get business advice from you, guys.

I don't again like, based on what you've told me, it sounds like it's a good business model. But it's about you knowing your reader. It sounds like you do you know your reader, you know your listener, you know your watcher. You're constantly in conversation with them, and as long as you're serving them, and then you're able to make more money than you're spending. Like it's by definition a really good business. What is true is when we looked at it differently, right, we were Our specialty, if you really boil it down, is understanding how the most influential, hard to reach people consume information. People in the White House, running companies, running tech companies, running media companies. And so when we start we were never went mass. We went the opposite. We called it radiate out. Go for the bullseye, get the Speaker of the House, get the president, get Jamie Diamond, get those.

I don't again like, based on what you've told me, it sounds like it's a good business model. But it's about you knowing your reader. It sounds like you do you know your reader, you know your listener, you know your watcher. You're constantly in conversation with them, and as long as you're serving them, and then you're able to make more money than you're spending. Like it's by definition a really good business. What is true is when we looked at it differently, right, we were Our specialty, if you really boil it down, is understanding how the most influential, hard to reach people consume information. People in the White House, running companies, running tech companies, running media companies. And so when we start we were never went mass. We went the opposite. We called it radiate out. Go for the bullseye, get the Speaker of the House, get the president, get Jamie Diamond, get those.

People reading sure Nancy your target.

People reading sure Nancy your target.

Market, and then little by little you would echo out because people would want to know what they're thinking, what they're doing. And by the way, if a reporter can what they're reading, and if the reporter can tell them something they don't know, that means they're a really really good reporter. And so that has worked. Now I would say we are more of a mask company and that there's a much bigger audience. But where you're super right on the there's no more mass media. You know. We did a column not long ago called Shards of Glass. The idea there was like think about you and your heyday and us in our heyday. So pre digital, we all looked at the world through the same window, right, it was what was happening with the big networks, what was happening with a few newspapers, relatively shared reality on who we're dealing with and who we're listening to. Digital shatters that into you could argue thirty forty fifty pieces.

Market, and then little by little you would echo out because people would want to know what they're thinking, what they're doing. And by the way, if a reporter can what they're reading, and if the reporter can tell them something they don't know, that means they're a really really good reporter. And so that has worked. Now I would say we are more of a mask company and that there's a much bigger audience. But where you're super right on the there's no more mass media. You know. We did a column not long ago called Shards of Glass. The idea there was like think about you and your heyday and us in our heyday. So pre digital, we all looked at the world through the same window, right, it was what was happening with the big networks, what was happening with a few newspapers, relatively shared reality on who we're dealing with and who we're listening to. Digital shatters that into you could argue thirty forty fifty pieces.

Where millions actually And it's.

Where millions actually And it's.

Crazy because you could be sitting next to you, could be sitting at a table, and every person could be consuming information in a different shard of glass, listening to people, following people getting worked up about topics that you wouldn't even know who that person is. You wouldn't even know what that type of what you're worried about that topic. You're getting your information how, and that's that's really hard. So then it makes it really hard to have a common truth. It's really easy for manipulated, fake, or just kind of spun content to take off. And then I find it, and I'm sure you find it. So you do with your newsletter, A lot of it, you said, you see the world. Part of it is news, part of its aggregation, Right, I don't know about you. But like many days, I wake up and I'm like, wait, is that real? Is that not real? And the number of time we're having is this real? That you really say that like that? And we're paid to be able to filter that geez. A poor reader on the other side trying to figure out like someone's hyperventilating on Fox News or on Twitter or on.

Crazy because you could be sitting next to you, could be sitting at a table, and every person could be consuming information in a different shard of glass, listening to people, following people getting worked up about topics that you wouldn't even know who that person is. You wouldn't even know what that type of what you're worried about that topic. You're getting your information how, and that's that's really hard. So then it makes it really hard to have a common truth. It's really easy for manipulated, fake, or just kind of spun content to take off. And then I find it, and I'm sure you find it. So you do with your newsletter, A lot of it, you said, you see the world. Part of it is news, part of its aggregation, Right, I don't know about you. But like many days, I wake up and I'm like, wait, is that real? Is that not real? And the number of time we're having is this real? That you really say that like that? And we're paid to be able to filter that geez. A poor reader on the other side trying to figure out like someone's hyperventilating on Fox News or on Twitter or on.

Item the same with me, And it's actually very time consuming because now I have to take additional steps to verify what I'm reading. I have to look it up, I have to Google it, I have to compare it to other publications. It's it's it's really hard to be a news consumer today.

Item the same with me, And it's actually very time consuming because now I have to take additional steps to verify what I'm reading. I have to look it up, I have to Google it, I have to compare it to other publications. It's it's it's really hard to be a news consumer today.

All true, But the flip of that is that being Katie Kirkt Media or being Axios, being a brand that people know and trust then becomes even more valuable because if I know that I'm on Axios, I know that this is going to be both literally accurate and broadly true. We talk about our journalism. Trustworthy is the number one word, absolutely the most important thing, and it gets more important as the web gets more polluted that there's more fake content, more synthetic content, more misinfo, more disinfo. Then you want to go to people you know and trust.

All true, But the flip of that is that being Katie Kirkt Media or being Axios, being a brand that people know and trust then becomes even more valuable because if I know that I'm on Axios, I know that this is going to be both literally accurate and broadly true. We talk about our journalism. Trustworthy is the number one word, absolutely the most important thing, and it gets more important as the web gets more polluted that there's more fake content, more synthetic content, more misinfo, more disinfo. Then you want to go to people you know and trust.

Yes, but it's really hard because to Jim's point, people are creating their own ecosystems and echo chambers.

Yes, but it's really hard because to Jim's point, people are creating their own ecosystems and echo chambers.

And with very little overlap is a huge.

And with very little overlap is a huge.

Change and creating for and disinformation, misinformation, malinformation. They're creating their own bubbles, and you know, it is really hard to have a conversation. And it's I'm curious how you all have straddled this desire to be old school and objective and search for truth when you have a political movement in this country that seems to not necessarily appreciate the truth right and people seeing things through uniquely different prisms. How do you do that and still remain trusted if in fact you are sharing factual information. That is a real challenge.

Change and creating for and disinformation, misinformation, malinformation. They're creating their own bubbles, and you know, it is really hard to have a conversation. And it's I'm curious how you all have straddled this desire to be old school and objective and search for truth when you have a political movement in this country that seems to not necessarily appreciate the truth right and people seeing things through uniquely different prisms. How do you do that and still remain trusted if in fact you are sharing factual information. That is a real challenge.

Epic challenge and almost, to be honest, almost an impossible challenge. And mean, the way we do it is we try to say, listen, like we're going to cover everything clinically, meaning we don't have an opinion page. We're not here to put our thumb on the scale. But we're also not here to deceive people into thinking that everything is equal on both sides. We do that by hiring people who are authentically wired into these campaigns and can at least help explain these people, explain their ideas.

Epic challenge and almost, to be honest, almost an impossible challenge. And mean, the way we do it is we try to say, listen, like we're going to cover everything clinically, meaning we don't have an opinion page. We're not here to put our thumb on the scale. But we're also not here to deceive people into thinking that everything is equal on both sides. We do that by hiring people who are authentically wired into these campaigns and can at least help explain these people, explain their ideas.

So you're not judging, you're explaining.

So you're not judging, you're explaining.

Trying and clinically like a doctor would. Like a doctor, you might have cancer, and the doctor might be telling you his cancer, but not doing it emotionally. He's trying to walk you through what are the things that we know? What are the things that can be done? And I think at our best we do that. It's hard because anything that you say, anything that you write, a snippet of it gets taken out of context and thrown on social media and suddenly you're bipack.

Trying and clinically like a doctor would. Like a doctor, you might have cancer, and the doctor might be telling you his cancer, but not doing it emotionally. He's trying to walk you through what are the things that we know? What are the things that can be done? And I think at our best we do that. It's hard because anything that you say, anything that you write, a snippet of it gets taken out of context and thrown on social media and suddenly you're bipack.

Or Honestly, that happened to me recently. I was doing Bill Maher and I was trying to explain income inequality and classrooms and feeding into anger grievance and you know, and I said, as an aside to Bill, you know, feeling jealous and envious is a horrible feeling. And I said, that's created a lot of anti elitism and anti intellectualism, you know, a doubt in science and academic deemia, et cetera. PS not an original thought. Right Fox News and all these right wing radio stations twisted it, cherry picked it and said, I said, all Trump voters are jealous and anti intellectual.

Or Honestly, that happened to me recently. I was doing Bill Maher and I was trying to explain income inequality and classrooms and feeding into anger grievance and you know, and I said, as an aside to Bill, you know, feeling jealous and envious is a horrible feeling. And I said, that's created a lot of anti elitism and anti intellectualism, you know, a doubt in science and academic deemia, et cetera. PS not an original thought. Right Fox News and all these right wing radio stations twisted it, cherry picked it and said, I said, all Trump voters are jealous and anti intellectual.

Right, yeah, and there's nothing you can really do. You could try to correct the record, but by then like it.

Right, yeah, and there's nothing you can really do. You could try to correct the record, but by then like it.

You know, if somebody took the time to actually listen to the whole statement, they plucked two words. It's engagement through enragement, as my friend Kera Swisher describes it, clickbait, and suddenly I am demonized in the minds of all Trump voters. Having said that, You know, I do wonder how people can support a candidate who has perpetuated this notion of a rigged election when how many sixty two lawsuits or something that's been thrown out. So I have a hard time trying to navigate this, and I do look to you all and notice how you cover things. But as a person, it's really hard.

You know, if somebody took the time to actually listen to the whole statement, they plucked two words. It's engagement through enragement, as my friend Kera Swisher describes it, clickbait, and suddenly I am demonized in the minds of all Trump voters. Having said that, You know, I do wonder how people can support a candidate who has perpetuated this notion of a rigged election when how many sixty two lawsuits or something that's been thrown out. So I have a hard time trying to navigate this, and I do look to you all and notice how you cover things. But as a person, it's really hard.

I think part of the journalists, it is really hard. Like I don't again, like no one has sympathy for folks in the press. It's really really hard. There's not this idea from like the media critics on Twitter who think there's just a simple solution just call a lie a lie, like great, like you're an academic that you're not you can.

I think part of the journalists, it is really hard. Like I don't again, like no one has sympathy for folks in the press. It's really really hard. There's not this idea from like the media critics on Twitter who think there's just a simple solution just call a lie a lie, like great, like you're an academic that you're not you can.

Fix immigration with the stroke of a pen. It's not true.

Fix immigration with the stroke of a pen. It's not true.

It's not true. But you can do is try to explain what's actually happening.

It's not true. But you can do is try to explain what's actually happening.

Requires an act of Congress, you know, just to allocate more funds, right, I mean, or.

Requires an act of Congress, you know, just to allocate more funds, right, I mean, or.

Put the emphasis. Like. One thing we've tried to do, and I think The Times has done a nice job of is is explaining in detail that Trump is always going to be Trump. You're not going to change him. He's going to say outland things every day. The thing you should be paying attention to is what's happening around Trump, which is you have a lot more smart people who are very organized, who are helping him prepare if he does come into government, to be able to operate government a lot more effectively than it did last time. So if you'd like him, that's good. If you don't like him, he's going to be able to stretch the boundaries in a much more elastic way.

Put the emphasis. Like. One thing we've tried to do, and I think The Times has done a nice job of is is explaining in detail that Trump is always going to be Trump. You're not going to change him. He's going to say outland things every day. The thing you should be paying attention to is what's happening around Trump, which is you have a lot more smart people who are very organized, who are helping him prepare if he does come into government, to be able to operate government a lot more effectively than it did last time. So if you'd like him, that's good. If you don't like him, he's going to be able to stretch the boundaries in a much more elastic way.

When we come back. Trump and his allies have a plan. It's called Project twenty twenty five and pardon my French, but it is really fucking scary. We'll talk about that right after this. If you want to get smarter, every morning with a breakdown of the news and fascinating takes on health and wellness and pop culture. Sign up for our daily newsletter, Wake Up Call by going to Katiecuric dot com. Well, what about this Project twenty twenty five.

When we come back. Trump and his allies have a plan. It's called Project twenty twenty five and pardon my French, but it is really fucking scary. We'll talk about that right after this. If you want to get smarter, every morning with a breakdown of the news and fascinating takes on health and wellness and pop culture. Sign up for our daily newsletter, Wake Up Call by going to Katiecuric dot com. Well, what about this Project twenty twenty five.

It's a real thing.

It's a real thing.

It's really scary. Will you explain to people listening what that is.

It's really scary. Will you explain to people listening what that is.

So this is the most advanced effort to prepare for an administration that there's been in history. And it started even before Trump had clinched the Republican nomination. So for years now, this project's been underway. So the project you mentioned, Project twenty twenty five part of the Heritage Foundation, like a very well funded project, and they are pre vetting thousands of people that could come in to a Trump administration who could go in as top appointee's top nominees. And so they're building this massive resume database on this side, and then on the other side, they and others are developing extremely detailed policy for what he did. Because this is what Jim said, the chaos of last time. They recognize that that last time.

So this is the most advanced effort to prepare for an administration that there's been in history. And it started even before Trump had clinched the Republican nomination. So for years now, this project's been underway. So the project you mentioned, Project twenty twenty five part of the Heritage Foundation, like a very well funded project, and they are pre vetting thousands of people that could come in to a Trump administration who could go in as top appointee's top nominees. And so they're building this massive resume database on this side, and then on the other side, they and others are developing extremely detailed policy for what he did. Because this is what Jim said, the chaos of last time. They recognize that that last time.

They need more discipline, right, and.

They need more discipline, right, and.

They knew that they couldn't get a Republican's to agree. They couldn't get the administration to agree this time it's going to be much more organized, and it's going to be moved fast. They recognize how fast they're going to have to move. And one of the biggest things that they've said, and the Axios has led on this, and The New York Times has done great reporting on this, is the effort to turn over the bureaucracy, to push out so many people who in the past administrations have just accepted that's what's going to be there. They're going to turn that over. They're going to move fast on the border and at the Justice Department. The way it's been said to me is whatever you think is the most aggressive possible approach you can take on immigration, his appointee is going to be even more aggressive and purposeful.

They knew that they couldn't get a Republican's to agree. They couldn't get the administration to agree this time it's going to be much more organized, and it's going to be moved fast. They recognize how fast they're going to have to move. And one of the biggest things that they've said, and the Axios has led on this, and The New York Times has done great reporting on this, is the effort to turn over the bureaucracy, to push out so many people who in the past administrations have just accepted that's what's going to be there. They're going to turn that over. They're going to move fast on the border and at the Justice Department. The way it's been said to me is whatever you think is the most aggressive possible approach you can take on immigration, his appointee is going to be even more aggressive and purposeful.

But is there cause for concern with this whole plan? I mean, it's not just an ideology. Isn't it sort of fealty at all costs? And how are they looking for people who will fill these important results?

But is there cause for concern with this whole plan? I mean, it's not just an ideology. Isn't it sort of fealty at all costs? And how are they looking for people who will fill these important results?

Total fealty it's all. I mean, they're very clear it's a loyalty test. It is about like, what do you think about Donald Trump? And if you can't pass that, you're not going to get into the government. And it's a big deal because we're not talking a couple hundred people. We're talking it could be tens of thousands of people. And the way government operates is you have these obscure agencies that are by design boring and should be boring, and they're staffed by career civil servants, people who have domain expertise.

Total fealty it's all. I mean, they're very clear it's a loyalty test. It is about like, what do you think about Donald Trump? And if you can't pass that, you're not going to get into the government. And it's a big deal because we're not talking a couple hundred people. We're talking it could be tens of thousands of people. And the way government operates is you have these obscure agencies that are by design boring and should be boring, and they're staffed by career civil servants, people who have domain expertise.

And a rich knowledge base.

And a rich knowledge base.

Rich knowledge base, So if you replace that with people who are just purely ideological, then you could start to stretch the boundaries of what can you do. Through administrative action, which doesn't require Congress, you can also stretch. And they're going to do it. They're going to try to figure out, let's do things that might not be ultimately legal, but let's have the courts render a verdict while we do it. So even the firing of forty thousand people, to like there's a real legal case like can it be done? Can it not be done? They'll do it and then they'll just go to the courts and hope that they win it. And what it'll do is it'll just step way back. The thing that I worry most about about the country is we basically are now on this twenty year path where we've basically lost faith in every institution, media, government, church, boy scouts, politicians, you name it. And so whenever you have people in a public setting who are continuing to be exceptionally derogatory about government, making everyone think that everyone's on the take, making everyone think that everyone's incompetent, then you don't get the really smart people who might want to come to work to government to make government work, and so you end up with not anarchy, but you basically end up with a bunch of people who just feel like they can't trust anything, and you end up with nothing that unifies all of us. And we've gone through periods like this in history, but they're dangerous periods because at the end of the day, there are things where we have to be united to be able to do it, and where you do need a functioning government. With Ai Man, it's going to be a big deal. I wish I had smart people in government who are working on that and thinking about that and making sure that we win this AI war in China doesn't and that we do it responsibly and it doesn't lead to mass unemployment for a big sector of people who just finally are rebounding from the manufacturing crisis that really hit them hardest.

Rich knowledge base, So if you replace that with people who are just purely ideological, then you could start to stretch the boundaries of what can you do. Through administrative action, which doesn't require Congress, you can also stretch. And they're going to do it. They're going to try to figure out, let's do things that might not be ultimately legal, but let's have the courts render a verdict while we do it. So even the firing of forty thousand people, to like there's a real legal case like can it be done? Can it not be done? They'll do it and then they'll just go to the courts and hope that they win it. And what it'll do is it'll just step way back. The thing that I worry most about about the country is we basically are now on this twenty year path where we've basically lost faith in every institution, media, government, church, boy scouts, politicians, you name it. And so whenever you have people in a public setting who are continuing to be exceptionally derogatory about government, making everyone think that everyone's on the take, making everyone think that everyone's incompetent, then you don't get the really smart people who might want to come to work to government to make government work, and so you end up with not anarchy, but you basically end up with a bunch of people who just feel like they can't trust anything, and you end up with nothing that unifies all of us. And we've gone through periods like this in history, but they're dangerous periods because at the end of the day, there are things where we have to be united to be able to do it, and where you do need a functioning government. With Ai Man, it's going to be a big deal. I wish I had smart people in government who are working on that and thinking about that and making sure that we win this AI war in China doesn't and that we do it responsibly and it doesn't lead to mass unemployment for a big sector of people who just finally are rebounding from the manufacturing crisis that really hit them hardest.

Right, Well, how do you report on this without saying, holy shit, this is scary stuff? You know? In other words, you guys say that you tell people what's happening clinically, But do you feel any obligation as an American citizen to say this is potentially really damaging for our country, you know, because you don't have opinion. So I'm just curious, like how you draw that line, because it's hard sometimes for me not to sound the alarms.

Right, Well, how do you report on this without saying, holy shit, this is scary stuff? You know? In other words, you guys say that you tell people what's happening clinically, But do you feel any obligation as an American citizen to say this is potentially really damaging for our country, you know, because you don't have opinion. So I'm just curious, like how you draw that line, because it's hard sometimes for me not to sound the alarms.

Well, and you can say to people, pay attention to this, and we're going to give you the very best information about this. And like we spend a lifetime like building connections to all the communities that are involved so that we can connect them and bring it to you. And people appreciate that because there's so much noise that people tend to tune out everything. And so if we can say to you, this is what matters, pay attention to this, watch this, then that becomes incredibly valuable.

Well, and you can say to people, pay attention to this, and we're going to give you the very best information about this. And like we spend a lifetime like building connections to all the communities that are involved so that we can connect them and bring it to you. And people appreciate that because there's so much noise that people tend to tune out everything. And so if we can say to you, this is what matters, pay attention to this, watch this, then that becomes incredibly valuable.

Because you feel as if you come at it from too much bias or even colored with too much editorial focus, that people will dismiss it.

Because you feel as if you come at it from too much bias or even colored with too much editorial focus, that people will dismiss it.

They will listen. I believe there's still a big group of people out there who are persuadable to the truth. They're not persuadable if you come at it with a condescending tone. They're not persuadable if you come at it hyperventilating an They're not waitable if you're not coming at it looking at like the operations of everybody. Yes, Joe Biden is not Donald Trump, but Joe Biden's not a saint, and Donald Trump's not, in every single action, a sinner. And you have to be able to explain to people with fact, just like what's happening. I just got back from I did a bunch of speaking with you, broy Do right, So I did a bunch of different groups, but it was in like normal America, So like Wichita, Fargo. The audiences were overwhelmingly Trump supporters, you know, going in there like, here's this guy from the media man communists, is about to lecture us. And what I find is is like if you could just diffuse and say listen, I'm not here to lecture you or tell you what's right wrong. I know Donald Trump, I know Joe Biden. I know a lot of people in Washington. We've covered this stuff for twenty years. I'm here to explain to you how they think and the actions that they're going to take, and then you decide what you're going to do with that. And you could see the blood just start to come down and you could have like a conversation. And in the Q and A, it wasn't people throwing shoes at me. It was people asking very thoughtful questions. And you can't just assume because Trump is so damn outrageous and often so dishonest, that everybody who's voting for him like likes likes his dishonesty. They don't. To them, They're like, I got two choices, and man, I don't like that guy. I don't like that guy. I'm gonna go with that one.

They will listen. I believe there's still a big group of people out there who are persuadable to the truth. They're not persuadable if you come at it with a condescending tone. They're not persuadable if you come at it hyperventilating an They're not waitable if you're not coming at it looking at like the operations of everybody. Yes, Joe Biden is not Donald Trump, but Joe Biden's not a saint, and Donald Trump's not, in every single action, a sinner. And you have to be able to explain to people with fact, just like what's happening. I just got back from I did a bunch of speaking with you, broy Do right, So I did a bunch of different groups, but it was in like normal America, So like Wichita, Fargo. The audiences were overwhelmingly Trump supporters, you know, going in there like, here's this guy from the media man communists, is about to lecture us. And what I find is is like if you could just diffuse and say listen, I'm not here to lecture you or tell you what's right wrong. I know Donald Trump, I know Joe Biden. I know a lot of people in Washington. We've covered this stuff for twenty years. I'm here to explain to you how they think and the actions that they're going to take, and then you decide what you're going to do with that. And you could see the blood just start to come down and you could have like a conversation. And in the Q and A, it wasn't people throwing shoes at me. It was people asking very thoughtful questions. And you can't just assume because Trump is so damn outrageous and often so dishonest, that everybody who's voting for him like likes likes his dishonesty. They don't. To them, They're like, I got two choices, and man, I don't like that guy. I don't like that guy. I'm gonna go with that one.

I'm curious covering the campaign, have journalists learned anything? I still see them referring to pull after poll after poll, despite the fact in twenty twenty the polls were wrong. When are they going to stop doing that? And how can we convince them? If you had a magic wand how would you have journalists cover this election?

I'm curious covering the campaign, have journalists learned anything? I still see them referring to pull after poll after poll, despite the fact in twenty twenty the polls were wrong. When are they going to stop doing that? And how can we convince them? If you had a magic wand how would you have journalists cover this election?

You're never going to convince them. Are they right to do it? Right? Like? Like you can do a great job at your media company, Like we can do a great job at our media company telling people what to pay attention to. And for your listeners, what do you pay attention to? Like there's six states they're going to matter. Start in Arizona, Nevada up to Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Like those are the states that are going to determine the presidency. Any poll that looks at the whole country is of course just popularity and is not going to determine the outcome. Like what's going to matter is like Jim was talking about, people are persuadable, like the small segment of people in each of those states who are going to matter. And I can tell you that Democrats look at the polls at the moment, like they're very concerned about those six states in a lot of them, like Trump has been winning here and there, Biden will win Michigan or Wisconsin does seem to be his best states. But they're very concerned about what's going to happen in those six states. And so that's what matters. Look at that look at where the candidates are spending money. You talk about like like what have we learned, Like one of the biggest things with Trump, like he's Trump, Like you're not going to be able to anticipate it. He's going to say what's on his mind. But you can look at what he's going to do, who's surrounding himself with, like what they've promised to do, Like what they've been doing in the four years while they've been out. Those are all real things that put together can help listeners, viewers, readers like understand what's coming out.

You're never going to convince them. Are they right to do it? Right? Like? Like you can do a great job at your media company, Like we can do a great job at our media company telling people what to pay attention to. And for your listeners, what do you pay attention to? Like there's six states they're going to matter. Start in Arizona, Nevada up to Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Like those are the states that are going to determine the presidency. Any poll that looks at the whole country is of course just popularity and is not going to determine the outcome. Like what's going to matter is like Jim was talking about, people are persuadable, like the small segment of people in each of those states who are going to matter. And I can tell you that Democrats look at the polls at the moment, like they're very concerned about those six states in a lot of them, like Trump has been winning here and there, Biden will win Michigan or Wisconsin does seem to be his best states. But they're very concerned about what's going to happen in those six states. And so that's what matters. Look at that look at where the candidates are spending money. You talk about like like what have we learned, Like one of the biggest things with Trump, like he's Trump, Like you're not going to be able to anticipate it. He's going to say what's on his mind. But you can look at what he's going to do, who's surrounding himself with, like what they've promised to do, Like what they've been doing in the four years while they've been out. Those are all real things that put together can help listeners, viewers, readers like understand what's coming out.

Let's talk about AI. It's interesting because you said something fairly positive about AI just a few minutes ago, Jim and I, and yet at the same time, I know that you have pledged to your readers that everything you write is going to be written by an actual human being. Katieus touching mic right now, So you know, So tell me how you view AI and how it is going to even further transform the media landscape.

Let's talk about AI. It's interesting because you said something fairly positive about AI just a few minutes ago, Jim and I, and yet at the same time, I know that you have pledged to your readers that everything you write is going to be written by an actual human being. Katieus touching mic right now, So you know, So tell me how you view AI and how it is going to even further transform the media landscape.

Yeah, I mean it's hard to do that succinctly. So basically, you have a technology that's probably going to be as profound as the invention of the Internet or us having phones at scale and connectivity, and so we know what's going to be big. So what we do is we're trying to figure out well, what does that mean for media? What does that mean for information consumption? And our belief is that it's going to be profound. It's just going to radically change the relationship between you, the reader or the consumer and the content that you're getting. And we want to make sure we're at least one step ahead of it. And where what we believe are the known knowns that affect your company and affect our companies that people are going to increasingly value expertise, Oh, that person knows something that no machine could ever know. They have sourcing that no machine could ever have. They have history with a topic that it gives them analytical insight that no machine's ever going to have. That's one. Two. You're going to want trust. There's going to be so much garbage out there. You're going to want a relationship between you, the consumer and the media company that is built totally on trust. Three is a place where we're doing a lot of investment and there's by stuff we could do together on that is in person connectivity. The more you live in an artificial world, in a virtual world, the more you consciously and subconsciously crave human interaction around share passions, particularly professionally, and so we do a lot of events, one hundred plus every year. But we're also doing membership programs where we bring people who might have a passion around, say the communications industry, to be able to get smarter on their topics, maybe gather together to share best practices. And we think there's a really rich business there. So I think if you can do those things, you'll be fine. Now there's a flip of that, which is there's probably technologies that it could be AI power that are going to make our lives easier, building technology, distributing content, copy editing, creation of data visualization. You could see very clearly how all of those are going to be done quite well by machines, and so you just want to anticipate that those things are going to happen and be clear eyed, like all these people are like, you know, like not paying attention to AI. Like I don't get it. It's like someone told you, imagine going back in time and someone told you two years ahead of time, Hey, the Internet's coming, and you knew that and it was certain eyes coming yep, store right, Like you know what's coming. These big companies are spending trillions of dollars they will, will it into existence? Will it be smarter than us? Will we be working for it? I hope not. I could definitely give you dark scenarios in almost every use case of AI. I could also give you very positive use cases. And either way, I think it requires us to be clear eyed. And this is where I think journalism really really matters. We have to educate people on these technologies, on the companies that benefit, on what will happen between nation state rivalries, what happens when warfare moves to drones and moves to satellites and moves to space, and the oceans that we have on our shoulders no longer protect us the way they did in the past. We have an obligation to tell that story, and, like you said, kind of grab people by the collar, say this is really really really.

Yeah, I mean it's hard to do that succinctly. So basically, you have a technology that's probably going to be as profound as the invention of the Internet or us having phones at scale and connectivity, and so we know what's going to be big. So what we do is we're trying to figure out well, what does that mean for media? What does that mean for information consumption? And our belief is that it's going to be profound. It's just going to radically change the relationship between you, the reader or the consumer and the content that you're getting. And we want to make sure we're at least one step ahead of it. And where what we believe are the known knowns that affect your company and affect our companies that people are going to increasingly value expertise, Oh, that person knows something that no machine could ever know. They have sourcing that no machine could ever have. They have history with a topic that it gives them analytical insight that no machine's ever going to have. That's one. Two. You're going to want trust. There's going to be so much garbage out there. You're going to want a relationship between you, the consumer and the media company that is built totally on trust. Three is a place where we're doing a lot of investment and there's by stuff we could do together on that is in person connectivity. The more you live in an artificial world, in a virtual world, the more you consciously and subconsciously crave human interaction around share passions, particularly professionally, and so we do a lot of events, one hundred plus every year. But we're also doing membership programs where we bring people who might have a passion around, say the communications industry, to be able to get smarter on their topics, maybe gather together to share best practices. And we think there's a really rich business there. So I think if you can do those things, you'll be fine. Now there's a flip of that, which is there's probably technologies that it could be AI power that are going to make our lives easier, building technology, distributing content, copy editing, creation of data visualization. You could see very clearly how all of those are going to be done quite well by machines, and so you just want to anticipate that those things are going to happen and be clear eyed, like all these people are like, you know, like not paying attention to AI. Like I don't get it. It's like someone told you, imagine going back in time and someone told you two years ahead of time, Hey, the Internet's coming, and you knew that and it was certain eyes coming yep, store right, Like you know what's coming. These big companies are spending trillions of dollars they will, will it into existence? Will it be smarter than us? Will we be working for it? I hope not. I could definitely give you dark scenarios in almost every use case of AI. I could also give you very positive use cases. And either way, I think it requires us to be clear eyed. And this is where I think journalism really really matters. We have to educate people on these technologies, on the companies that benefit, on what will happen between nation state rivalries, what happens when warfare moves to drones and moves to satellites and moves to space, and the oceans that we have on our shoulders no longer protect us the way they did in the past. We have an obligation to tell that story, and, like you said, kind of grab people by the collar, say this is really really really.

Important and it's coming and you can't stop that.

Important and it's coming and you can't stop that.

And you could go light and dark on it. Right. So take medical research. It seems highly likely in my mind that in our lifetime that a large language model trained with proprietary health data will cure cancer. I believe that that will happen or most cancers. I also believe that that exact same technology used by some jackass sitting in a campus in Colorado might be able to create a pathogen as powerful as a coronavirus for a country that's not ready to be able to combat that. I don't mean to be dark, but talk to anybody who's building it, they would say those two outcomes are both very very plausible, if not likely. And the purpose of a documentary or the purpose of journalism is just to say, you got to pay attention to this because it's probably going to require personal responsibility. It's certainly going to require governmental responsibility and regulation. And you have a government, going back to the beginning of this podcast, that's not recruiting the best in the brightest because everyone's dogging it. And now you suddenly need smart people to engineer regulations from a machine that might be smarter than us. I mean, I'm looking from lash gosh. But man, that sounds hard, right.

And you could go light and dark on it. Right. So take medical research. It seems highly likely in my mind that in our lifetime that a large language model trained with proprietary health data will cure cancer. I believe that that will happen or most cancers. I also believe that that exact same technology used by some jackass sitting in a campus in Colorado might be able to create a pathogen as powerful as a coronavirus for a country that's not ready to be able to combat that. I don't mean to be dark, but talk to anybody who's building it, they would say those two outcomes are both very very plausible, if not likely. And the purpose of a documentary or the purpose of journalism is just to say, you got to pay attention to this because it's probably going to require personal responsibility. It's certainly going to require governmental responsibility and regulation. And you have a government, going back to the beginning of this podcast, that's not recruiting the best in the brightest because everyone's dogging it. And now you suddenly need smart people to engineer regulations from a machine that might be smarter than us. I mean, I'm looking from lash gosh. But man, that sounds hard, right.

It does sound hard.

It does sound hard.

And Katie, here's another grabbing by the Lapels. Moment you talk to the heads of these companies, is Jim and I do we spend a lot of time with the biggest companies. This is all coming faster than people think. That what people think is an eighteen month time horizon is really a six month time horizon. And what's in the garage, what's under the sheet, is even more powerful than people realize. There's a lot that's been developed that has not been deployed.