July 29, 2025

BIANNA GOLODRYGA, ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to “Amanpour and Company.” Here’s what’s coming up.

A warning that the worst-case scenario of famine is now unfolding in Gaza. As the death toll from starvation mounts, Correspondent Jeremy Diamond has

the latest.

Then support for Democrats hits a new low. A new poll showing that more Americans trust Republicans on the issues that drive voters. We look at

what these numbers mean for upcoming elections with Democratic Congressman Jake Auchincloss.

Also —

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: — words to live by from Nashville star Margo Price, who talks to me about music, family, and being a hardheaded woman.

And later —

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GILLIAN TETT, COLUMNIST, FINANCIAL TIMES: Right now, the question of who we trust is also in flux.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: — human connection in the age of A.I. Walter Isaacson speaks with Google Tech incubator chief Yasmin Green and FT Columnist Julian Tett.

Welcome to the program, everyone. I’m Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.

Widespread starvation, malnutrition, and disease are driving a rise in hunger-related deaths in Gaza. This according to a new alert from the IPC,

a United Nations-backed initiative analyzing humanitarian data there.

In an alert issue today, the group warns that a worst-case scenario of famine is currently playing out as access to food and essential services

has plummeted to unprecedented levels. More than 20,000 Palestinian children were admitted for treatment for acute malnutrition between April

and mid-July, the IPC said.

Now, earlier today, Israeli economist Yannay Spitzer told me that scarcity driven price hikes in Gaza are simply not sustainable.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

YANNAY SPITZER, ECONOMIST, HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM: This is simply not sustainable, and I want to point that this trends out to the Israeli

decision makers, to the Israeli public, to the media to make it clear that this time it is different, and famine is in actual danger right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: Now, the Israeli government says that it is reversing course pausing military operations during the day and designating secure routes to

ensure the safe passage of aid convoys. Nonetheless, the U.N. says humanitarian groups are still facing huge IDF restrictions that make it

difficult to get aid out.

So, the question now, will this new trickle of aid come too late to save Gaza’s starving population? Correspondent Jeremy Diamond is covering the

crisis there. Jeremy, and we’re now entering day three of the strategic pauses where the IDF is allowing humanitarian aid to come in. Just talk

about the impact that that’s having thus far. What is the result of these pauses?

JEREMY DIAMOND, JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Well, it seems very clear that from the results on the ground are that more trucks are getting

distributed In Gaza. On Sunday we saw about a hundred trucks that were able to be distributed in Gaza. Yesterday, the Israeli military put that figure

at about 200. So, you’re seeing, you know, a doubling of those numbers.

But what’s also clear, according to humanitarian aid officials, is that trend needs to continue, because really what Gaza needs is something along

the lines of 500 to 600 trucks per day, which are the numbers that we saw during that last ceasefire. But for too many in Gaza, of course, we know

that it is already too late.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DIAMOND (voice-over): Desperate and hungry, thousands of Palestinians scramble onto aid trucks that have just entered the Gaza Strip. They grab

what they can, anything for the chance to feed themselves and their families. Many of whom have gone days without food.

This sea of desperation driven by months of Israeli restrictions on aid distribution in Gaza. Amid global outrage, Israel is now reversing course,

ceasing fire in parts of Gaza for 10 hours a day and opening designated secure routes to allow more aid trucks to flow in steps humanitarian aid

organizations have sought for months.

The U.N. says more than 100 trucks of aid were delivered into Gaza on Sunday. Many more will be needed to even begin to alleviate this crisis.

As children scrape bits flour from the beds of those trucks, the World Food Programme says a quarter of Gaza’s 2 million plus population is now

experiencing famine like conditions. Israel also allowing air drops into Gaza for the first time in months, sending Palestinians running to grab

what they can.

But as a rifle is fired into the air, a reminder that it is often the strongest, like gangs who steal and resell food at higher prices, who are

first to eat. I didn’t get anything, this elderly lady says, I was crushed in the crowd.

While some manage to grab a full box, others emerge with just a few items flour, oil, pasta. A far cry from what they would get if enough U.N. trucks

were entering Gaza.

This aid is disgraceful. We are not dogs to be made to run after aid. People fought over it, this man says. We’d rather die of hunger with

dignity than die in humiliation and filth.

Palestinians are also still getting shot and killed while trying to get aid. The Palestinian Health Ministry said 25 people were shot by Israeli

forces while trying to get aid during the past 24 hours.

The Israeli military said it was not aware of any casualties. He’s only 12 years old. What was his fault? This man cries out. He went to get flour to

feed little children. His brother survives on sugar water to feel full.

In the hospital’s morgue, this body is a testament to an entirely different weapon. Starvation has claimed 20 more lives in Gaza in the last two days,

including 10-year-old Noor Abu Saleh (ph). She became like this because of hunger, thirst and the siege imposed on us by the Israelis, her uncle

shouts. This is a Palestinian child. He says the world would be outraged if only she had been born anywhere else.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DIAMOND (on camera): And, Bianna, what is especially tragic about those images is just thinking that had the Israeli government taken steps to

allow these safe corridors, these tactical pauses, weeks or months ago, children like Noor (ph) might still be alive. And beyond that, doctors and

humanitarian officials have warned that even as food is starting to get into Gaza, that doesn’t mean that the starvation crisis just drops off of a

cliff.

No, there are too many people who are already in the severe states of acute malnutrition that is probably too late to save many of their lives. Bianna.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. And Yannay Spitzer, that Israeli economist who’s tracked the astronomical spike in the price of food there says that ultimately this

is going to require the U.N. to distribute food the way they had prior to March. And he said it’s going to have to be something that the Israeli

government accepts, perhaps even Hamas, regaining some of its strength. But given this crisis right now, that is more of a positive direction and right

decision to be made as opposed to this humanitarian crisis that is unfolding before our eyes.

Jeremy, I do want to ask you about the reaction there in Israel to news that we just heard today from the British prime minister, Keir Starmer,

following president Macron of France, saying that the United Kingdom will recognize the State of Palestine at the U.N. General Assembly in September,

just a few weeks from now if certain conditions aren’t met by the Israelis. What are those conditions and what is the reaction?

DIAMOND: Well, I think what’s especially interesting about this statement from the British prime minister are the conditions that he is applying to

it. Whereas France said that, you know, they’re going to take this step to recognize a Palestinian State by the U.N. General Assembly in September.

Prime Minister Starmer is applying a few conditions. He says that Israel needs to agree to a ceasefire, alleviate the conditions in Gaza, and commit

itself to concrete steps towards a two-state solution. And if those conditions are met, then that recognition won’t happen in the way that he

is saying. It’s quite a high bar though, especially for this right-wing Israeli government, which has driven further and further away from the

prospects of a two-state solution.

We have heard, of course, Israeli officials repeatedly lament anytime any country, particularly European allies, take this step of recognizing a

Palestinian State or when they say that they are going to take that step in the future.

And beyond that, it’s also about the moment at which this is happening. Israeli officials who I’ve spoken to have said that this is the worst

possible moment, in their mind, for these actions to be taken because at a time when they are trying to increase the pressure on Hamas, they feel like

this increases the pressure on Israel and decreases the pressure on Hamas.

We heard the Israeli foreign minister, Gideon Sa’ar, speaking to this earlier today when he said, that the pressure that Israel is now facing,

not just as a result of this Palestine recognition issue, but also as a result of the starvation in Gaza, he said that this is causing Hamas to

harden its position and saying that it is sabotaging chances for a ceasefire and hostage deal. Of course, that increased pressure is a direct

result of what we are seeing in Gaza and a direct result of Israeli policies that have driven the conditions on the ground. Bianna.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, no doubt. No doubt these food shortages and famine that is continuing to plague in more pockets of the enclave is something that

benefits Hamas and one of the reasons they’ve dug in their heels. But as you said, this was a self-inflicted wound here by the Israelis as they

instituted that blockade and took over the distribution of aid a few months ago.

Jeremy, quickly, all this is unfolding in Gaza. We know more violence is also taking place in the West Bank, an Israeli settler has killed a

prominent West Bank activist and filmmaker. Tell us more about that.

DIAMOND: Yes. Odeh Hathalin is a Palestinian activist, and he also worked as a producer on that Oscar award-winning documentary, “No Other Land.” He

died on Monday after being shot by a Jewish settler allegedly in the occupied West Bank. Israeli police say that they have detained one Israeli

civilian in connection with this shooting. The man’s name is Yinon Levi.

And what’s interesting here, Bianna, is that this is an Israeli settler who was known not only to Palestinian activists in the West Bank, but more

broadly than that, he has been sanctioned by the United States and by other countries. That happened though under the Biden administration. The Trump

administration earlier this year lifted those sanctions on Yinon Levi. Levi was detained, questioned by police, and then released on house arrest.

He had been filmed at the scene very near to where Hathalin’s body was found. He was initially injured and later died of his wounds. But Yinon

Levi was filmed pistol in hand, firing near a group of activists. We don’t actually see him fire the fatal shot at Odeh Hathalin. But of course, this

is a part and parcel of what we’ve been seeing in the West Bank since the war broke out on October 7th, rising settler violence in the West Bank, and

coupled with that impunity in many cases for so much of these this settler violence that we are seeing taking place in the West Bank.

As I said, this man has now been — was arrested, released on house arrest. We will be closely monitoring the proceedings in his case.

GOLODRYGA: All right. Jeremy Diamond, thank you so much. Appreciate it. Well, now to a political crisis for Democrats in the United States, where a

new poll from The Wall Street Journal shows Democrats with their lowest approval rating in 35 years. 63 percent of voters say they hold an

unfavorable view of the party, and while President Trump’s own numbers are underwater, a majority say they trust Republicans more on critical issues.

Democratic Congressman Jake Auchincloss is challenging the status quo. He’s launched a new initiative called Majority Democrats, working to reinvent

the party and reconnect with voters. And he joins me now from his home state of Massachusetts.

And just judging by these numbers, Congressman, it really is an uphill battle that you are pursuing right now. Before we get to this Wall Street

Journal report, I do want to ask you to weigh in on this breaking news. Israel, no surprise, rejecting the United Kingdom now saying that they will

recognize the State of Palestine if certain conditions, including a ceasefire and additional circumventing of Israel to stop the humanitarian

crisis in Gaza isn’t addressed immediately. They’re following France saying that they will indeed just recognize Palestine without preconditions here

in an ultimatum.

How should the United States respond? What is your response?

REP. JAKE AUCHINCLOSS (D-MA): Recognition of a Palestinian State without any of the substantive work to improve governance, corruption, competence

with the Palestinian Authority and to secure Israel’s long-term national defense, it’s an empty gesture. It turns October 7th into July 4th for

Hamas, and I would encourage our allies not to do it.

Israel right now though does have the responsibility to fix the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation’s. unacceptable distribution of humanitarian aid.

The conditions in Gaza are inhumane. They are deplorable, and they must be improved radically and immediately.

GOLODRYGA: It sounds like that’s what President Trump has said as much and said that he will be speaking with Prime Minister Netanyahu shortly about

this. Turning to this Wall Street Journal, polling, Democrats are now at their lowest level in 30 years with voters. 63 percent view the party on

favorably, just 8 percent view the Democratic Party favorably. How do you explain this collapse? Did you see it coming?

AUCHINCLOSS: Americans know what Democrats are against. We’re against Donald Trump, but they don’t know what we’re for. They don’t know what we

want to do with power on day one. And to earn that trust to be able to govern for the American people we have to explain the big and bold ideas

for our agenda.

I think Americans perceive that there’s a corrupt status quo, that it’s threatening to their financial freedom, that it’s threatening to their

American dream. And Democrats need to take on that status quo. We’ve got to restore law and order, not just constitutional law and order and the checks

and balances, but also the law and order of daily experience, of making sure you can go to a CVS and buy shampoo without having to ask the clerk to

unlock it for you because if shoplifting.

We have to treat cost disease in housing and healthcare, which now consume half of the middle-class families take home pay. And we’ve got to deliver

excellence in education, particularly for the 25 million American students who since the pandemic, since the disastrous school closures have fallen

behind on reading and mathematics.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. And we should note that it was President Trump at the time that was pushing for schools to be reopened, now not citing any specific

data for that demand. Nonetheless, as soon as he was doing that, it did seem as if Democrats were even more defiant to do just the opposite.

I also want to get to the point of the numerous issues where Democrats are disapproving — where voters are disapproving of how Trump is handling

everything from inflation to the economy foreign policy, yet they still trust Republicans more than Democrats on these issues. It’s hard to wrap

your head around just how unhappy voters are with Democrats given their level of disapproval on how Republicans are handling these issues.

AUCHINCLOSS: Yes. But picking a fight with voters is never a good electoral strategy. What Democrats need to reflect upon is not how the

trifecta in Washington is perceived, right, by the American electorate, but how are we doing in places where Democrats have the trifecta, in states

where Democrats are the ones who are in command of the governing portfolio. And we have to take what is working there and scale it, and also take

what’s not working there and address it.

Let me give you an example of what’s working here in Massachusetts, is that we started to do direct to provider grants to early education providers.

So, providing direct grants that complimented vouchers to families. And what these grants did is they allowed these early education providers to

hire more staff and to maintain more stability with their early educators. It’s worked. More slots, more affordability. That should become part of our

platform because we can point to it as having real outcomes for the middle class.

GOLODRYGA: We know that aside from immigration and border security, the economy was one of the most — if not the most pressing issue for voters

going into 2024. So, how do you explain this disconnect for us coming out of this polling? The president is currently underwater on inflation,

something that he vowed to fix and reverse and eliminate. He’s underwater by 11 points, but Republicans are up 10 points over Democrats on this very

issue. How do you explain that?

AUCHINCLOSS: Because the biggest line item in a family’s budget is housing. And housing in blue states is far more expensive than housing in

red states. And until Democrats wrestle with that reality, it’s not going to be a surprise that voters say, well, listen, you’re saying you’re going

to lower cost for me, but my biggest cost is my rent or my mortgage payment, and it’s going up faster when I see Democrats in command. That’s

why we need to build 5 million units of housing across this country.

Missing middle housing, workforce housing across cities and suburbs, including building new cities entirely, because unless we can vastly

increase the supply of housing in this country, we’re going to suffocate the middle class.

GOLODRYGA: Tell us more about your initiative and what you’re hoping to reenergize within the party.

AUCHINCLOSS: I want to be crystal clear, It’s not my initiative. I am one of 30 younger Democrats who have launched majority Democrats, and we’re

hoping that it’s going to grow. And it is formed of mayors and leaders of state houses and younger members of Congress. And what aligns us all is,

one, a conviction that we have to authentically engage with voters that this condescension that has come to characterize the Democratic Party must

be jettisoned.

And two, that we’re willing to challenge the status quo. That the ideological strait jacket this party has put itself in over the last 15

years has served us very poorly, has made us too rigid, and that we have to have a much tighter feedback loop with the middle class to deliver

affordability and housing and healthcare, to deliver the excellence and education that they deserve, particularly after the school closures, and to

restore a sense of law and order at a time when things seem to be spiraling out of control.

Partly because of this president’s corruption, but also, partly because conditions in the cities and towns that many Americans live in are not the

kind of high quality of life conditions, whether because of shoplifting or other issues that they deserve.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. President Trump though, says that unlike past president and statistics that he thinks that Republicans can still control the House

in the upcoming midterm elections. You look at this poll now, most voters are identifying, or more voters now are identifying as Republicans as

opposed to Democrats. Is he right?

AUCHINCLOSS: We need to operate on the premise that he’s right. Never be complacent, never presume anything but the highest levels of competence in

your opponents, and we should absolutely presume that we are in a close-run election and we should operate accordingly. That means recruiting high

quality candidates, and that means supporting those candidates in every way that they need.

I think what’s going to be particularly important is connecting the dots for the American voters, that although the Republicans delayed these cuts

to Medicaid until after the midterms in an incredibly cynical maneuver, that those cuts are going to directly raise the cost of health insurance

for everybody, not just if you have Medicaid. If you get your health insurance through your employer, you will pay higher premiums because of

these Medicaid cuts, which is the last thing you need at a time when health insurance is going up twice as fast as wages. That’s the Republicans.

Democrats will fix it.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. And we should note, the only major issue where Democrats outperform Republicans was on healthcare. Congressman Jake Auchincloss,

we’re out of time now, but we will have to have you back to talk about that specific issue and some of your ideas and proposals as well. Thank you so

much for joining the show.

AUCHINCLOSS: Take care.

GOLODRYGA: All right. Later in the program, I sit down with Nashville singer Margo Price. This was so fun. She was taking country music by storm

with songs about loss, womanhood, and fighting on.

GOLODRYGA: Now, Nashville musician Margo Price has been singing truths about American life ever since she first hit the big time with her debut

album, “Midwest Farmer’s Daughter.” Now, with her new record “Hardheaded Woman,” Price returns to her country roots after almost a decade, exploring

the highways and byways of American pop music.

Price’s music touches on everything from family to feminism. She is the latest in a long line of country greats who distill a world of living into

the proverbial three chords and the truth. I spoke with Margo Price fresh from the Newport Folk Festival about her music, her mission, and about not

letting anyone drag her down.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GOLODRYGA: Margot, thank you so much for joining us. Congratulations on the new album, “Hardheaded Woman.” Your previous album, “Strays,” drew for

more psychedelic inspiration, but you’ve described this one as more rooted. So, tell us more rooted how?

MARGO PRICE, SINGER-SONGWRITER: Yes. I wanted to get back to the songwriting, the lyrics, the storytelling that I really love about country

music, Americana. And so, yes, this feels like kind of a return to home in a way.

GOLODRYGA: You actually said in a recent interview, I always joke that country music is like a toxic ex-boyfriend. I needed some space, but I knew

I would be back. What did you miss most?

PRICE: Yes, I think the ability to — you know, to really weave a story, to give all those little details about everyday life.

The highs, the lows, the good, the bad, the ugly. That’s really where I find my peace, is through the storytelling. And so, yes, it feels good to

be back with one foot firmly planted in the songs.

GOLODRYGA: Was the initial breakup intentional? Like did you know that you would make this journey? Did you need the space?

PRICE: Yes, I think I didn’t want to get pegged as just being a country singer. When I was coming up, I played in soul bands. I played rock, you

know, folk, blues. Yes, I just needed to explore other sonic territory. And also, I think country music can be a little polarizing politically. And,

you know, I’ve been a little outspoken with my beliefs. And so, I needed space from that as well.

GOLODRYGA: So, I want to get to that in a second. But let’s talk about the song that everyone is reviewing and talking about in this new album, “Don’t

Let the Bastards Get You Down.”

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: It’s a phrase that has some history to it. Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale.” It was written in Latin. Was it in the book?

PRICE: Yes.

GOLODRYGA: And then, Chris Christofferson, that is what he whispered to Sinead O’Connor in her ear when she was booed at a concert after speaking

out against the Pope on SNL so many years ago. Why did that phrase resonate with you?

PRICE: Well, Chris and Sinead are both big heroes. And I think, you know, it’s easy to let other people’s views and opinions of you really drag you

down. And so, I wanted it to be kind of a battle cry and just a mantra that I can use when I’m feeling low and when I’m feeling unsure of myself. It’s

— yes, it’s liberating.

GOLODRYGA: Have you been let down by a lot of bastards? Does that apply to you too?

PRICE: Yes, I think it’s challenging sometimes to turn down the noise of critics or just the talking hands on the internet. And I feel that I know

myself now more than ever and I’m really coming into my own skin and feeling empowered, and that song just feels — it feels so good to sing,

especially in the times we’re living in right now.

GOLODRYGA: Can you talk about that empowerment? Because you come across as so confident, so independent in your singing, in the music videos, the way

you discuss your relationship with your husband your music. And yet, you, like everyone else, has vulnerabilities. And in this era of social media,

especially for young women, what message do you want to send them? Because I know you, you still get impacted by some of the things that you see on

social media.

PRICE: Yes. I think, you know, having a daughter of my own really has reframed a lot for me, and it’s so easy to just feel like you’re not good

enough. I’ve tried to navigate my career and the platforms that I’ve tried to stand up for in a way that feels healthy. But, you know, we’re living in

very divisive times and I just — I want to be — I don’t know, I want to be someone that little girls can look up to and, you know, it’s OK to be

strong. It’s OK to speak your mind. It’s OK to be different. And it’s taken me a long time to realize that.

GOLODRYGA: Yes.

PRICE: Yes.

GOLODRYGA: It’s so important for your fans to hear that. You don’t shy away, as you noted, from expressing your political views on the album. You

sing, we played the jukebox, wild democracy fell. You’ve dealt with issues like abortion, the opioid crisis. Why is it important for you to speak out

politically through your music?

PRICE: Well, I have been given a platform and I want to do good with it. I’ve always wanted to kind of speak up for the common man. I came from

humble beginnings, just Midwest. You know, my father was a farmer. My mother was a school teacher.

And I mean, all across the country right now, I think, you know, the middle class is disappearing. There’s just so much injustice, and if you don’t

speak up about it, I just — I wouldn’t be able to sleep at night. I don’t know how — yes, I just — I don’t know how to not say something when I see

injustice. It’s just — it’s hard for me to be silent. And I’m sure it’s damaged my career, you know, maybe in the country music industry to —

GOLODRYGA: Do you think it has?

PRICE: — be more liberal. You know, I think there’s still a lot of gatekeeping that goes on, especially at country music radio and just the

establishment that is there in Nashville. It’s — you know, it’s a piece of the patriarchy. And so, when they see a woman that is speaking her mind and

standing up for what she believes in, I think it’s just easier to say like, OK, well we’re going to — we’re just going to keep that over there and try

to pretend like it’s not happening.

But I know that it’s making waves and, you know, people like Loretta Lynn who was speaking up about the pill. I mean, she was getting banned in

country radio. And it’s still is happening. I think it just happens a lot of times behind closed doors.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. I mean, I think back to even the Dixie Chicks, as they were referred to at the time, speaking out publicly, remember against the

war —

PRICE: Absolutely.

GOLODRYGA: — in Iraq and the backlash that they faced after that. So, when people say, whether it’s to musicians or athletes or actors, when they

speak out against current news headlines and policies and administrations to stay in their own lane, how would you respond to that?

PRICE: Well, I pay taxes and I’m a citizen of this country as well. I just — I don’t believe in being silent, especially during this time. We’ve got

to use our voice while we still have it.

GOLODRYGA: The common man and woman, that’s an important issue for you as well. You call Johnny Cash also an inspiration. And your work, looking back

at Farm Aid, I mean this is something that goes back to your roots. You say you come from humble beginnings. Father obviously in the Midwest. Your work

with other musicians and Farm Aid, talk about that for our viewers.

PRICE: Absolutely. Willie Nelson has just been such a great champion of what I do and I’m beyond honored to sit on the board of Farm Aid with him,

Neil Young, John Mellencamp.

GOLODRYGA: Dave Matthews.

PRICE: Dave Matthews. It’s an organization that I think is really ahead of its time and needed now more than ever. Farmers are really struggling. And

it feels good to give back. I saw what happened to my family when they lost their farm in the mid-1980s. It just — it wrecked him. And so, it feels

full circle to be on the board of Farm Aid and to get to play for farmers and raise money and help people maybe not lose their farms like my family

did.

GOLODRYGA: You’re getting very emotional just talking about that.

PRICE: I am, yes. It’s a cause that’s so near and dear to my heart. And Willie as well. He’s just been such an inspiration. He uses his voice in

such a beautiful way. And he does it out of love. And I think it takes a lot of courage for somebody in the country music establishment to, yes,

just speak up about things like that. And, so it is really an honor to sit next to him on the board of farming.

GOLODRYGA: When you talk to these families, how important is it in their reaction when you say, I not only sympathize and empathize with you, I’ve

been where you are, my family has been where you are, for them to hear that from someone like yourself?

PRICE: Yes. I think — I mean, it just, it feeds my soul to be there and I look forward to that show every single year just to be able to give back. I

am always talking to farmers in my community in Tennessee and where I’m from in Illinois.

And I mean, unfortunately, it’s just getting more and more difficult to farm, and we need these people. They’re the stewards of the land. It’s just

really — it’s really troubling to see people that we depend on so much, kind of being brushed aside. Yes, it’s — the community has to be together

and Farm Aid is — yes, it’s the most proud I’ve ever been of anything of my whole career.

GOLODRYGA: You and I were talking before about feeling more comfortable in our skin now, in our 40s.

PRICE: Yes.

GOLODRYGA: Than in our 30s or 20s. As a mother, you talk about the journey you’ve been through, the ups and downs, personal losses, losing a child,

and your sobriety now, and what a gift that has been for you. Again, that must resonate with so many of your fans that went through similar journeys

and struggles. Can you talk about where you are today?

PRICE: Yes. Grief is something that, you know, we all go through if we live long enough. And I’ve been able to bond with so many fans, so many

people who have lost children, lost parents, lost people that are close to them. I didn’t always deal with it in the best way. I think I was escaping

for so long because it was just too painful to even think about.

And you know, it’s going to sound very funny to say now that I’ve given up alcohol, but I think it absolutely saved my life because it just like —

you know, it numbed the pain and I needed that. But now, I’m able to like feel all the highs, all the lows, and I’m glad that I’ve come through it on

the other side. I never really thought that I would completely give up drinking because it was just such a part of my character and, you know,

like just it — I don’t even know. Like I was always like the fun party girl and wanted to keep up with all the guys, you know, just — it’s been

the best decision I’ve ever made.

GOLODRYGA: You’ve had a number of albums thus far, but I do wonder, each time you release a new one, is there a little bit of hesitation, some

nervousness about how your audience is going to react to this one, “Hardheaded Woman”?

PRICE: I think —

GOLODRYGA: Excitement?

PRICE: Yes. It’s always exciting to get music out that I’ve been working on for years. But I don’t know. I’ve kind to — I’ve kind of learned to let

go of other people’s expectations. I constantly have to remind myself why I started doing this. And it wasn’t to make other people happy, it was to,

you know, share a piece of myself. And if it connects with someone, great. If it doesn’t, that’s OK too. I’m not for everybody.

GOLODRYGA: Well, I have a feeling this is going to connect with a lot of people.

PRICE: Thank you.

GOLODRYGA: Margo Price, thank you so much. Thanks for taking the time. Congratulations on everything —

PRICE: Oh, happy to be here with you all. Thank you.

GOLODRYGA: — in your life right now.

PRICE: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GOLODRYGA: The only downside to speaking with Margo is having to bring that conversation to an end. I enjoyed every second of it.

GOLODRYGA: We turn now to a topic everyone is talking about, the dangers and potential of artificial intelligence. This rapidly advancing technology

is raising concerns around the world and is already becoming an unavoidable part of modern life. So, do we trust it? And how is it impacting our

relationships? Well, that’s the question our next guests are examining. Yasmin Green is the CEO of Jigsaw, a program supporting emerging

technologies at Google, and Anthropologist Gillian Tett is the head of King’s College Cambridge. They join Walter Isaacson to discuss their recent

piece for Foreign Affairs, exploring how A.I. represents a drastic change in human connection.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Bianna. And Yasmin Green and Gillian Tett, welcome to the show.

GILLIAN TETT, COLUMNIST, FINANCIAL TIMES: Great to be with you.

ISAACSON: The two of you have just written a piece in Foreign Affairs about trust and the A.I. revolution. Let me start with you, Yasmin, with a

very basic question, are A.I. chat bots replacing search? You work at Jigsaw, which is a unit of Google. So, you’re probably best placed to

answer that.

YASMIN GREEN, CEO, JIGSAW AT GOOGLE: Well, the paper actually looks at the evolution of trust over time, starting with when we lived in small

societies, we talk about eye level trust as we started to settle down and live in larger societies, we talk about the evolution of vertical trust and

institutions. The internet introduced this kind of new trust phenomenon that we call distributed trust. And then we talk about, well, what’s

happening now in this new era of A.I. and eventually AGI.

And we’re kind of exploring how, well, it’s often said that trust, you know, we don’t — we’re in a trustless world with post-trusts. You know,

trust is evaporated. And Gillian and I have really explored another possibility, which is that trust has migrated. And we’re looking to new

trust norms.

ISAACSON: And is this something specific with A.I. and large language models, or is this true for the whole internet phenomenon at the moment?

GREEN: Yes. So, that third trust era, the distributed trust, that was really what we saw with social media and the internet sometimes called Web

2.0. This idea that you would get into a cab with a complete stranger — you know, get into a car with a complete stranger, or go and rent

accommodation from someone you’ve never met or, you know, trade with people that you don’t know, that was all enabled by the internet. This idea that

platforms enabled us to have some trust. Like what is trust in that — you know, in that context? It is feeling that you, you know, belief in the

reliability of something in — whether it’s trade or transport, et cetera.

So, we saw something really that transformed who and how we trust with the internet. And what we explore in the piece is how this A.I. era, this era

of like chatbots that we can talk to, that talk back to us, that are available 24/7, that are personalized, that are private, that that really

is ushering in a new trust era beyond that of the internet.

ISAACSON: Yasmin has just talked about, Gillian, this notion of peer-to- peer trust that we see in Airbnb and Uber, she mentioned those things. Tell me how distributed trust works anthropologically.

GILLIAN TETT, COLUMNIST, FINANCIAL TIMES: Well, I’m an anthropologist by training. And the key point is this, people know that anthropologists study

culture. They sometimes think that culture is a bit like a Tupperware box in that it’s sealed and static and you can stack up different cultures on

top of each other in a hierarchy of value, and of course, assume that your own culture is the most valuable.

But anthropologists actually have a different vision of culture, which is that it’s more like a river that’s slow moving and constantly changing with

new streams coming in. And that applies to the issue of, say, you’ve mentioned earlier about, search versus bots. I mean, the reality is that

our digital culture is in constant flux. And right now, the question of who we trust is also in flux.

And traditionally, anthropologists assume that there were two axis of trust that glued societies together, either face-to-face trust, if you like,

eyeball to eyeball peer group trust, or when groups got really big, you had to trust in vertical axis in leaders and institutions because you couldn’t

eyeball everybody.

But now, digital links are essentially creating a whole new type of trust, which is peer-to-peer trust on a massive scale that’s not bounded by

geographical proximity anymore. And that’s really at the heart of what we’re arguing that our culture, our digital culture is slowly evolving like

a river. And right now, that horizontal trust, distributed trust is incredibly important to think about.

ISAACSON: But when you talk about peer-to-peer trust, you’re talking about interpersonal, in other words, human beings distributing trust. How has

that changed by A.I. in the equation?

TETT: Well, here’s a key issue that, as I say, distributed trust has emerged as a really important platform, really since the internet took

hold, and that’s underpinned things like the rise of Airbnb or Uber or many other tools that we use today. But that doesn’t stay still either.

So, introducing A.I. into this equation is creating a new form of trust where essentially you can have A.I. acting, as I say, like the four Ms. You

can have them — our vision of A.I. has historically been that as a master is coming to us from a vertical axis, bossing us around and telling us what

to do, or you can have A.I. as this kind of mate, one of our gang, one of our friends, or you can have A.I. as a mirror to ourselves, or you can have

A.I. as a moderator, where essentially, they’re using all of the digital tools available to moderate conversations between human beings, and they

can all play a role today.

So, it’s not just a question of whether or not we trust A.I., it’s really about, do we trust the idea that A.I. tools might actually make it easier

for humans to trust other humans, or at least to interact with them in a way that could build trust?

ISAACSON: Now, Yasmin, I think one of the main outlets from what I read is TikTok, of course. We all use it, but Gen Z uses it probably more than the

rest of us. Explain how that changes things.

GREEN: If a Gen Z consistently reads certain news outlets, it’s because they believe in individual journalists as opposed to they’re following the

individual journalist as opposed to the brand of the institution of the media outlet. And so, that kind of helps you understand the rise of newsy

social media influencers, news influencers who are delivering their interpretation of the news. It’s not, you know, investigative reporting,

it’s really opinion and off the back of actually the investigative reporting of news institutions.

But the reason that social signal matters so much to Gen Z is that they believe in people who look and sound like them. Influencers that go viral

on social media, they speak to you like we’re in a one-on-one conversation with words. You understand — with references, you understand, and there’s

a trust, there’s an authenticity. It’s almost like the tension between authority and authenticity, that authority used to trump everything in a

vertical trust world of institutions. And increasingly, especially Gen Z, really subscribe to authenticity as a reason to trust.

ISAACSON: Does this shift lead to more conspiracy theories?

GREEN: Yes, yes. There’s a paper that we talk about in our own essay that was done by researchers at MIT and elsewhere. So, it’s called — they’re

like actually the you can go and find it online. It’s called Debunk Bot. And they used LLM. So, now let’s talk about what’s powerful about this LLM

moment and where — what are the — where’s the promise that we should be investing in as we try to make the LLM era, you know, work for us and as

individuals in our society.

And they recruited four conspiracy theorists. And they gave them some back and forth interactions with a chatbot. And they found that after just two

or three back and forths, people on average recorded having 20 percent less strong beliefs in conspiracy theories, and that those effects endured over

months.

And the interesting thing — so people would explain why they believed in chem trails. You know, I can see the exhaust of the plane and I know the

government engages in mind control. And then the LLM went back and forth and talked about, well that’s — you know, it’s called contrails, it’s

condensation. And just engaged with them.

The quotes were so powerful about people’s experience during the studies where they said, well, I’ve never had such a, you know, helpful

conversation where someone’s explained it to me so well, and that’s because people have — you know, we associate that others have an agenda when

they’re trying to communicate with us. This is like the — some of the, I think, prejudice against experts or institutions and that they felt the

chat bot was neutral. They felt the chat bot was a safe space for them to really have, you know, back and forth engagement.

What we talk about in our paper is some of the promise that, like, how can we use chatbots? One of the examples, which is from the University of

Bingham, some academics who were supporting at Jigsaw, is they’re using A.I. to help people communicate who would — who otherwise disagree. So,

you think, you know, one of the most incredible uses of A.I. that it’s so incredible and so prevalent we hardly refer to it as A.I. anymore, is

language translation. Google Translate. Helps — you know, you can speak to anyone in the world despite not knowing the same language.

Well, that’s not really the cause of most conflict is not that we don’t speak the same language, it’s actually that we don’t have the same

worldview. The reason that dialogue breaks down is that I don’t know where you’re coming from and I can’t explain to you where I’m coming from and I

can’t explain to you where I’m coming from in a way that lands.

So, this study is looking at the power of LLMs to enable people not to do language translation, but social language translation. Can I be — can your

viewpoint be explained to me in values that I understand and back and forth?

ISAACSON: Well, wait. Give me a concrete example of that, like what you did in Bowling Green, Kentucky.

GREEN: OK. Well, Bowling Green is our latest project at Jigsaw directly where we used LLMs to bring the entire — so Bowling Green is the fastest

growing town in the amazing State of Kentucky, doubling in size of the next 20 years. Their judge executive, the — essentially the mayor, Doug Gorman,

realized that this change was — you know, was really going to upend society if he didn’t bring people together to help them chart their future.

But there is no way to bring a hundred thousand people together and have a single conversation, right?

The internet actually didn’t deliver that for us. Like social media didn’t help us have very productive, large conversations. So, we worked with Doug

Gorman, innovation engine and local leaders in Kentucky to basically do an A.I. enabled town hall.

So, previously, when they had done town halls in Bowling Green, Kentucky, they had about eight or nine people attend. When we worked with them to

invite anyone to participate in a virtual town hall, they had 8,000 people. So, a thousand times the participation, a million opinions expressed,

thousands of policy proposals. And we used A.I. to help the judge executive make sense of it all.

And the thing that was so stunning, other than the themes of the things they wanted was that for more than half of the policy proposals there was

near universal agreement. So, it’s like we can — you know, I think we — we’re in this world where we felt that social media hasn’t really served us

in bringing us together as people. But I think the LLM era holds promise to do that.

ISAACSON: Gillian, the whole notion of social media, the digital revolution, LLMs, was that it was going to connect us, it was going to make

us more united. That clearly didn’t work. From an anthropological perspective, what causes divisiveness and is that built into these

technologies or even the business and algorithms, these technology use?

TETT: Well, that is such a great question, because I spent a lot of time talking to the founders of Twitter. And there, when they originally created

Twitter, they imagined it as being a bit like a sort of cyber bar where everyone just kind of bumped into everyone else and hung together as a

great big, happy mass. And one of the reasons they actually had that little bird twitter on Twitter was because they imagined everyone flocking

together in a great big happy group sort of singing kumbaya.

And the reality is that the minute that Twitter became so popular that you had vast numbers on the platform, you began to have massive fragmentation,

which is really about this fundamental human urge to hang together with people who look like you and to choose who to hang with.

Now, in the real world, you can’t do that most of the time because you are essentially constrained by geography, your workplace, your family, your

identity is kind of handed to you, and so is your social group. But the crucial thing to understand about the internet is that when we go online,

we have, for the first time in history, the ability to fashion identity exactly as we want, and to customize, to pick and mix exactly who we want

to hang with and how we present ourselves. It’s the ultimate pick and mix tool, if you like.

And people tend to pick and mix themselves into tribes that reflect the real-world tribalism, but actually intensify it because of this

customization.

ISAACSON: Well, wait. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

TETT: Well, it’s both. Like all innovations have a good side and a bad side, whether you’re talking about electricity, nuclear power, anything

else. And the good thing is it feels empowering. You can find your peeps across a really wide geographical area. So, people in the past who might

have felt quite isolated because they were the only person in that village who was like them can suddenly feel a sense of solidarity. The bad side is

that people start self-selecting into tribal groups.

And because big tech is able to create an architecture that essentially sends you down rabbit holes of your own choosing, that has reinforced the

tribalism dramatically. So, what we’re trying to say is we are not sugar coating the dangers of what’s going on whatsoever. We all know about that.

You know, we’ve all read Jonathan Haidt’s book on “The Anxious Generation.” All the other things out there pointing the dangers, and A.I. brings

dangers. That’s definitely out there. But there’s another side of it, which is that, as Yasmin says, A.I. bots may be more neutral in a world of human

tribalism than we realize, and that might start to have really interesting positive benefits if we master our use of A.I. and the bots rather than a

mastered by it.

And maybe one way to start is instead of saying artificial intelligence, which sound like something which is imposed on us, often from the top, we

start talking about augmented intelligence or accelerated intelligence, which gives the idea that we as humans can use these tools for both a sense

of agency and possibly even for good, to unleash the angels of our better nature, if you like, rather than the demons that we’ve had so visibly on

display in recent years.

ISAACSON: Yasmin Green, Gillian Tett, thank you both for joining us.

TETT: Thank you.

GREEN: Cheers.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GOLODRYGA: And that is it for us for now. Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.