Yeah.

Welcome to the Air Harbor show.

My guest today, Jonatha Capehart, the Pulitzer winning writer.

Also, MSNBC host.

Washington Post editor and opinion columnist, among many other very impressive activities.

Justin, thanks.

Aaron, thank you very much.

Pleasure to be here.

It's just great having you on the show.

You know, because you're on MSNBC, I'd be really interested kind of in your take on, you know because of how polarized we are.

How do you feel?

I mean, do journalists, do you think, step back a lot and think about what are we accomplishing?

Kind of why are we here?

What are what are we getting done?

And are we getting done as much as we think we are?

Well, I mean, I actually do think that there are folks in our profession who are asking those very questions of themselves.

Yeah.

When they're with their colleagues, because our industry, our profession has been going through it.

For I would, I would argue since the dawn of the internet, I mean, before the internet came along.

You know, folks like us, we had all the information.

We were the ones who reported to to the people about what was happening in their communities, in their state, in their nation, issues that were important to them or that we thought should be important to them.

And then comes along the internet, which democratized access to information.

In the grand scheme of things, I don't know any journalist who would argue that that was a bad thing because we're about transparency.

We're about the public's right to know.

And so the internet comes along and says, here, here's everything.

But the downside of that is people have siloed themselves into, you know, like minde communities and only seeking out the the points of view of people with whom they agree.

That's not good.

That's not good at all.

Then you add on top of it Erin, the technological changes that have come since the dawn of the internet, that has that have eroded our audiences either in, in the printed word or on television or on radio.

And now we're constantly tryin to where do we not used to be?

How do we win them back?

Now it's how do we go to where they are right now?

Then on top of all of that, you have a president who, in his first ter called folks in our profession or called our profession enemy of the people, and now in the second term is not only continuing to say that, but now suing news organizations.

And I'm not saying that as it, you know, as a means of partizanship, but just to point out the pressure that having the leader of the free world put on folks like us, put on journalists, makes it makes it very difficult to be a, to be a journalist for, I would think, for a lot of journalists.

So what should journalists, journalism news organizations be doing?

Because certainly Presiden Trump has done an extraordinary job of weaponizing, for example, the press room.

He I mean, when he was out of office, he was fairly effective at dominating the news cycle.

And now he has everybody in front of him waiting for the latest announcement.

Anything he does and says gets an extraordinary amount of coverage multiplied is, as you were intimatin by social media, there doesn't seem to be any real counter to that or, so, so not only counter factually or news wise, but I'd be really interested.

It just organizationally.

What do you think new organizations should be doing?

Because I think, I think he' just rolling almost everybody.

Well, I mean, news organizations should be doing a couple of things.

One, continue to report on and cover the administration, both from the white House, but also the agencies keep doing that.

That is the job.

And all at the same time, the organizations themselves should be doing everything possibl to protect their prerogatives.

As the only professio protected in the Constitution.

We have a role to play.

The founders understoo that the health of a democracy depends on the on on a citizenry that is well informed and they are well informe by a free and unfettered press.

And so news organizations and I understand some of the decisions that were made by other news organizations in terms of settling lawsuit and things like that, because, you know, an organization gets sued all sorts of things could unintended consequences could come from that.

But at the same time, those news organizations, I would argue, cannot buckle when it comes to covering the president because the moment, the moment they change, the way they cover the president, shade facts, not cover things at all, not give it any, coverage in the news pages or on their shows.

That's the moment when we have lost, you know, folks need to understand people who are watching, who aren't.

Journalists need to understan that people in this profession do not go into this profession to become famous or to become wealthy.

For some that is, you know, an added benefit.

But for 99% of the other folks in our profession, we're here because it's a calling.

We're here because we are.

We want to tell stories.

We want to shine a light on people, on issues, on communities that, you know, either should be covered and aren't being covered up, shining a light on peopl who have been forgotten, issues that have been forgotten or shining a light on things that the American people need to know about, but they don't know about it because they're focused over here on other things.

This this job is a calling.

And anyone who doubts that just pick up the paper, turn on the television and look at that investigative reporter who's standing out somewhere reporting about a community that's been harmed or a community that had been harmed.

But because of the reporting, something has happened to turn things around.

So I'd suggest two things for your consideration.

I mean, first of all, I think one of the reasons the press is so vulnerable, I thin there are at least two reasons.

One is that I don't think most Americans understand the working of the press.

I think I think the press has done a terrible job, informing, Americans that here's how we do the work we do.

This i when when you do see that story, you know, a lot of people say, well, I'm my neighbor just wrote a stor on that next door or whatever.

And and so I think a lot of people don't have, the understanding of, of the rigor that goes into it, the kind of effort you're talkin about in terms of investigation, the fact that, you know, one or more editors take, you know, review the piece and things like that.

I think most people don't kno anymore that that's occurring.

And so I think that make the press vulnerable to someone, who wants to attack it.

I think the second factor which ties into that which, which really exacerbates the problems, I, I don't think most American have ever read the Constitution.

I mean, you've seen the surveys where most Americans can't even name the three branches of government and and things like that.

And if you ask people, well, I are you aware that freedom of the press is enshrined in the US Constitution?

I would guess that a majority are not aware of that.

And so between that ignorance or lack of education and the lack of knowledge of of how an organization like The Washington Post, for example, truly works, and the resources that go into trying to get it right, I just think creates incredible vulnerability.

And then when when someone like the president, who realizes this, decides to exploit it, he's been, I think, extraordinarily effective.

Sure.

Yeah.

He's been effective at, branding us, as being, you know, not doing things in the bes interest of the American people.

But he means in his best interests.

But, you know, by the way that that same you just struck.

I do want to make one comment.

What's also fascinated me is that when he wants to do something that that's clearly illegal or unconstitutional, the theme is in his, acolytes, in his staff.

The theme is the president was elected to do this, therefor he should be allowed to do this.

The president won.

Therefore he in.

So I'm I'm talking about millions of Americans hear that and say, okay.

And they're not saying, well, he shouldn't be doing it.

If it's illegal, it's okay because he won right?

It.

Well and then that gets t I mean, you're talking about the the publi not knowing how the press works.

The public doesn't know how government works, period.

You know, when I, when Twitter was, you know the happy place it used to be, you know, I would put every time I wrote a column, I would put it out there and I would spin out, you nine hours 90 minutes or so coming up with, you know, tweet language, pull quotes.

And I would have the link there.

Do you know how many times I would get into arguments with people online on Twitter because they would pop off on the tweet?

How dare you say that?

Well, it was actually a quote.

Well, why didn't you say this?

Well if you actually click the link and read the piece, you would you would have seen that.

The thing that you're saying, I didn't say I actually sai and I started saying to people, you know, you need to read before you tweet.

And then maybe once a quarter line, by the way, read the tweet.

But I would say to people, you know, what, if I wrote the wa most people read, I'd be fired.

To your point, people don't understand.

When I write a column, it takes a very long time.

Not only because it takes time to formulate my thoughts, do the reporting, write the piece.

But when I'm writing the piece, I have the reader sitting on my shoulder.

Every assertion, if I if I put a statistic in the piece, I know the person is going to say, where'd that come from?

How do you know this?

And there's a hyperlink.

I put a hyperlink because I respect the reader enough and I respect their intelligence that of course they're going to click the link and read the piece.

Of course I'm going to click the hyperlink to see where I got the information from.

And if they don't click the hyperlinks, how informed are you?

If you're not actually reading about the things you're talking about?

And so we can beat ourselves up as members of the press, we're not doing a good job and telling the people how we do our jobs.

But at a certain point, again, even though the framers said put us in the Constitutio as the only profession protected in the Constitution, remember that's only half of the duo.

The other half is the citizenry.

The citizenry has to be well-informed, and if they're not doing doin their work to be well-informed, is that our fault?

If all the information is right there for them and they don't avail themselves of it?

Well, I you know, I think what I've seen, because I get as many email and communications in the right as I do from the left, and I want to talk about that in a second, is that, you know, I think the pattern is that, you know, people, as you said, are siloed.

And if they read something that fits their narrative, they don't they don't check it out.

They don't investigated, they believe it.

And if they read something that doesn't fit their narrative, they dismiss it.

And they're not necessarily dismissing it based on any kind of factual research.

They don't do the research.

They don't even take two minutes to check to see if the accusation is true.

They simply will say, oh, well that's from the New York Times.

So therefore it's false.

So if they're there approaches everything from the New York Times must be fals because they've seen one error or something like that.

In terms of silos.

So you're on MSNBC and certainly, years ago, the president at Venice NBC, called me up to talk about my show, and he was very complimentary and he even said, Phil said, you know, you get people that we we can't even guess.

And he said, bu we never put your show on MSNBC.

And I said, why not?

And he said because I can't tell if you're a Democrat or a Republica or on the right or on the left.

You said, and and our hosts have a perspective.

Our hosts have, you know, a particular perspective.

Obviously to the left.

And and so one of the things that really fair to me is fascinating is that when I look at today where you have Fox, with huge ratings compared to CNN and MSNBC, and so I had two questions for you.

One is, you know, why do you think Fox is doing so well, number one, and and number two is, do you ever watch, Fox News?

So you two repulsive.

Well, do your conversation, with the former MSNBC president, Phil Griffin.

I mean, if he was talking to you, I really wonder if he was talking like, hey, I will give you a show.

Now, when he's talking about perspective television, he's talking about those hours.

Even when he was still president from 4 p.m. through is through to midnight, where you do have hosts with a point of view.

That is why they were given show.

And those were the words he used.

By the way, we want our hosts to have a specific point, have a point of view.

But remember the MSNBC shows from when Mornin Show ended at nine from 9 a.m. until four?

All those shows were were news programs where it was, you know, just the facts Who what, where, when, why, how.

This is what's happened.

This is what the president said.

This is what the opposition said.

And you move on to the next story.

The other thing about MSNBC, even though the hosts and I'm one of them now, you know, we have a perspective, one of the best.

But.

Well, thank you very much that, you know, we have a perspective, but our perspective is based, in fact, our perspectiv is based in our own reporting.

Our perspective is based in the reporting from from NBC news and other credible sources.

We do not go on air and say anything knowingly false.

And if we do in the moment, well, we will catch ourselves or the EP will come in our ear and say, you, you.

The person's first name is not George it's Henry or no, no, no no no, that wasn't that wasn't the year.

It was this year.

And if we don't do it in the moment, we do it coming right out of the commercial break.

You know, I miss I misspoke and that is our job because it is you know, the people are watching our shows are coming to us because you we are credible in their eyes.

And if we make a mistake, we must correct it, otherwise we lose credibility.

Let me give you a sense of what the other side would say.

They would say to you that we feel the credibility of MSNBC, CNN, etc., that they were being deceptive, deceitful to us.

The whole situatio with President Biden's health, where people on the right for years in initially I felt they were being unfair going back, you know, eight years or whatever.

To, to Joe Biden.

But but clearly the right was saying for a long time there's something wrong that this guy's senile, he's in his basement or whatever.

And, and now it makes it look like they were right.

And and their perspectiv is the media, the legacy media, the left wing media covered up Joe Biden's condition.

Now, you and I know how the white House works and what a great job his team did covering things up.

But that's that's a separate story.

But from the right's perspective, they blame the other media for covering that up.

The Hunter Biden laptop story where the right fox was saying, this thing is real.

Look at all the evidence.

Look at these photos.

And you had 51 or so, very respected, intelligence, people, former officers, etc.

diplomat saying no, no, this is a Russian hoax.

And it turns out and a lot o the the media, the non Fox media basically presented that story that no, this the, the, the Hunter Biden laptop isn't true.

I mean, there's there are a list of things where if you're on the right, it's easy for me to se how people on the right can say, no, these guys aren't aren't the way you jus described that they have a bias.

But, Erin, if those if those folks are being fed a steady diet of Hunter Biden's laptop, Hunter Biden's laptop, Hunter Biden's laptop, Hunter Biden's laptop, Biden senile.

Biden senile.

Biden senile what?

What do you expect them to believe when other information comes forward?

That said, actually, that's not true.

But it was true.

It what was no Aaron Hunter by Hunter Biden's laptop.

But it was true that it was his laptop.

Okay, fine, it was his laptop.

But Fox News covered Hunter Biden's laptop as if it were some huge scandal with hug national security implications without covering real stories that were happening.

And this is the other thing that Fox does.

They will put the shiny object over here when everybody else is covering issues of great importance.

Now I want to go back to something a push back on a worry for me.

Let me push back just to reinforce your point for one second, which is you're absolutely right.

So if you watched for the last two years Fox the beginning of every show, no matter what actual what you and I would say major stories occurring, it's immigrants creating crimes leading to and Iran's economy would be, you know we're being invaded or whatever.

And and so if you were to watch any other news channel or station, whatever it used to be where I felt Fox and and CNN, for example, they cover the same stories in a different way and in a different order.

Now they just cover completely different things, right?

A completely different is an Earth two.

You're absolutely different.

Absolutely right.

I agree with the 100.

Now I'm going to push back on o your use of the word cover up.

Okay.

When it comes to President Vaughn, President Biden's, mental health now one, it is no scandal tha a white House will do everything possible to make the chief executive look good.

So if the chief executive can't climb the long stairs to the top of the plane, you use the stairs that go into the belly of the plane.

That's not a scandal.

We can go back to Reagan.

And in the stagecraft that that was used to make him look extremely presidential, the Biden White House is guilty of doing the same thing.

But where I am driven to distraction in almost blind rage is this idea that there was a cover up of the president's mental acuity?

Well, certainl not by the press.

Well, correct.

But by the white House staff.

Well, no, no, no.

And I disagree.

I disagree with that as well.

I, I have interviewed President Biden when sitting presiden October of 22, in March or 24, if I had not been writing my book at the at the time of that second interview with the president, I would have written a column because it was right when everyone was sayin the president's mental decline.

I just interviewed the man in the column I would have written would have said, the Joe Biden I interviewed yesterday was the same guy I interviewed in October 2022.

I don't know what people are talking about when they talk about this mental decline and if anything, if anyone wants to see whether Joe Biden had lost, it wasn't all there.

Go back and watch.

In 2024, the press conference he did in Washington this just about a year ago now after I think it was the NATO summit where David Sanger conducted UN live global television, a mental acuity test of the president of the United States that's been on the show.

But by by asking the president a multi-pronged question.

Related to some picayune issue between the United States and China.

David's question lasted a good five minute with multiple pieces and parts in the press.

It took even longer to answer every question.

Every you know, you know, what's the word I'm looking fo deviation in David's question.

He answered it.

And so that's why I, I, I just don't like this false equivalency that folks are trying to put people on the right.

You know what they say?

Oh, he got the staff, got the question in advance without even knowing that whether it's true or not, that's the response I would hear right within seconds.

So you're you're nonpartisan and I really appreciate that.

However, if I were to get that, I would say to them, well, then, shouldn't we be talking about President Trump's age?

He's 78 now.

Why aren't we concerned about his mental acuity?

That gets back to what we talk about.

Is the beginnin that that our educational system has failed so miserably that our citizenry doesn't know the basics of the Constitution, doesn't know the the three branches of government and what their responsibilities are.

And so when you have that void doesn't understand basic economics.

And so when you have that void, what it is, what it does is it creates this opportunity for someone like Donald Trump or, and you're arguing for Fox or whomever or their host to just sa anything and people believe it.

I mean, that's an awful place for a democracy to be.

It's a terrible place for democracy, for a democracy to be.

And yet that's where we are as we sit here right now.

So what do we do?

Where, we what do we do?

Jonathan, it's up to you to solve this problem.

Well, I mean, well, one, we need to keep doing what we're doing.

Even though it might not fee like we're making any headway, that no one's listening, that no one cares.

I don't believe that's true.

I actually think that th no king's marches that we saw, in the spring were a sign that the American people are paying attention, that they do care about what's going on, that they do understand what's going on.

And it's either because they've, watched television news shows, they've read things in the pres and the things that they read.

Alarm them, concern them.

I mean, how can you not watch what's been happening in Los Angeles in terms of the Ice raids, just watching what's happening and not think, is that what I want for my country?

I mean, I can't I can't argue with that but I'd like to give you a one at least one thought that I do watch Fox News.

And, actually one of my favorite shows, it's not a new show is Gutfeld and I, I would encourage you and everybody on the left at least watch it once, because what, what that show does with a lot of humor.

Of course, i depends on your sense of humor and what you're willing t to accept as funny, because it's also often very offensive and sometimes very mean.

But be that as it may, what what that show does is i is an opportunity for the left to see the ammunitio it gives the right every night.

That show shows you exactly what that some of the silly things those of us on the left do, and how then they're going to be used politically against us.

That just sort of highlights something that I, I have noticed and that I think, you know, puts folks in the left in a defensive crouch.

There is nothing anyone on the left, particularly certain people on the left.

AOC, Bernie Sanders, those folks, there's nothing they can't say that won't be manipulated and used to embarrass them.

The left, the Democratic Party.

So once you understand that and know that no matter what you say, no matter what you do, you're going to get lambasted, then just own it.

I disagre because I think there are things you can say that are core values and that are critically important, and maybe they get used against you.

But I would say too many on the left are never satisfied and have to go even further.

And it's when it's when you're going further in your in your and you're going further away from the American mainstream.

That's what gets exploited.

Well, you're not going to get an argument from me on that.

And that' what gets gets my eyes rolling, because you've got someone over here on the super far.

Well, this is my right hand on this one.

That's on the super far left saying things that I know is insane.

And everyone in the party will say, or, on the left will say, that's insane.

And yet everyone over here in the majority of the party has to answer for what those folks are done, because folks on the right on Fox are highlighting that ar highlighting that, oh my gosh.

And so when you know that's going to happen, if you live in fear of whatever that person's going to say, you will say nothing, you will do nothing.

And what good is that one for the Democratic Party?

But also what good is that for the nation?

If you are in a defensive crouch, you're afraid of what the right's going to say or what the Donald Trump is goin to tweet something nasty at me?

Well then why are you in that job?

Well, I'm I'm not for being in a defensive crouch, but I am for being strategic.

Jonathan, thank you so much.

Very much.

The honor having you, Jonathan Capehart, make sure you watch his program on MSNBC.

He's an editor also.

It's a Washington Post and an opinion columnist.

So read his columns and click those links as well.

I'm Erin Harbor, thanks for watching.

We'll see you next time.