Right, we've got really an amazing lineup this afternoon. We're gonna have a good time. First up, uh, we have the future of news, how creators and influencers are reshaping journalism. Of course, we know the future of news is not just being shaped by journalists, but by these creators and influencers who really command massive audiences. They, they set the agenda. They do things that traditional media, you know, sometimes struggles to do, but it does all raise new questions. about accountability and about trust. This panel is all about that. So, without further ado, I'd like to welcome to the stage the moderator from the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Director Mitali Mukherjee, who will introduce the panel. Let's give them a round of applause.
Thank you.
Wow, look at this. Here we are.
It's so formal.
I know, everybody's so like well-behaved, right? And quiet. Hi everybody. Wow, how are you guys?
Everybody's so quiet. Hi, good evening. It's good to see a full house. Uh, I'm Mitali Mukherjee. I'm director of the Reuters Institute for Journalism, a part of the University of Oxford. It's a pleasure to see everyone here. It's been a fantastic day, I think. I've been sort of soaking in a lot of conversations around economics, business, finance, news. And I think where we come from as an institute is that the core of what we focus on, which we think is a critical component, is the audience. And some of our research over the past couple of years has been focusing on exactly what you're going to hear from these bright folks, which is what's happening in terms of a shift amongst audiences towards what we call, as a broad bracket, news creators. But that tends to bring in a lot within it. So one of the things that we have been seeing over the last few years is that increasingly young audiences especially have been turning to spaces that are online, so primarily social media platforms, and turning to individuals rather than organizations, which is news creators. They have an impact on public debate. They have a large audience. They tend to have quite often clear political sides, and our audiences do sort of identify with that. And this isn't a phenomenon that we're seeing worldwide, but it is something that is beginning to grow in terms of its heft. So you certainly saw that in the pre-election campaign with Donald Trump, and you are beginning to see that in countries like France. You're seeing it in other parts of global majority countries like India. as well. So very, very fascinating trends. That's what we're going to dive into over the course of the next very snappy 40 minutes. And I've got some bright stars here, some of whom did the introductions for themselves. But maybe I will give this a shot. So please introduce with generous applause, first and foremost, FTMM founder, Tala Panmieri, Daily Wire co-founder and The Ben Shapiro Show host Ben Shapiro, Lemon Media Network founder Don Lemon, and The David Pakman Show host David Pakman. Thank you very much, all of you, for joining in. So we're going to make the best use of our time, and let's start with a crunchy sort of context-setting conversation for those who may not have come across your work. Tara, maybe I'll start with you. a little bit about sort of your journey to here, why you chose to, because you are one of those who was sort of in the traditional news media space and then shifted to going solo, why you chose to do that and how you sort of differentiate or define the work that you're doing now versus what you were doing earlier.
Young audiences turn to individuals over organizations. The crux: Young audiences increasingly turn to individual creators with clear political sides rather than to news organizations: defend or rebut.
Mukherjee advances and supports the claim with institute research that young audiences turn to individual creators with clear political sides.
I would say that I am now chasing the audience because the audience is no longer watching television anymore. They are on their phones, they're watching YouTube, they're on Instagram, they're on TikTok. And I started doing this a few years ago when I joined Puck. I was at Politico where I wrote a newsletter, which was how people were getting their news, and they still are. And then I made my way to Puck, and then I had a podcast with The Ringer there. And this just felt like the next evolution to have a YouTube show and to have a Substack when that is how so many people are getting their news, and then creating reels and shorts for X and, you know, Instagram and TikTok. And I felt that I could apply the same rigor of investigative journalism, analysis, just seeking the truth, and that being my, my guiding force and light in this, rather than politics, commentary, you know, identity. I really feel like what I am seeking is the same thing that I did at a newsroom that, like ABC News, where I worked, or Politico, or the New York Post, or the Washington Examiner. I just have... I now have the ability as an independent journalist to pursue the stories I want to without having to, you know, think about, does this fit into the identity of a network, or is this something that my editors would like? I can just chase the stories that I've always wanted to and, and, you know, have really anyone I want on to, to interview and, and pursue accountability journalism. And I think I've been doing this for 17 years, so I understand standards of journalism, and I understand how to break through with real reporting. And I'm just using creator platforms now, and I'm using some of the tools that they have used and become so great at, like the authenticity, the showing of the process, talking through with the audience, creating a dialogue. I see that that has really worked to rebuild trust, and I think, why not do that with traditional journalism.
Independent creator journalism keeps newsroom rigor. The crux: Independent creator journalism can apply the same investigative rigor and truth-seeking as a legacy newsroom while using creator tools: defend it or rebut it.
Palmeri defends the proposition directly, claiming she applies newsroom-standard investigative rigor and truth-seeking using creator tools.
And what's the story arc, if you will?
I mean, the story arc is that obviously I'm an opinion journalist. My opinion is very clear to people. I'm openly conservative. I don't try to hide the ball on that. I don't pretend at objectivity. I try to separate between what I think are the facts, which very often is relying on traditional news gathering sources, and then my opinion, which I'm drawing on, you know, my ideology or my centralized values. I've been doing this for quite a long time. I started writing a syndicated column when I was 17. The Daily Wire launched about a decade ago in my co-founder Jeremy Boreing's pool house with a couple of podcasts. Obviously, my podcast grew to be quite large. Our company currently does $200 million a year in revenue and is quite a large conservative media company with a reportorial contingent. We have some investigative reporters. We have a White House reporter, but remains a largely opinion-based outlet. And so our audience understands who we are, and because of that, they know that we're not hiding the ball. We're not trying to lie about— you know, where we are coming from. The news is refracted through a prism of our values. And again, I try to be very clear on my own show between what is fact and what is my opinion. But I think that that's part of the trust that I have with the audience.
Would it be fair to say you've moved on from the news creator to a standalone brand?
I think that that is fair, although I think that the, you know, the silos there are probably a little bit overdrawn. I don't know what it would mean to be a news creator as opposed to a standalone brand. I think you can be a news creator within the standalone brand or vice versa.
Don Lemon.
Yes.
The story. Lemonheads, is that what you encourage your followers to call you?
That's good.
Yeah, the Lemonheads.
Yeah, tell us the story.
So what's the question? What do you—
What's the story of why you decided to transition away from mainstream media, a space like CNN?
+4 C-3.1 · Direct answer to a hard question · Don Lemon
Well, I got pushed out of mainstream media, so.
Just as long as I'm not saying it and you are.
But honestly, no, it's okay. I mean, it's reality, and I'm about that and about truth. But I mean, if you, you know, One of my— the CMO of my former company said, you know that if you open the— you are a walking definition of a blessing in disguise. Because I think I got out at the right time.
↳ P10 raised again here · first raised at U-024
↳ evidence for the P10 verdict on Don Lemon · ruling prints at U-024
Mm-hmm.
And I know that in the coming months, in the coming years, there are going to be people who will have to do— they'll be forced to do what I'm doing now. I didn't have to do this, but I still had more to say. But so I— what I'm doing is I'm going where the audience is, and the audience is right here. or on, you know, a tablet, and less so on giant televisions, even though my audience, when I look at my analytics, most people watch me on television.
Cable/traditional news in structural decline. The crux: Traditional/cable news is in a structural decline that will push more journalists into independent creation: defend or rebut.
↳ P9 raised again here · first raised at U-026
Lemon defends the structural-decline thesis, predicting others will be forced into independent creation.
↳ evidence for the P9 verdict on Don Lemon · ruling prints at U-026
Mm-hmm.
I think it's like 44%, and there's like 42% who watch me on a smartphone, and then, you know, it goes on from there to tablets or whatever. But I'm going where the audience is, and I think that people want personality, Now, they're not getting news from a brand or letters or whatever. They're coming for people who are authentic, people they trust, people they like, and they don't need the filter of a face full of makeup or a cocktail dress or a suit and/or hair that's over-hairsprayed and a shiny desk and flashing. They want to get their information from people they like and trust without all the filters. That's what I'm doing right now. I'm just leaning, I don't even have a desk anymore, because I don't want that between me and my audience.
Audiences want authentic individuals, not filters. The crux: Audiences increasingly want news from trusted, authentic individuals without the 'filters' (desk, makeup, corporate polish) of legacy TV: defend or rebut.
↳ P21 raised again here · first raised at U-032
Lemon defends the claim that audiences want trusted, authentic individuals without the legacy filters, including removing his desk.
The barrier.
No barrier.
David, were you thrown out? Did you write a newsletter?
I wasn't thrown out, no, very different path.
Wasn't quite thrown, I was, like, pushed.
No, I, I, I came more from the business world, actually, and I saw a lot of my MBA colleagues becoming bankers, financial advisors, private equity people, and that did not appeal to me. So I was able to take a year and say, I'm going to try to see if this could be a viable business. And if it's not, maybe I'll end up as a financial advisor after all. And fortunately for me, that didn't happen. And I started early enough that it's been interesting— you talk about the desk. There's been this transition where there are these communicators of authority and credibility that have really changed over time, because there was a point when I started where, if it didn't look like you were on a CNN set, there was an instant judgment from the audience that this is not credible. And that has really changed over time. In fact, to the point where audiences like mine, and maybe some of yours, they see that kind of more traditional, staid look, and they say, this feels stuffy. I actually want something different. And I think that we've benefited from timing and also technologically, widespread high-speed internet access, a 95% reduction in the cost of the audiovisual equipment that we use. All of those things happened for me at an incredibly convenient time, where I was able to take a shot at this that would have been impossible 20, 30 years ago.
Traditional 'CNN-set' look now reads as stuffy. The crux: The traditional 'CNN-set' look that once signaled credibility is now read by audiences as stuffy/less credible: defend or rebut.
Pakman defends the claim that the once-credible CNN-set look now reads as stuffy to audiences.
My channel was stagnant when I started. I started, I rented this big studio in Midtown and spent all this money and lights or whatever, and so it was fine, but it wasn't growing. And I— one day I said, you know what? I'm just going to sit in my living room in front of the fireplace, and I'm going to do a show every day called Live at Five. It wasn't new. Anyone remember Sue Simmons and Chuck Scarborough back in the '80s or whatever, '70s, doing Live at Five? And that's when the audience started to grow, when I put on a sweatshirt and sat in front of my fireplace and just started talking, not at them, but to them. but kind of with them, and taking the comments, and doing stories that they were interested in doing. And that's when my channel started to grow.
↳ P9 raised again here · first raised at U-026
Do you have a sense of the demographics of your audience mix? What does it look like?
My audience is heavily women, mostly women, but probably it's about 60% women, maybe even 70% women, the rest guys. The interesting thing is that people in traditional media, corporate media, they're constantly chasing the young demo, which is great because I do have a young demo, but the, you know, I guess a blessing for me is coming from cable news where the demo is much older. So now when we have like open enrollment for healthcare, they're looking for me, or in Medicare, they're looking for someone who has an older demographic. So I just think right now is a boon and an opportunity for us, and I don't think it's an— I know it's not an opportunity for people who are in traditional corporate media.
↳ P10 raised again here · first raised at U-024
Yeah, and I want to keep dipping into our research just to provide some perspective to this conversation, which is that in the US as a market, around a quarter of the audiences that we surveyed said that they turned to news creators for the news, which is almost equal to the number of people who said they turned to traditional news brands. So very much neck and neck in the US as a market. And that still puts it in the middle of the range. There are markets where news creators have sort of outpaced. And of course, there are markets where news creators still remain far behind from traditional news brands. But Ben, let me ask you this. If you were to drill it down to what you think is the USP of what you present and what's resonating with your audience, what would you point to?
↳ P20 raised again here · first raised at U-006
↳ evidence for the P20 verdict on Mitali Mukherjee · ruling prints at U-006
Values authenticity. So I think that the word authenticity has come up a lot, and obviously I think that is the correct word. The problem with authenticity is that it is not really a substitute for credibility, meaning there are lots and lots of people on the internet who are authentic and who are absolutely non-credible and spew bullshit all the time, for lack of a better word. And their authenticity can be pure. I mean, absolutely pure. They absolutely believe the bullshit that they're spewing at any given time. And so if an audience links up with that, they're going to get a bunch of bad information. And so actually, I think that the sort of moral duty of people in our space is actually higher than maybe it would be in a system that has more checks and balances, like a major news network or some sort of outlet. And so something that I personally try to take very seriously is the idea that I do have an audience. I'm speaking to them. It's my job to make them smarter, not stupider. It's my job to— provide them with some level of context and knowledge, and not just to say the things that may affirm their worldview, even if it feels good to them and feels good to me, and may even, in fact, be helpful to the numbers, to sort of just reaffirm whatever the viewer wants to hear.
Authenticity is not credibility; higher moral duty. The crux: Authenticity is not a substitute for credibility, and independent creators bear a higher moral duty than legacy outlets with institutional checks: defend or rebut.
↳ P3 raised again here · first raised at U-052
Shapiro affirms both halves of the crux: authenticity is not credibility, and creators carry a higher moral duty than checked institutions.
↳ evidence for the P3 verdict on Ben Shapiro · ruling prints at U-058
How do you construct that firewall, if you will, of what sort of the rules of the game are, or what the moral rules are? And are you transparent about communicating that to the audiences? Is that something you sort of work at?
I mean, sure. I mean, my audience, I think, has known me for a while. Again, I'd be sort of the legacy side of the new media, because my company is now a decade old, which means it's actually one of the older new media companies in many ways.
Mm-hmm.
Because of that, I think that, as I said, my broadcasting and my coverage is refracted through a set of values. I prize my values more than I prize political victory. And so what that means is that I'm willing to call out my own side when I feel that that's necessary. I obviously am conservative. It means I'm going to be more critical of people who are on the left because I disagree with their ideas more. But I think that what my audience expects from me and would be disappointed in me if I did not do is speak the truth even when it applied to figures who are purportedly on quote-unquote our side.
↳ P2 raised again here · first raised at U-037
↳ evidence for the P2 verdict on Ben Shapiro · ruling prints at U-037
Hmm. Tara, talk to us a little bit about the platforms and this video storytelling which happens even in sort of very audio-native formats. It's still streaming live on YouTube while you're doing a podcast. Was that an interesting shift to make? Why do you think there is the need to do that, to sort of play to both tracks while speaking to the audience?
I think Tara's streaming now, aren't you?
I am streaming. I am streaming right now, yeah. I think— I mean, if you're already recording a podcast, why wouldn't you just put the video on? People don't really demand, like Don said, a higher quality in terms of— I mean, I do it out of my house as well. I actually got the advice from Don. Don't get a studio, it's a waste of money. I have some lights, could pack them up in a car, and, you know, you could do a traveling studio. I do think that the audience, they appreciate seeing you in your home. I mean, I'll get notes about my plants and stuff like that, but they see pictures of me, of my journey through life behind me, my ancestors, my trips, my reporting journeys. I just think it's a way to get into your world. I mean, they're kind of buying into you whether you like it or not.
Mm-hmm.
And since I'm newer to the independent media world, people are still getting to know me. And sometimes I think, like, the audience can be disappointed if they think, oh, well, you know, you seem to be too tough on someone who is on the left, or too tough on someone who is on the right, and they're confused. And I think, like, the audience is trying to understand. I'm like, no, no, no, no, no, I'm not here to reaffirm your worldview. You know, I'm not here to feed you content that you want or only present facts that reaffirm your point of view. I'm just going to interview the person in front of me the same way that I would no matter who they are, and whatever the facts bring me, I will you know bring to you. And this is the problem: like you can chase an audience, and you can tell them exactly what they want to hear. But is that is that ethical? I mean, not to me. If that was the only way that I could have a channel, then I wouldn't do it. But I believe there are people out there that. that is based in, you know, just actually traditional journalism, but without the corporate hierarchy and all of the politics that you have to go through to just get a story actually published. I mean, I've worked in newsrooms before, some of the biggest newsrooms in the world. It can be really hard.
↳ P1 raised again here · first raised at U-007
↳ P3 raised again here · first raised at U-052
Palmeri denies the ethics of telling the audience what it wants and affirms interviewing wherever the facts lead.
↳ evidence for the P1 verdict on Tara Palmeri · ruling prints at U-007
Yeah.
And they are very timid when it comes to the facts. And sometimes you just need to be able to say the facts. And, you know, the audiences, they'll, they'll, they'll listen to you. They'll figure out if you're for them or they're not. But last time I checked, there are millions— what is it, 200 million people on YouTube? They'll find you.
It's the largest TV network.
It's number one TV network.
Yeah. I'd rather be there than on TV.
To piggyback on what Ben and Tara said about making a choice about authenticity, feeding the audience what they want, et cetera, I had kind of a tough moment with a part of my audience in the lead-up to the last election, where I think it must have been September or something like that, where I looked at the polling, and I said, listen, we can kind of— about the way this is going, but the polling is worse for Kamala Harris in the 7 key swing states than it was for Biden in 2020. It's worse than it was for Hillary in 2016. This just object— I'm just doing— it's not even arithmetic. It's just, I'm looking at numbers and telling you what they are. And a very loud, but I think probably small slice of my audience said that we need positivity, that this is not what the moment calls for. And it was a really interesting moment, because I could have just gone back to, guys, this looks great, get out the vote.
Report hard facts vs feed audience what it wants. The crux: Reporting facts the audience doesn't want (rather than affirming content) is the ethical and long-term-sustainable choice for a creator: defend, rebut, or qualify.
Pakman recounts reporting unfavorable polling against audience demand for positivity, defending fact-reporting as the right choice.
Yeah.
It just wasn't what it was. And I think that's a very important thing And depending on where you are in your career, and kind of like where your show is in terms of maturity, it could be very tempting to kind of go back to what's the easiest thing for your audience.
↳ evidence for the P3 verdict on David Pakman · ruling prints at U-052
Because everything is so immediate. If you're doing a YouTube show, I do a live show. When I started, no one wanted video. And I mean, it hasn't even been 2 years. I started about a year and a half, a little over a year and a half ago, and I was pitching my show around, and no one wanted video. And then now everyone wants video. Now people are open to live. People are doing lives, and before it was like, do, you know, and you can, you know, edit it, and it looks better. Now people are open to live. So it's— everything is evolving. So I just think that you have to adapt. And he's right. During the election, I would go out, because I wanted to hear what people were saying. And I didn't get to do that when I was sitting on a big, shiny anchor desk, unless they, you know, transported you into— teleported you into a certain place. And so I went out to the swing states, and I was able to talk to people.
And you were on the ground.
battleground states and just talk to people. And then I started getting calls from Fox News and Newsmax, and, oh my gosh, you're getting a lot of Trump out there. You must be really sad. I'm like, no, I'm not. It's a lot of Trump. People are going to— saying they're voting for Trump in places and demographics that you didn't think would be saying that. And I got the same thing. Don, are you curating that? We don't want to hear that. And I was like, I'm sorry, I've got to give you the facts. So you can be pressured into having a bias towards just feeding people what they want, whether that's left or right, and you have to fight against that.
↳ P3 raised again here · first raised at U-052
Lemon affirms reporting facts over feeding the audience and names the pressure to be resisted.
In the short term, it's a hit, but in the long term, it's actually an asset. A recipe for disaster. Yeah, because in the short term, the easy incentive is to go for the sugar high of giving the audience precisely what they want, but you actually lose your authenticity. You lose what you are when you do that.
↳ P3 raised again here · first raised at U-052
Shapiro affirms that giving the audience what it wants sacrifices authenticity, defending fact-reporting as the long-term choice.
Because after the election, people say, Don, you saw it, you called it.
Right.
And they respect you for that, and they come back because then they realize you were actually telling them the truth.
Yeah, let me ask you this, David, and then I can get thoughts from all of you and you, Ben, specifically. One of the other things that we see in the US as a market is sort of the polarized nature of how people identify with some of the creators. So if you were to draw down a list between how people identified politically, they would name a wholly different list of 15 personalities if they were right-leaning versus when they were left-leaning. Do you think that's reflecting an industry dynamic Or do you think that's how the ecosystem has developed online?
Well, I think it's both. I think from the creator perspective, you're starting with, what are your values? And hopefully, at least, if it's not contrived, what is authentically you? And then that's going to put you somewhere on the political spectrum. I think, without a doubt, the way that algorithms engage directly with what triggers the most emotional response is a direct driver of the hyperpolarized nature. And, you know, I'm guilty of it to a degree because I'm in this space. I also try to be honest with my audience about when it comes to things like gas prices and whether a president controls them. I'm very honest that this is overly politicized. It becomes a political football. And the truth is presidents can do a couple of things related to gas prices, and it's mostly not about that. And so I try to balance the fact that I do have a perspective, I do have an opinion from a moral standpoint about what I think is best, but at the same time, I'm trying to be upfront about the fact that there are things that are completely political. There are things that are outside of that, and hopefully the audience appreciates that over the long term.
↳ P4 raised again here · first raised at U-067
+4.5 C-2.1 · Common ground · Ben Shapiro
Yeah.
The algorithms are destroying America. This is my informed view.
↳ P4 raised again here · first raised at U-067
↳ evidence for the P4 verdict on Ben Shapiro · ruling prints at U-067
Sounds like it should go in.
Yeah, I mean, there we go. Don, look at us come together as soon as— So the reason I say this is because the TikTok and X algorithms in particular program for virality. Yes. And so they are programming for what is the strongest response. And it can be manipulated. Absolutely, can be manipulated by outside actors. You've actually seen quite a bit of this on both TikTok as well as X. But people who are then in the real world use that as a substitute for polling. For example, you see politicians, and if they get a lot of retweets, they think what they're saying is popular, and then they do more of it. And so you'll see it bleed over into the real world. Trends that you would never get if you just walked around and talked to normal humans suddenly start popping up when you talk around with normal humans because They've been watching it online, and it's been really, really pushed. And so, you know, when people say, how do we get back to normal? My first recommendation is to do something that actually is the opposite of what our industry should be saying, which is get offline. Like, actually turn off your phone and go to a place with actual human beings and have conversations with those people. And, you know, this is where I make my non-religious religious pitch. Everybody needs a form of Sabbath. You should get off your phone on Friday night. You should get back on your phone on Saturday night. and just be completely disconnected from everything that's going on, and be in a place where everybody who you know is, you know, bonding over values and over shared things. That the more online we are, the more polarized we are. And I think that's been the opposite of the way that we've viewed politics for decades in the country. The more informed you are, the better the electorate's going to be. And it turns out that because our informational ecosystem is so polluted, and because it is actually programming to the id inside all of us, What that means is that probably the more time you're spending on X or the more time you're spending on TikTok, maybe the less informed you are and also the more polarized you are and the more out of touch with reality you are.
Algorithms drive polarization / online = less informed. The crux: Social algorithms optimize for virality and outrage and make heavier users less informed and more polarized: defend it or rebut it.
Get offline / a 'Sabbath' as depolarizing remedy. The crux: Regularly disconnecting from phones and social ('a Sabbath') is the practical remedy to depolarize the electorate: defend or rebut.
Shapiro affirms the crux with a mechanism: algorithms program for virality, and heavier use leaves users less informed and more polarized.
Shapiro defends disconnecting ('a Sabbath') as the practical depolarizing remedy.
That's true. People think that they live on— I have a producer who lives on Twitter, and every time I ask him for something, he goes to Twitter. And I said, do you ever do research other than Twitter?
Touch some grass.
Yeah, touch some grass. But I do. It's interesting that, Ben, you say that because I do every single day. I tell people, Because I'm on, I go live at 10 and 5, and I tell them between that, they can be informed without being inundated. They can read. And until then, I tell them, until I see you at 5 o'clock, turn the TV off. And I mean—
↳ P5 raised again here · first raised at U-067
Only watch you at 10 and 5.
But I mean, turn the TV off or turn your— Watch his livestream. And read and pick your moments. But I rarely do content. Every once in a while, I'll do weekend content, because I think it's important to give people a break. And I do think that people should be in community with each other. And that's something that we should all be pushing. It doesn't, you know, you don't make that much more revenue or become that much more successful by constantly pushing even on the weekends content, content, content. I think you give people a break and make them want you, you know.
↳ P5 raised again here · first raised at U-067
↳ evidence for the P5 verdict on Ben Shapiro · ruling prints at U-067
And the 2 big platforms in the US are X and YouTube. That's kind of the spaces where people are driven to.
Although TikTok's enormous.
TikTok's enormous, but it's probably got a bit more. It's not sort of hardcore news, if you will. It's people looking at lifestyle, culture, other things. Things as well. And within X and YouTube, there is sort of a primary preponderance, if you will, of right-wing identified voices. Is there a reason you think for that? Do you think they've sort of moved ahead of the curve and there's more faces emerging from the left? What do you put that down to?
Why right-wing voices predominate on platforms. The crux: The predominance of right-leaning top creators is explained by the right adapting first to new platforms after being shut out of legacy media: defend, rebut, or offer an alternative.
I mean, I think that you see this quite frequently in terms of new technologies, that the right is the first to adapt because they feel shut out of traditional spaces. So, for example, the right was very shut out of TV spaces. Cable emerges, Fox News emerges because the right's like, okay, we need some place to And then after cable becomes, you know, more balanced, MSNBC comes up and CNN. And once you have all those outlets, then the right is like, okay, well, you know, maybe we'll have to try talk radio. Talk radio is now going to be our new thing. It's in the '90s, the early '90s, you get that. So the timeline's off here, but that's basically the idea. When the right feels squeezed in a particular legacy space, they're the first to adapt to a new space. And so for me, you know, my op-eds weren't going to be appearing in the New York Times. And so the idea of start your own online outlet is a lot more attractive than somebody who is going to have access to the New York Times. I mean, I'm old enough to remember when Tara's former employer, Politico, invited me to write a newsletter for Politico, and there was basically a riot in the newsroom because how dare I write the holy and sanctified Politico morning newsletter. And so the right is the first to adapt. And then what happens is that people realize there's a market there, and they move into that market. And then a new market emerges. So I think there's definitely something to that for sure.
↳ P6 raised again here · first raised at U-075
Shapiro defends the thesis that the right adapts first to new platforms when squeezed out of legacy spaces.
I think that's true. But the left has also been very hesitant to really fund a lot of these operations at a bigger level. And that, I think, has held back also the independent left spaces, where it's mostly people like me who are just building slowly over time. And there really hasn't been any large influx, or especially with younger people as they get into the age where you might think about starting to produce content, it's been missing. And a lot of my colleagues have said we all would have— could have gotten going far more quickly on some of these platforms if someone had recognized the potential. had come in more rapidly to fill the gap that was then subsequently created as the right came in. There just really hasn't been that funding.
Left lagged in independent media due to underfunding. The crux: The left/center lagged in independent media chiefly because funders declined to invest (assuming they 'already own' CNN/MSNBC): defend or rebut.
Pakman engages via the branch the crux allows, offering an alternative/complementary explanation about left-side underfunding.
Pakman defends his own thesis that underfunding held the left back and that funders were slow to see legacy media's declining power.
It's a short side on the left, or even center. If you're on the right, what is it, Red Seed Ventures or something? Like a red seed—
You're talking about the company that's associated with Fox News?
Yeah, Red Seed Ventures.
You have the, you know, pouring money into conservative spaces, and you don't see that on the left, or even center-left, or even center-right.
↳ P7 raised again here · first raised at U-077
They're starting to.
They're starting to.
They have these like packs now. What is it called that all of these creators are a part of?
Chorus.
They're all getting supported through these packs.
But not nearly to the—
+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption · Tara Palmeri
No, they're behind, but they didn't need it because they could just go to cable news and get interviews over and over and over.
↳ P7 raised again here · first raised at U-077
This is really the key, is that a lot of people who would be funders for these sorts of enterprises are like, well, why do I need to fund that? We already own CNN or MSNBC.
↳ P7 raised again here · first raised at U-077
That's true.
I think they were behind the curve in realizing that the power of that was diminishing.
↳ evidence for the P7 verdict on David Pakman · ruling prints at U-077
+3 C-2.1 · Common ground · Ben Shapiro
I totally agree with you.
Tara, one question to you before we move from sort of context setting to challenges, which I'm sure there are many of. What also sort of comes through in a lot of our research, and this isn't unique just to the US as a market, is that if you were to map out the top few creators, most often it would be men.
Top news creators are mostly men. The crux: Is the male predominance among top political news creators a structural problem, and will it self-correct: defend, rebut, or explain.
Yes.
And particularly with sort of the political op-ed style of communicating to audiences. Is that a challenge as you see it? kind of a state of play? How do you approach it?
↳ P8 raised again here · first raised at U-093
I just don't think there are as many women doing this yet. I hope to be, you know, there's Megyn Kelly, Candace Owens, there are some on the right, but, and now there are women on the left that are doing it. The Spare is like a huge star at Under the Desk News. I just think it's, it's maybe a little bit taking a little bit longer, and I think eventually it'll be more balanced. I think there will be more women. But I, you know, all of the polling and everything says that men still will listen to women. Actually, a huge audience of mine is men, you know?
↳ P8 raised again here · first raised at U-093
Palmeri explains the male predominance as a stage in the industry's evolution and predicts it will self-correct toward balance.
Yeah, I was gonna—
It's actually disproportionately more male than female. Men like politics. I mean, so I hope that in a few years from now it's way more balanced. But I just look at it as the news industry evolved as well. It started off with all men.
↳ P8 raised again here · first raised at U-093
↳ evidence for the P8 verdict on Tara Palmeri · ruling prints at U-096
And it will eventually— Yeah, and I think if you were to widen from news creators to alternative news creators, people who do other things but also talk about the news, you'd probably have a wider mix gender-wise there.
Yeah, you're also asking us to go out on our own and create our own businesses, you know, create our own platforms, independent media, you know, small businesses essentially is what you're starting at. And so, you know, women have to be incentivized to see that there is revenue there for them. And I think they are seeing it. And they're— I hope to one day be a model for other women who want to do this.
I think you are already. I think you're really a trailblazer doing this. It's interesting, though, because in America, you don't see a lot of women on the news side. You do, you know, you have, like, Alex Cooper, right, who does, you know, sort of entertainment. No shade to him, but it's a whole different thing. It's more of a creator than a journalist.
Yeah.
But I find that, I think, in Turkey and other countries, women who give news and information are huge, huge, have independent voices and independent, It's just interesting, here in the United States, it hasn't really happened so...
I think when cable news starts to lose more and more journalists, when there's— when they, you know, as they continue with their layoffs, as they seem to do, more women who have— I had a unique background. I was a White House correspondent for a network. I already knew how to do broadcast journalism. I was a podcast host. I wrote a newsletter. It made sense. For a lot of people, they may have only been a print reporter their entire life, or they've only been a broadcast journalist. So it, it's a different skill set. it was an easier leap for me to do this. And I just think that you just have to take the leap. And I think it's cool to see women doing it all the time. Who knows, maybe we'll create a lady collective or something.
I'm only smiling because I can pick up a trend here. Cable news is on the wane. Stop watching TV. Listen to me at 5. There's a mood here. Let's talk about the challenges. David, maybe start with you and pick up on something that Tara said. It's a treadmill in many ways, isn't it? It's kind of It's monetization, it's how do I put out more content, how do I get more engagement, how do you manage all of that when you're kind of a one-man, one-woman machine?
↳ P10 raised again here · first raised at U-024
Yeah, I mean, there's a couple of options. One is you really do do everything yourself and you kind of have to enjoy the business side of it. The other is you start to take on a structure that is a little more corporate and you start delegating in that way, or some combination of the two. I enjoy the business side of it, but I also can't I don't do it myself anymore, so I have a team. There are a lot of people that don't. I think one of the challenges is, as it becomes clear that the independent news space can be lucrative and it can be interesting and you can build a large audience, legacy and corporate media is going to want to come into it. And to a degree, they already have. You look at some of the largest YouTube news channels, they are legacy companies that have just dumped huge money to rapidly scale YouTube channels. And so you might start to get that same 80/20 or even 90/10, where overwhelmingly those who come in with the funds are going to very quickly kind of scoop up market share. The other thing that's interesting is for a long time when I was doing this, when new people came into the market, I didn't really see them as competitors in the sense that the pie was growing so quickly that it was just great for everybody. I think now it's starting to get to the point, especially as people can only consume so much stuff in a day, there's 24 hours in a day, et cetera, it's less clear to me now. I do think the spaces are starting to get a little bit more crowded. where there's more of a shift between creators rather than like we're just growing the pie at the same time that everybody's getting their slice. So I don't know where that goes in the next 5 to 8 years.
Corporate money will enter and scoop market share. The crux: Legacy/corporate players entering the independent space with large funding will rapidly scoop market share as the audience pie stops simply growing: defend or rebut.
Pakman defends the prediction that funded legacy players will rapidly scoop market share as the pie stops growing.
+2 C-4.1 · Acknowledged uncertainty · David Pakman
+1.5 C-2.1 · Common ground · Don Lemon
Don, you want to—
+2 C-4.1 · Acknowledged uncertainty · Don Lemon
Yeah, I don't know either. I don't look at people as competitors either. It's interesting because I would look at the folks on other networks when I was in traditional media as competitors. But, you know, we support each other. Tara's on my channel all the time. If she invites me to do something, I'll do it. I can call people, you know, I use my own Rolodex as, you know, instead of a booker. You know, and I get people to come on who have their own independent channels, and we support each other.
In some ways, sorry, is it because you don't have the framework or structure or support that a traditional or legacy news organization could give you, that it's scrappy, of course, but you need to sort of hold each other close?
Yeah, and in terms of what you said about creating the channel, creating channels and legacy media, I don't think that they really had gotten that I shouldn't probably give away the secret, that they don't need to use so many resources to do what they do. Because I, you know, I put on coverage, Jim Acosta, Joy Reid, and I did coverage of 2 different things, a huge protest, and I forget some, I forget what the other event was. And we did it with my small team, which is a team of 4 people, And Tara was part of it, for, you know, and we didn't have to have 30 producers, and a writer, and a control room, and all of those things. And it was network-quality coverage that people tuned into, and they, it was actually more interesting because we didn't have a, it didn't, it wasn't seen through a corporate filter. We weren't pushing it through a corporate filter.
Small teams can produce network-quality coverage. The crux: A 4-person independent team can produce network-quality news coverage, so legacy media over-spends on resources: defend or rebut.
Lemon defends the claim with a concrete example of a four-person team producing network-quality coverage.
Yeah.
And saying, you know, can I say this? Is the boss going to be mad if I happen to insult Donald Trump, even inadvertently? Is he going to call the, We didn't— we don't, we don't have those, you know, challenges.
↳ P15 raised again here · first raised at U-110
↳ evidence for the P15 verdict on Don Lemon · ruling prints at U-110
Yeah, sure. One is the financial burnout, and the other is the creative burnout. Ben, do you want to jump in on that? I mean, WDF shut down after this year.
Yeah, I mean, when, when the— I mean, so I believe I have not missed a day of work that was not a company holiday in 4 years, including vacations with my family, right? Because if you're not on the air, then it's not like there's a substitute host on my show, for example. And so, yeah, it can be— it can burn you out. Plus, I mean, this news cycle has been, you know, insane. Increasingly frenetic for over a decade. And I keep looking around going, when is somebody going to take a breath? And nobody has taken a breath, and it just gets more psychotic every single moment. And so at a certain point, it went from being, you know, fun to kind of a drag. And sometimes it goes back to being fun. But the reality is that, like anything else, you know, on a daily basis, it sort of depends on what you're covering, whether it's interesting. The news cycle is so fast now that a cycle that would have taken 2 weeks now takes 2 days. And at my By day 3, you're kind of bored with the topic already, and you've got to move on to the next thing, and so does the audience. And so that's very difficult. In terms of the business, I will say I'm in a bit of a different position because we actually scaled a very large-scale company. What that meant was bringing on other creators, some for good, some for ill. And I think that—
↳ P17 raised again here · first raised at U-118
↳ evidence for the P17 verdict on Ben Shapiro · ruling prints at U-118
+6 C-4.2 · Owned an error · Ben Shapiro
Do you want to talk about that?
Not particularly.
Hashtag no regrets.
Yeah, regrets, we have a few. that as all of us kind of mature in our spaces, we're going to have to face a lot of the same questions the legacy media outlets face about who you want on your air, what are the editorial standards, what are the things you have to do. And those are challenges that— thank God we have those challenges because we grew so large. But they are challenges for sure.
New media will face legacy media's editorial-standards questions. The crux: As new-media outlets scale they will face the same editorial-standards and accountability questions (who to platform) as legacy media: defend or rebut.
Shapiro defends the claim that scaling new media will face the same editorial-standards questions as legacy media.
Yeah. And I realize we're almost out of time. And there's so many questions. I apologize we haven't had time because the conversation was so great. But I encourage you to find news creators and speak to them. But let me close with sort of 2 sentences from each of you, and this is a bit of a challenge. One, how do you respond to the observation that news creators are essentially remixers? And the second, if you had kind of a top tip aside from don't blow up so many resources, what would it be for traditional news media organizations? Do you want to get off?
Are news creators essentially remixers?. The crux: Are news creators essentially 'remixers' who repackage legacy media's core reporting rather than doing original reporting: concede, qualify, or rebut.
Top tip for legacy news organizations. The crux: What single change should legacy news organizations make to survive the shift toward creators?
Oh boy, starting with me. Well, I think— so on the— tell me the first one again. I want to go first.
The first one is, are news creators essentially news remixers?
↳ P11 raised again here · first raised at U-119
+9 C-1.1 · Clean concession · David Pakman
Oh yeah. Yes, they are. Yes, absolutely. And I think the audience appreciates that there is still this kind of underbelly of close to straight news reporting, and we're layering opinion hopefully in an authentic and genuine way. And I think that's actually the appeal and sort of like the parasocial relationship. And do you resi— does a person's personality resonate with the audience? I think that that's a feature rather than a bug. As far— and tell me the second part.
↳ P11 raised again here · first raised at U-119
Asked directly, Pakman grants the remixer characterization outright; concession credited under C-1.1.
Top tip, okay. The top tip is just start creating the content right away.
↳ P12 raised again here · first raised at U-119
Pakman's 'start creating content right away' tip is framed for aspiring individuals; the crux asked what change legacy organizations should make, which he did not address.
importance ×2 × (1 − 0.15 earned) = 1.7 of 15 weighted challenge points · × 45% (crux share of DIS) = −5.1 DIS
Right.
And I think that's the thing There's so many conversations I have with people who want to start, and they're asking me about publicists, and they're asking me about microphones and lighting and who can print their merch, and all of this stuff is completely irrelevant. The number one thing is get the content onto the platforms as quickly as possible, start getting feedback, iterate based on that. That's really the big thing you have to do.
↳ evidence for the P12 verdict on David Pakman · ruling prints at U-124
Super.
I'll say what he said. I do think that certain creators are remixers, and I see a difference between a creator and a journalist. And as long as you say what you are, then I'm okay with it. But there are some, you know, there are some journalists who aren't doing journalism, and there are some creators who are actually doing a good job at journalism. So I don't think that there's one or the other. I just think that both can coexist, and that we have to adapt to the new environment. My— what I would say is, perfection is boring. And so if you're going to do it, again, what he said, just do it. And don't let— yeah, perfect be the enemy of the good. I think that's— and have integrity.
↳ P11 raised again here · first raised at U-119
Lemon grants some creators are remixers while distinguishing creators from journalists.
importance ×3 × (1 − 0.5 earned) = 1.5 of 19 weighted challenge points · × 45% (crux share of DIS) = −3.6 DIS
+4.5 C-1.2 · Partial concession · Don Lemon
So, yeah, I mean, as far as us being remixers, obviously, we're not the ones who are doing a lot of the core reporting. I think that that's always been true. And so sometimes we're spotting a buried lead in paragraph 19 that may be, you know, not elevated in a way that we might find interesting. And I think that that is a real service. But to pretend that the legacy media doesn't have a continuing role is silly. I think the question you asked was about tips for the legacy media. And I think that's a really good question.
↳ P11 raised again here · first raised at U-119
Shapiro grants creators do not do the core reporting while holding legacy media retains a role, engaging the qualify branch.
importance ×3 × (1 − 0.5 earned) = 1.5 of 22 weighted challenge points · × 45% (crux share of DIS) = −3.1 DIS
+4.5 C-1.2 · Partial concession · Ben Shapiro
Yes.
So tips for the legacy media. I think the number one thing for the legacy media is acknowledge your bias. I think that the legacy media are constantly suggesting that they are fully objective, floating above the fray, fully capable of removing themselves from the sort of day-to-day politics. And I admire the attempt by many people to do that. I actually do think that that's a useful thing, and I think journalistic practices are necessary. It also happens to be that if you want to know the number one critique of legacy media from the right, and this has been true for decades, all the errors fall in the same direction, and yet we keep hearing about objectivity. If all the errors are going in one direction and we keep hearing how objective the journalists are, we start to doubt that you're telling us the truth, not just about your own objectivity, about everything you're saying. And so I think one of the things that, you know, I'll mention my friend Barry Weiss. I think what Barry is trying to do at CBS News is quite good, actually. I think bringing on people of openly political from different perspectives to discuss issues is really important. And I hope that more legacy media institutions would acknowledge how polarized we are, and the way to solve the polarization is not to ignore it, it's to host conversations between people who disagree.
Legacy media claims objectivity yet errors all fall one way. The crux: Legacy media claims objectivity while 'all the errors fall in the same direction,' which drives distrust from the right: defend or rebut.
↳ P12 raised again here · first raised at U-119
Shapiro names a specific change legacy orgs should make: acknowledge bias and host cross-perspective conversations.
Shapiro defends the claim that legacy media's errors fall one way while claiming objectivity, driving right-side distrust.
Tara, finally. Yeah, I would say I still do think about my— maybe I still think about what I can offer that's new, that hasn't been reported, and why you might find value in my channel. So I do actually call sources. I do try to break ground. Some days they're big, some days they're not. Some days it's news analysis. Some days I'm just calling sources on the Hill and trying to make sense of the last election. And, and, you know, I'll write something on Substack and I'll host a show. Obviously, the Epstein story has been really big, but I also was covering that really closely when a lot of people weren't for the past 6 years. So I've been able to offer new reporting, new analysis, and exclusives. But yeah, I believe the legacy media has a huge value. I do use their reporting as support. And often it leads to future reporting. And in some ways, yeah, we're remixers. But like you said, people want to feel like there is— they like you. They like your personality. They like the way you call shots. I think we need more referees, honestly, than we need to have people on tribes online. And I try to be a referee. That's how I see myself in this game. And yeah, I'm a person, of course. We all grow up with our biases just by the fact of being born. you know, being a first-generation American, I'll have a bias because of that. And it's subconscious, but I try not to bring it, you know, into everything. So that's, that's my, my angle for this, for this world. And my tip is to do it. Exactly. You know how many people— I'm sure it's the same thing people ask all the time. I want to do what you're doing. Okay, well then just put a camera in front of your face and start talking. That's the first step.
Palmeri does original reporting, not just remixing. The crux: Palmeri does original reporting (calling sources, breaking ground on the Epstein story) and so is not merely a remixer: defend or rebut.
Journalists should be referees, not tribe members. The crux: Journalists should act as 'referees' rather than members of online tribes: defend or rebut.
↳ P11 raised again here · first raised at U-119
Palmeri grants creators are in some ways remixers while maintaining she does original reporting.
importance ×3 × (1 − 0.5 earned) = 1.5 of 15 weighted challenge points · × 45% (crux share of DIS) = −4.5 DIS
Palmeri acknowledges legacy media's value and gives a 'just do it' tip aimed at aspiring creators; she does not propose a change legacy organizations should make.
importance ×2 × (1 − 0.15 earned) = 1.7 of 15 weighted challenge points · × 45% (crux share of DIS) = −5.1 DIS
Palmeri defends her original-reporting claim with specifics: calling sources, breaking ground, offering exclusives on the Epstein story.
Palmeri defends the referee framing and applies it to herself.
+4.5 C-1.2 · Partial concession · Tara Palmeri
I didn't, I didn't hear the question. You said to what was...
To legacy media.
Oh, well, my advice— I agree.
Don't fire Don Lemon.
I agree. I agree somewhat. Well, that's true. Um, thank you very much. We agree on a lot. Um, and I do agree somewhat of what you said. So this is a conversation that we used to have when we were—
when I—
he would come on my show. But, uh, I don't think that journalists are as biased maybe as you think. I have a different opinion of what's happening at CBS. But my, my thing would be for the corporation to get out of the newsroom.
Bias problem is corporate gatekeepers, not journalists. The crux: The trust problem in legacy media stems from corporate/owner gatekeepers filtering coverage, not from journalists' own bias: defend or rebut.
↳ P12 raised again here · first raised at U-119
↳ P13 raised again here · first raised at U-131
Lemon names a specific change: remove corporate gatekeepers from the newsroom.
Lemon rebuts the framing, disputing that journalists are as biased as claimed and relocating the problem to gatekeepers.
Lemon advanced this counter-thesis in the closing exchanges; the moderator closed the panel before Shapiro had a realistic opportunity to reply.
Yep.
Because the problem is not with the journalists, it's with the gatekeepers. And if the corporation becomes the gatekeeper, then there's going to be constant influence from the people that we're supposed to be holding accountable, like the people in Washington, D.C.
↳ P14 raised again here · first raised at U-139
Lemon defends the thesis that corporate/owner gatekeepers, not journalists, are the source of the trust problem.
↳ evidence for the P12 verdict on Don Lemon · ruling prints at U-139
Yep.
The people who own things, the wealthy people, the oligarchs, the billionaires. Those are the people that we're supposed to be holding accountable. And if they are filtering, if we are getting information that's filtered through them, and we must do that, or legacy media, then the game is over.
↳ P14 raised again here · first raised at U-139
↳ evidence for the P14 verdict on Don Lemon · ruling prints at U-141
And also just the deal-making for, you know, just to get the interview, the scoop, the, you know, the— it's just so political inside of the newsroom. And that's the great thing about what we're creating. We create our own newsrooms.
And lose the desk. Completely at time. Big round of applause, please, for our news creators today. Thank you all very much.
↳ evidence for the P14 verdict on Ben Shapiro · ruling prints at U-139
All right.