WEBVTT

1
00:00:01.060 --> 00:00:11.000
I think the breaking news ecosystem is so broken and so many organizations are doing this thing of something happens and you write like a really quick one-sentence story and throw it on the internet in the hope of getting the Google link.

2
00:00:11.030 --> 00:00:18.470
Yeah. And then maybe you fill in some more words- Yeah... because Google wants words or something, or some SEO expert told you it did. But that, that is just not a good piece.

3
00:00:18.560 --> 00:00:22.120
That's not a thing that is helping anybody understand the world. I think our approach has been the inverse.

4
00:00:22.280 --> 00:00:36.170
Wait a beat, figure out what the facts are, and then find people expressing really thoughtful, informed analysis, often disagreeing if we can find it, and give you something that reflects what kind of almost used to be the best of the social media experience, which is, here's what happened- Yeah...

5
00:00:36.200 --> 00:00:44.140
here's how to understand it. So you're making aggregation great again. We are making aggregation great again. [laughs] I, I believe I prefer the word distillation.

6
00:00:49.340 --> 00:01:04.900
[upbeat music] Welcome to the Rebooting show. I'm Brian Morrissey. This week I'm joined by Ben Smith, co-founder and editor-in-chief of Semafor. Ben has a new podcast which he hosts with Naima Raza called Mixed Signals.

7
00:01:05.040 --> 00:01:13.120
It aims to unpack the truth in modern media. I've listened to the first couple episodes and I'm already hooked. You should all check it out, and this is a great time for it.

8
00:01:13.600 --> 00:01:18.140
Ben and I talk about the podcast as well as this weird moment the media business is in.

9
00:01:18.360 --> 00:01:32.400
As the pressures of the business force changes at many legacy publishers like The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, I think what we're seeing is in many ways a dismantling of the resistance media machine built around the time of Trump's election in two thousand and sixteen.

10
00:01:32.900 --> 00:01:48.220
As publishers seized a moment in time and told themselves and the world that their role was to oppose the Trump agenda, I think the pressures on the business now has made that approach something of a luxury belief, and unwinding it is gonna be tough work that's often left to Brits.

11
00:01:48.660 --> 00:02:04.760
We talk about why that is. Now here's my conversation with Ben. [upbeat music] All right, Ben, we're doing this podcast. I think the last time I did a podcast with you was at Cannes last year.

12
00:02:04.960 --> 00:02:11.900
We're both about to head out to Cannes. What, what, what are you gonna do different? You're, you're, this is your second year at Cannes. At Cannes?

13
00:02:11.920 --> 00:02:21.500
You know, Max Tani, our media editor, and I, I think are genuinely kind of more sophisticated about the stories in the ad and marketing industry, and so I think we will [laughs] do a better job covering them.

14
00:02:21.510 --> 00:02:28.900
We'll- The Michael Casson dueling cocktail party, you mean? I think we may have broken that. Very excited for this. Do you have... Have you... Has, uh, has anyone written about that? Have you guys written about that?

15
00:02:29.080 --> 00:02:40.560
We did, yeah. Okay. We, we dropped it in the newsletter. And I don't know, I'm gonna attempt to run around less in the heat as the things are super urgent. Okay. Good. Well, I hope to see you there.

16
00:02:40.600 --> 00:02:48.120
We were talking before, it's like the, the market for- Yeah... Cannes news is actually exceedingly small. [laughs] It could be possibly subzero, as you suggested.

17
00:02:48.130 --> 00:02:57.680
The people who are there have no time or no, you know, inclination 'cause they've got a cocktail party to be to, and the people who are not there actively hate it. So anyway, be sure to- So please si- yes.

18
00:02:57.800 --> 00:03:03.400
[laughs] The Semafor pop-up. So please sign up for our, our Cannes pop-up newsletter, but only if you are there, because I am big on...

19
00:03:03.480 --> 00:03:09.840
I'm a big believer in not doing, not forcing your general audience to read about cool parties they weren't invited to.

20
00:03:10.120 --> 00:03:20.280
We did actually last year in Cannes, we accidentally sent one of the Cannes special newsletters to the big list of all my media subs, all our media subscribers. Yeah.

21
00:03:20.300 --> 00:03:28.320
Which, and I just, as it went out, I just sort of felt, you know, the blood rushing to my face. It just... And you just- Yeah... don't wanna do that. Well, I'll be doing that.

22
00:03:28.380 --> 00:03:38.320
Anyway, I have a- Well, you, you have a more, you have an audience that is specifically focused on marketing. Eh. A lot of people in the media business who are less, uh- Yes and no. Well, we can get into that.

23
00:03:38.380 --> 00:03:47.900
So you have a new podcast. Is this, is this competition for this podcast? No, you're going with a different... You're going much broader. I mean, it's the war of the all against all out there, right?

24
00:03:48.370 --> 00:03:55.960
But I do think it's a bit different. I mean, we're, we're certainly... I mean, I think the way I cover media is different from the way you cover media. I mean, and it, and it sort of reflects that.

25
00:03:56.140 --> 00:04:07.200
I'm, you know, I think I sort of try to use media as kind of a vector into politics, technology, culture, and that's what the show will be. Less than a, less than sort of a x-ray of the business itself.

26
00:04:07.640 --> 00:04:17.760
Okay, well, just stay away from programmatic advertising, if you don't mind. For so many reasons, I will. [laughs] So it's called Mixed Signals. First couple episodes are out. I'm enjoying it.

27
00:04:18.000 --> 00:04:27.580
O-one of the things that the promise is around the, the, the true media conspiracy, explain that to me. Yeah, I mean, I think, let's see, I think there are...

28
00:04:27.640 --> 00:04:37.750
I'll, I'll maybe kind of step back 'cause I have a theory about podcasts, which I suspect as I'm a real non-expert here, and hopefully many of your listeners can email me and tell me I'm a moron when I articulate this.

29
00:04:37.760 --> 00:04:48.240
But I think that there was a generation of American podcasts, many still really popular and wonderful, whose sort of vibe is, "We're a couple of kids on a voyage of discovery.

30
00:04:48.560 --> 00:04:57.460
And Brian, you and I don't know anything about this, but we're gonna go figure it out." And like, we, uh, we get out of the car and our feet crunch in the gravel as we go to interview the suspect or whatever.

31
00:04:57.480 --> 00:05:19.580
And many of those are wonderful, but I do think related to the moment in the culture and the media, there is increasingly an interest in a kind of a show across the board that is like, "Hey, we actually really know a lot about this subject, have been doing it for a long time, and can tell you things that are different from what you're gonna hear in a sort of conspiracy-minded, chaotic mass media."

32
00:05:20.130 --> 00:05:28.900
And I think, I mean, your show is that through expertise-based. There's a British show I love called The Rest Is Politics that very much has that kind of attitude.

33
00:05:29.200 --> 00:05:48.890
And, and so y- my co-host, Naima Raza, who's been in film production for a long time in docs and worked at The New York Times with me, and I, I think sort of, at least I think that often media stories are covered as conspiracy and sort of seen as conspiracy, and there is a broad belief that something, there's some element of the media business- Yeah...

34
00:05:48.920 --> 00:05:57.236
just sort of isn't on the level.And I think, by the way, often that's true if you-- but in, and these, the-these companies say one thing, but what they do doesn't quite match that.

35
00:05:57.266 --> 00:06:03.156
And people, I think, often jump to think that there's some kind of political conspiracy. Yeah. And by the way, sometimes there is.

36
00:06:03.396 --> 00:06:09.816
But really often it's basically- Definitely not as organized, I don't think, as people think. [chuckles] Yeah. And it's usually just a conspiracy to make money. Yeah.

37
00:06:09.996 --> 00:06:14.526
And by the way, not, not a good-- not a well-functioning conspiracy to make money. No.

38
00:06:14.536 --> 00:06:27.856
And I think trying to take these things that are happening, you know, whether it's like the British invasion of all these American newsrooms or whether it's the vanishing of sex from the movies, and try to kind of talk to experts and with real expertise about, "Hey, what actually happened here?"

39
00:06:28.456 --> 00:06:30.516
Yeah. But, I mean, you're bringing your own expertise.

40
00:06:30.566 --> 00:06:52.516
'Cause I think what's interesting in podcasting is I think it's the front end of this sort of expert media, it-- meaning that the people, like All In, for instance, which I never would have thought would become a giant podcast, but it has, and there's this promise of bringing people inside the room, the quote, unquote "rooms where decisions are being made."

41
00:06:52.976 --> 00:07:02.696
Is that-- Are you going for that in a way? I mean, I think that... I, I don't-- I'm not sure you wanna be inside the room. But I mean, that, or that's a slightly different promise, I would say.

42
00:07:02.756 --> 00:07:04.236
I think we're just trying to...

43
00:07:04.256 --> 00:07:19.496
But I do think we're trying to bring real expertise and experience to explain what is really happening and to some degree to undercut this sort of huge miasma of assumption and conspiracy that just totally besets American kinda media culture right now.

44
00:07:19.556 --> 00:07:32.796
Yeah. So how did you think about formats for this? Because I, I think, you know, you guys launched with, with formats at the forefront, I feel like, with, with Semaforum, and, and now there's Semaforum, right? Yeah.

45
00:07:32.836 --> 00:07:41.146
What is the tech Q&A called? You know, our, our sort of... Yeah, I mean, I definitely with-- in terms of our, our interview format, Semaforum, which is really a pun, and our, and our- [chuckles]...

46
00:07:41.226 --> 00:07:55.056
article format, which we're calling a Semaforum, it was really about can you kind of pull apart the story and say, "Here are the facts, and here is the, here, you know, here's the r- journalist's opinion, here are other points of view on it."

47
00:07:55.096 --> 00:08:06.116
And I, and I do think that, I mean, the show very much has that same spirit that we're trying to bring transparency. We're trying to give you a real blunt, transparent look at what is happening in the media.

48
00:08:06.176 --> 00:08:17.885
You know, but in terms of, I mean, more sort of we have interviews, but it's not an interview show, and I think the way we're trying to bring the interviews in is to, you know, in a way a little, little more like radio, where you have somebody, somebody calls in for a- Yeah...

49
00:08:17.976 --> 00:08:26.796
few minutes and you pull them into your conversation. I mean, I actually love long-form interview shows, but this really isn't that. It's more a sort of focused attempt to answer questions. Yeah.

50
00:08:26.836 --> 00:08:30.346
And there's at least the first couple, there's three segments. I mean, you have segments, right? Yeah, that's right.

51
00:08:30.346 --> 00:08:38.456
'Cause I think a lot of times, I think one of the flaws of, I don't know, maybe I'm telling on myself, of podcasts is sometimes they can come off as college radio.

52
00:08:38.476 --> 00:08:45.456
Yeah, it's sometimes a flaw, and sometimes I think it's a benefit, right? There's a- Yeah... looseness and an honesty to it. But we definitely are trying to keep it tighter and a bit shorter.

53
00:08:45.516 --> 00:08:50.266
I don't think anybody ever... Rarely do people say, "Oh, man, that was too short," and that is usually a compliment.

54
00:08:50.466 --> 00:09:08.776
And so we have two sort of substantive segments, and then, and then Max Tani leads this blind spot segment, which is something from our, our Washington coverage, just that the idea is to bring in stories that you didn't see in your media bubble but that some other chunk of the world, the country did or that you did and you didn't realize nobody else saw, and to kind of dissect some of those, which is fun.

55
00:09:09.256 --> 00:09:18.456
So what is your headline right now for what's going on in newsrooms at this time of tremendous change, obviously, in, in the business?

56
00:09:18.916 --> 00:09:29.976
Is there a headline that connects all of these things, what we're seeing going on at The Washington Post, we're seeing going on at The Wall Street Journal? I think to some degree as you could extrapolate it to CNN.

57
00:09:30.036 --> 00:09:33.396
And leave aside the Brits. We can, we can get to the Brits later. Let's see.

58
00:09:33.496 --> 00:09:45.496
I mean, I think the, in the biggest picture, we just have this fragmenting landscape, and inside that, you have these remnant big newsrooms that are, I think, trying to, you know, fix their businesses and sharpen their brands and identities.

59
00:09:45.636 --> 00:09:55.336
And, and, uh, I think you actually can't leave out the Brits because I think what's happening a-across these newsrooms is that you have proprietors who, you know, saw...

60
00:09:55.396 --> 00:10:13.616
You know, it's, it reminds me a little of the ESG story that in the, in the, in the twenty tens, you had all these investors who were running around telling you and sort of fund managers running around pat-- saying that they were focused entirely on ESG, congratulating themselves about it, "And by the way, our returns are better than anybody else's, and we're on ESG.

61
00:10:13.676 --> 00:10:19.336
It's win-win," right? And that's because all their investments were in Tesla and Netflix, and those stocks were going up.

62
00:10:19.486 --> 00:10:27.365
And then come really the Russian invasion of Ukraine, uh, you know, the, the stocks that start spiking are arms, you know, are weapons manufacturers- Yeah...

63
00:10:27.396 --> 00:10:32.956
and energy, and you have more complicated choices as an investor and less self-congratulation.

64
00:10:33.126 --> 00:10:49.076
And I think the parallel in media is that there was this moment when changing your motto to democracy dies in the dark and positioning yourselves as warrior priests in the struggle against Donald Trump was great for business, won Pulitzer Prizes, and led you to congratulate yourself.

65
00:10:49.316 --> 00:10:58.756
And, and that, that fell apart after twenty twenty. And, you know, in particular, the New York Times to some degree is an exception to this because they built a bunch of other businesses.

66
00:10:59.276 --> 00:11:03.556
But a lot of these other newsrooms, CNN and The Washington Post first among them, just saw the tide go out.

67
00:11:04.116 --> 00:11:14.576
And then when you g-- And, and the problem is you have then built this infrastructure of marketing yourself as the sort of truth tellers of Washington first and foremost.

68
00:11:15.136 --> 00:11:30.616
If you are then trying, you wanna keep that, but you also wanna do some other things, and you need to cut costs, and you are trying to figure out your future as a business, but you've marketed yourself externally and internally as this other thing, and I think that's where they're getting hung up.

69
00:11:30.656 --> 00:11:48.755
And they, and, and so you, you know, so you go and you try to restructure your newsroom, and you, and you get these lectures on journalism from the journalists you have told who are repeating back to you the words you told themAnd I think there is that then a temptation to bring in a bunch of kind of feral Brits who lack respect for these- [laughs] -great American institutions to shake things up.

70
00:11:48.856 --> 00:11:59.455
Yeah. And I think that's what you're seeing happen. Yeah, I think there's definitely a s- s- I mean, the Brits that take themselves a little less seriously than American capital J journalism. Yeah, a lot less seriously.

71
00:11:59.466 --> 00:12:05.356
I, I keep- Which is- -coming back to the, the David Blaine. Remember when David Blaine was doing his stunts, like, in the early 2000s? Yeah, sure.

72
00:12:05.376 --> 00:12:12.496
He went, he went to, he went to London and did this thing where he was, like, in a box over the Thames, and he was starving himself.

73
00:12:12.896 --> 00:12:24.156
And so, of course, the tabloids have a remote-controlled helicopter that is, like, dangling a cheeseburger in front of him [laughs] you know? And, like, there is that aspect that I think can be good.

74
00:12:24.216 --> 00:12:30.076
Like, I actually think- Yeah, they think journalism's really fun, and it's about, and, and, and entertain... it's about entertaining people.

75
00:12:30.106 --> 00:12:42.096
And by the way, it can be about confronting power in a very intense way but with a, but with a sense of humor about yourself and kind- and without a real, I think, often without a sort of quite as elevated sense of mission as- Yeah...

76
00:12:42.166 --> 00:12:44.516
American journalists, you know, for better and for worse.

77
00:12:44.556 --> 00:13:00.316
And I would say there's a lot about this moment that when you and I talk about it, and I hear you, I heard you talk about it on the show the other day, and I, I've heard other, like, kind of media journalists on podcasts talk about how, "Well, look, like, tough, you know, the days of wine and roses are over," and these, you know, it's, and sort of side with management here.

78
00:13:00.356 --> 00:13:04.716
And I have been, like, in management long enough, like, I have this terrible impulse to side with management in these conversations.

79
00:13:05.176 --> 00:13:17.676
There is this reality that if you go in and you tell your room full of journalists that the days of wine and roses are over, and you guys are bus- you're in a business, and you have to figure out the business, and we're gonna optimize for margin or something, like, most of them have to suck it up.

80
00:13:17.696 --> 00:13:21.716
But the people who do not have to suck it up are the best, are your best journalists who are gonna leave.

81
00:13:22.226 --> 00:13:32.396
And I think that's a real problem with this approach right now, is that, is that there's this impulse in these newsrooms, and this is, the Times is not doing this, and they're benefiting from it, and they're p-picking people off from these other newsrooms.

82
00:13:32.876 --> 00:13:39.736
But you have these, this message from the top that's basically like, "We gotta get serious. No more fooling around. This is a business."

83
00:13:40.256 --> 00:13:48.236
But it's a talent business, and you just can't go walking around talent businesses talking like that, I think. Yeah. And that's gonna be, that's, that's gonna be a long-term challenge.

84
00:13:48.276 --> 00:13:56.796
I mean, we've talked about this before. I think our last podcast, you objected to the term influencer journalists. I don't think I came up with it. I think I said I flew, threw up in my mouth when you said it.

85
00:13:56.905 --> 00:14:01.676
[laughs] I believe that was- But also that it's- It's a good start... but also that it's kind of accurate. But obviously, yes, it does represent a real trend.

86
00:14:02.116 --> 00:14:09.715
So do you think it was a, was it a short-term mistake, I guess a long-term mistake to, to go oppositional during the Trump era?

87
00:14:09.796 --> 00:14:19.756
Obviously, 2016 was an in-insane time, and lots of, lots of things happened after that that I think in, in retrospect will seem very strange.

88
00:14:20.016 --> 00:14:25.216
But- I mean, I think the media made some mistakes, but I think, you know, you have these right-wing populist movements whose- Yeah...

89
00:14:25.286 --> 00:14:33.306
core move in part is to attack the media and to sometimes say things that aren't true in really loud ways, and, and, and to try to create that confrontation. Yeah.

90
00:14:33.336 --> 00:14:38.816
I don't think there's- But is it more, do you think it's, it's, it's more strongly held than the normal working the refs situation?

91
00:14:38.856 --> 00:14:46.136
'Cause, I mean, the role of, quote-unquote, "the media" as the refs has also changed quite a bit. Uh, oh, for sure, but then there's always been working the refs.

92
00:14:46.196 --> 00:14:53.096
But Donald Trump's, you know, the way he used CNN as essentially the opposition candidate was different and new.

93
00:14:53.656 --> 00:15:09.856
And he, it's not that, I don't, I think it's easy to go back and say people made mistakes, but there were, these were, you know, these were s- there were a s- a bunch of, partic- in the early days of the Trump White House, a bunch of crazy stuff happening that The Washington Post unearthed that the administration was furious at them about.

94
00:15:09.876 --> 00:15:20.396
And there wasn't really a way around that. So when you get a question from someone who isn't steeped in this l- that says, "What, what, what is going on at The Washington Post?" How do you, how do you summarize it?

95
00:15:20.436 --> 00:15:33.715
I mean, that I think they had found this sort of singular mission in covering the White House, and that, and didn't, a-and the rest of the organization had remained kind of adrift, trying to get traffic over here, doing some metro coverage over there, but without a clear sense of mission.

96
00:15:34.256 --> 00:15:43.116
But that Marty Baron was a incredibly strong editor who led this very aggressive, fair, tough Washington coverage that captivated l- a huge audience for a period.

97
00:15:43.646 --> 00:15:56.716
And then when that period ended, and the tide went out, they didn't ha- they had not built much else and had had an idea a lot, and they also, and I think this is a huge problem when you're owned by a billionaire, that there's, that, you know, you have an audience of one.

98
00:15:57.096 --> 00:16:05.156
And they'd done all this flashy, we're gonna be a tech company stuff that obviously was fun to talk to Jeff Bezos about. Mm-hmm. They built a CMS that they were licensing.

99
00:16:05.216 --> 00:16:08.116
They built ad tech products that they were gonna license.

100
00:16:08.156 --> 00:16:17.356
And I think, you know, and, and that, I think, has not really turned into a real business and was their big bet, and was a bet that made, that I'm sure was super fun to tell Jeff Bezos about, but that is different.

101
00:16:17.416 --> 00:16:20.596
But, but pleasing your billionaire owner is not always the same as running a business.

102
00:16:21.256 --> 00:16:29.186
Yeah, I remember when they were talking, talking to us a, a lot about, you know, building an ad server for Kindle ads and things of, of that.

103
00:16:29.216 --> 00:16:38.776
Anytime, I mean, Neil Vogel has a good line that says, "Anytime a media company says they're a tech company, run away as fast as you can," because it generally doesn't, it doesn't work.

104
00:16:39.176 --> 00:16:48.226
A big part of the problem is that your customers are other struggling media companies for your cool ad for tech product, right? And so. [laughs] Yeah. Yeah. Shrinking market. How about The Journal?

105
00:16:48.416 --> 00:16:51.436
Totally a very different situation. I mean, The Journal's profitable.

106
00:16:51.516 --> 00:17:08.176
I think it, it, it's, it's almost like a harder challenge, I feel like, to, to make changes when, when things are going okay because, you know, look, a lot of people in this profession, when the i- when you come with the idea of, "Well, we have to expand profit margins," they're like, "What are you talking about?"

107
00:17:08.256 --> 00:17:15.926
[laughs] Yeah, that's, that's a less inspiring... Um, right, w-right. When you say, "Hey, we're losing $70 million a year-" Yeah, that's an extension... everybody does say, "All right, we gotta fix that." Okay.

108
00:17:15.936 --> 00:17:24.936
Yeah, yeah. When you're saying, "We gotta, we gotta drive margin," a little, little le- little less- Let's go... inspiring. [laughs] But, you know, The Journal's in a funny place.

109
00:17:24.996 --> 00:17:31.916
I mean, it's in some ways similar, right? Nobody was gonna mess with the core news gathering in these, when it felt like they were living through history.

110
00:17:31.966 --> 00:17:43.196
And in fact, when Gerry Baker, the editor, was seen as being, you know, to not taking Donald Trump's sort of, you know, challenges to democracy seriously enough, he basically got fired by the newsroom.

111
00:17:43.756 --> 00:17:55.920
And so-Now you know, but also the Journal is a perfectly good business, and you can see why somebody and the pr-proprietor might say, "Well, this should be like an amazing business. It's The Wall Street Journal.

112
00:17:55.980 --> 00:17:58.660
It's the most important business publication in the world or ought to be."

113
00:17:59.160 --> 00:18:21.680
You know, the, it should be a booming business, and I do think it's always been sort of an under i-like, you know, it's, it's doing fine, but it, but it didn't, it didn't do what The Times did and really kind of take advantage of the digital, digital transition to become something much bigger than it had been, and it f-it has, I think it kind of typically rests on its laurels and sort of glides through in a way.

114
00:18:22.100 --> 00:18:32.140
Mm-hmm. And they brought in a British editor, I do think to cut co-partly to cut costs and increase profit margins as inspiring for the Murdoch family, which is obviously an inspiring cause that we can all get behind.

115
00:18:32.680 --> 00:18:42.620
But also to do the thing that I think Murdoch has been mumbling about since he bought the place, which is shake it up, make it less boring, make it move faster, make it more on the news.

116
00:18:42.680 --> 00:19:01.640
And I do think a lot of the great journalists at The Wall Street Journal feel that Emma has done that, and that there, and that there are elements of what she's done that have really worked and are really, you know, have, have made it more of a reporter's paper and less of an editor's paper in a way and, and sped it up, and they've done, you know, they do great stuff all the time.

117
00:19:02.140 --> 00:19:09.760
But I think there is, you know, but there's also when you're doing that, this question of what is the identity of the journal that you're hol-what are you trying to hold on to here?

118
00:19:09.800 --> 00:19:18.620
And then just more broadly, like it's just really hard to build good culture when you're cutting costs, and I think it's an under, I mean, it's not like a big, it's not a theoretical question.

119
00:19:19.120 --> 00:19:26.270
Like, it's no fun to be in a place when your friends are getting laid off, and even if you didn't think that they were in the top quartile or whatever. Like it's, it's- Yeah...

120
00:19:26.320 --> 00:19:36.260
just a, it just hurts morale, it drives people to your competitors, and I, and I don't really think there's a, I mean, it's just, it's, they're, you know, fundamentally they're cutting costs and it's tough to be a- Yeah...

121
00:19:36.270 --> 00:19:40.440
really inspiring, fun place to be when you're doing that. And there's a drip nature of it.

122
00:19:40.680 --> 00:19:49.230
I mean, look, there's, everyone says it's best to get it over with once and then move on, have a, have a bad day, ha-have a bad week, rather than trim here, trim there.

123
00:19:49.440 --> 00:19:53.070
But a lot of times the latter ends up being- Yeah, and they are-... the approach...

124
00:19:53.070 --> 00:20:01.820
and they're sort of I think, you know, they're, they're complain-- the management there is complaining a lot about union contracts that were obviously in fact negotiated by them, you know.

125
00:20:01.840 --> 00:20:12.020
And so at some point that is what it is. But they, but they have these kind of last in, first out rules that make it not as easy to manage as perhaps it was at some non-union titles in the UK. Yeah.

126
00:20:12.500 --> 00:20:22.900
You were at, at BuzzFeed when it unionized, right? Yeah. Yeah. What is your take on the, the union's role in this time? I mean, I always say, "You can't say anything bad about the unions.

127
00:20:22.920 --> 00:20:30.210
They'll come after you on Twitter. You have to shut down your Twitter." That's, that's like the new kneecapping. But- Although there's, I mean-... obviously there's a role for unions. Sorry.

128
00:20:30.460 --> 00:20:43.339
I will say we're so deep into the kind of like backlash moment that union organizers were having to turn off their Twitters at the Twitters at The New York Times last week because they were criticized, or one, somebody, they were criticizing Times journalism about Gaza.

129
00:20:43.809 --> 00:20:46.760
Oh, yeah. Max Tanney has a kind of interesting piece- I know... about the rifts there.

130
00:20:47.500 --> 00:21:03.460
You know, I mean, I guess I have a sort of, you know, like you have to be an optimist to be in this business, I suppose, and I do think that, that you could imagine, and you have totally not seen the unions play a really constructive role, in particular vis-à-vis the tech companies.

131
00:21:03.540 --> 00:21:17.220
I always thought that like as in other industries like auto, the management and labor had this very, very clear united interest around stru-the industrial, the structure of the industrial landscape and putting pri- you know, when there were these tug of wars over revenue.

132
00:21:17.720 --> 00:21:27.600
C-could have, there was an opportunity to sort of present a united front that didn't really work out. I mean, I don't think that it's been a particularly happy story, you know, over the last few years.

133
00:21:27.680 --> 00:21:45.240
And, and I don't think the folks, I mean, The Times Union is currently in this very, then the, the News Guild is currently in this huge fight with The Ti-Times and Reuters in particular, who many of whose employees feel like they're paying, they're paying a disproportionate share of the bills, but they organize these new newsrooms that get to vote on how the money is spent and what share of dues there are.

134
00:21:45.260 --> 00:21:56.660
So there are these bitter fights about, I mean, I don't know, bit-bitter but pretty normal fights about, you know, normal labor stuff. It, I mean, honestly, these are stories nobody reads when we write them. Yeah.

135
00:21:56.670 --> 00:22:06.480
[laughs] So I'm gonna stop talking now. [laughs] But it seems like they're a symptom of, I mean, it's difficult to run a newsroom these days. Would you wanna run one of these big newsrooms? No.

136
00:22:06.540 --> 00:22:15.890
I mean, it's incredibly fun to start a newsroom and to build from scratch, but it's, it's very, I think it's very hard to run an institution these days. Yeah. Why, why do you think that is?

137
00:22:16.000 --> 00:22:25.100
I mean, there's, there's a, there is a generational element, I feel like, but you know, part of it is just, I think journalists are difficult to organize in, in the best of times.

138
00:22:25.720 --> 00:22:31.420
Yeah, good journalists are sort of, right, are, are not great em-are not always great employees. But that's okay. I mean, that's great.

139
00:22:31.900 --> 00:22:39.760
Jonah Peretti [chuckles] once said, 'cause I, I should disclose, I was, the News Guild were the cou-our counterparts, you know, who organized the BuzzFeed newsroom when I was there.

140
00:22:40.200 --> 00:22:46.680
But I remember Jonah Peretti saying to me once, this always stuck with me, that, you know, journalists, you don't really work for your employer. You work for the guild.

141
00:22:47.160 --> 00:22:49.980
And I don't mean the news guild, I mean like you're, it's like, like a medieval guild.

142
00:22:50.560 --> 00:23:00.080
You know, you'll, within the certain parameters, you'll do what your employer requests usually, but there are definitely things where your employer's like, "Do this," and you're like, "No, I'm gonna take my tools and go back to the guild hall, sorry."

143
00:23:00.580 --> 00:23:09.280
And I think that's, you know, call it journalistic ethics, call it whatever you want. It's sort of professi-in that way, I suppose it's like, it's like lawyers, it's like certain financial professionals.

144
00:23:09.300 --> 00:23:19.480
There's just stuff that we won't do, and it's something that our, is sort of mystifying to people running other kinds of businesses, where your employees just work for you and you can say, "Do this," and then they'll do it.

145
00:23:19.500 --> 00:23:28.580
Yeah. 'Cause in newsrooms, it's like, well, they, you, they work for you, but you can, and you can suggest or request that they do something, and they'll like really take it under very serious advisement.

146
00:23:28.640 --> 00:23:37.860
And if you're a better editor or a better boss, you'll hopefully be like steering them in good directions and they'll respect that. But it isn't like a normal [chuckles] workplace where you can tell people what to do.

147
00:23:37.900 --> 00:23:45.200
Yeah. Which I think is quite frustrating for managers sometimes. I found the fact that The Post is creating a third newsroom fascinating. Yeah.

148
00:23:45.240 --> 00:23:48.740
They're creating, I think it's a marketing stunt, but what do you think it is?

149
00:23:48.840 --> 00:24:03.090
Why do you, well, I mean, I, I, well-I mean, Matt Murray, obviously there was, there was moving chairs and, and how, how that transition, quote unquote, was, was handled was pretty messy from, from Sally Buzby to the new guy.

150
00:24:03.120 --> 00:24:08.380
So I think it was, it's sort of a less than meets the eye organizational shift, which is lots of big newsrooms.

151
00:24:08.420 --> 00:24:17.100
Their social media editors and their video teams are sometimes embedded with the desk, and sometimes they're over in the audience hub, and that's sort of a very boring bureaucratic choice.

152
00:24:17.200 --> 00:24:25.520
But do you have the social media editor for the business team sitting with the business team, or does she go sit over with the head of audience and social media and the video folks?

153
00:24:25.560 --> 00:24:37.410
And, and, you know, Will Lewis' previous startup was a essentially kind of social media team without a newsroom attached that produced a bunch of short videos that... on TikTok and stuff and marketed itself as an agency.

154
00:24:37.960 --> 00:24:41.200
And I think we're basically talking about, it's called the news movement.

155
00:24:41.790 --> 00:24:58.380
I think we're basically talking about taking the existing social media and video editors at the journal who are currently sitting with the business team or the politics team or whatever, having them all sit in one-- together in one place over on the left side of the newsroom, putting a very senior established prestige editor on top of them.

156
00:24:58.540 --> 00:25:10.940
So we say, "Now you are senior established prestige newsroom, not, not the social media and video team that you were yesterday," and then calling it a third newsroom and then selling something out of it or maybe just telling Jeff Bezos- Yeah.

157
00:25:10.950 --> 00:25:18.559
-,"See, we did something dynamic and tech-related." But I, I, I don't... I think it's actually not a great leap forward in the history of journalism.

158
00:25:18.580 --> 00:25:23.400
But hopefully they'll create a bunch of really cool and brilliant social media stuff. Yeah, I don't think it's a great leap forward.

159
00:25:23.480 --> 00:25:35.120
I do think it speaks to, again, from an outsider perspective, how unoptimized these organizations are. Like, they're not massive organizations to be this matrix.

160
00:25:35.200 --> 00:25:47.820
The fact that commerce content is created in a completely different, you know, area than the, the core news content is, would be strange to someone from outside.

161
00:25:48.120 --> 00:25:59.779
And again, all these things sort of layer on top of one another. Like we were talking about people working for the guild, not for the organization, and I feel like at this time it becomes a real drag.

162
00:26:00.260 --> 00:26:02.760
All these things add up to, on top of one another.

163
00:26:03.440 --> 00:26:18.840
When you're trying to make really dramatic change in an organization where you're, the thing you're waking up in the morning worrying about is that it's losing seventy-seven million dollars a year and, and that's oddly not urgent to your s- very matrixed, complicated newsroom, I do think it probably makes you crazy.

164
00:26:19.140 --> 00:26:31.140
Yeah. So you're a year and a half in now with Saphore. I think a little bit more than a year and a half. I'll ask you the typical question. What's changed now versus when you launched? You know, I think we've...

165
00:26:31.180 --> 00:26:34.820
You know, it's, you just, you launch with a bunch of theories, and some are true and some aren't.

166
00:26:35.160 --> 00:26:49.299
I think we had a intuition that the events business would be really positive for us and a real kind of hub, but I think we didn't anticipate how, just what a, you know, how much, what a sort of like center of journalistic and commercial heat that would be.

167
00:26:49.900 --> 00:27:10.920
You know, we had this world economy summit l-last month, month before that was in, in Washington, where we had fourteen events over two days, and these, you know, finance ministers from six countries, a bunch of White House officials, bunch of CEOs, made a lot of news, moved the markets, and it was also this hugely commercially successful event, and most complicated thing I've ever been involved in personally.

168
00:27:10.940 --> 00:27:16.660
But also, but it, but just we're operating that business at a scale that I didn't anticipate, honestly, and I'm kind of...

169
00:27:16.700 --> 00:27:26.420
And we're all kinda clinging with our fingernails a bit, but in a, in a way that feels, you know, really, like, exciting. The newsletter business has been really good, as, as I think you would expect.

170
00:27:26.460 --> 00:27:32.200
I mean, I could see... The news-newsletters were, we did not invent newsletters, but I think we do them well, and people seem to like them.

171
00:27:32.240 --> 00:27:40.360
You know, we took a run at video, made some amazing stuff, but I think like a lot of other publishers found, that's, that's a very hard place right now to get traction.

172
00:27:40.480 --> 00:27:44.060
So I think, but, you know, I think that's, th-those are, those are a few of the things that we've learned.

173
00:27:44.120 --> 00:28:06.220
I do think that there's this opportunity now, and I, you know, you've talked about this a lot, in this, that, that so much of the opportunity is in essential, in niches, in kind of, you know, what you might call a kind of business to business space, and a lot of our energy goes into doing coverage of media, of technology, of politics, of finance, which are the kind of core, I suppose, kind of power verticals.

174
00:28:06.280 --> 00:28:11.849
Yeah, power centers. And doing it at a real, doing it at power centers- There's money. There's still, there's always gonna be money. Yeah, and doing that- And writing for those people.

175
00:28:11.849 --> 00:28:24.940
And if you do that at a really high level, you can both build a business and you can break big news, 'cause if you're writing stuff that is of interest to the leaders on those and really in conversation with the leaders in those sectors, you're, you're writing some of the biggest stories in the world.

176
00:28:24.980 --> 00:28:25.560
And so that's...

177
00:28:25.960 --> 00:28:37.600
And I think we've been g- pretty decent at kind of trying to occupy the high end of those spaces and then kind of draw connections between them, have a kind of highest common denominator conversation, which has been really editorially satisfying, I would say.

178
00:28:37.920 --> 00:28:45.599
Yeah. But how is it different, like, running this kind of organization versus BuzzFeed News? 'Cause again, BuzzFeed News is a totally different- Yeah... animal at a totally different time.

179
00:28:45.640 --> 00:28:48.320
I mean, tra- the biggest, you know, I wrote a book called Traffic. Yeah. Right?

180
00:28:48.440 --> 00:28:57.420
And, and we thought about traffic all day, and I still, like, I hit that parsley link like some kind of weird dead limb, phantom limb, and I'm just, like, twitching over here.

181
00:28:57.440 --> 00:29:03.340
You know, it's one of a number of reasonably important things, right, to have good, to have a bunch of readers, and I think we're doing, uh, pretty good on that front.

182
00:29:03.440 --> 00:29:13.280
But it's not, you know, it's not what we're oriented toward. We're oriented toward having, like, deep relationships with a, this core audience, you know, who are really at the center of these stories.

183
00:29:13.300 --> 00:29:18.740
And so, a-and, and meanwhile, just watching the dynam- So what does that mean? What are the, what are the numbers- Watching, like, the dyn- What are the numbers you look at then?

184
00:29:19.260 --> 00:29:25.200
You know, I mean, I mean, it, it, like, you know, the email number, like the, you know, growth of email newsletters, but not just random growth.

185
00:29:25.240 --> 00:29:30.140
We're not, like, going on Facebook and buying random emails so that we can tell you that we have a zillion readers.

186
00:29:30.700 --> 00:29:39.830
We're, you know, obsessing about where we acquire people who really are gonna want the product and open it and are deeply engaged in that subject, which is different.

187
00:29:39.880 --> 00:29:48.100
And, you know, events have been a great place for us to build audience for the newsletters, actually, which I hadn't totally expected. You know, and I think we're in this n- really nice feedback loop with that audience.

188
00:29:48.620 --> 00:29:52.900
But it is, yeah, but it, but it's just not that kind of business of random scale anymore.

189
00:29:52.960 --> 00:29:58.428
I had this interesting conversation with somebody at a, a company that, let's say I'm sure I don't wanna sort of-Identify the person.

190
00:29:58.488 --> 00:30:21.688
But it was a, a, you know, a publisher that does newsletters and they were saying that a few years ago when they had tens of thousands of subscribers to their newsletters, it was actually like a among oth- their things, a lucrative business and they then invested in buying lots of audience on Facebook, have hundreds of thousands subscribers to their newsletters, and now can't sell it because advertisers are like, "Huh, who are these people?

191
00:30:21.808 --> 00:30:30.748
They're random people that you bought on Facebook, and if, like, we wanted to buy audience on Facebook, we'd buy audience on Facebook." And that is so different from the BuzzFeed days when it was just all about scale.

192
00:30:31.388 --> 00:30:37.688
Yeah. I mean, the other big difference which goes with that saying is just that, you know, I look at our traffic and Facebook is just not a meaningful referrer.

193
00:30:38.048 --> 00:30:48.188
In the end, at BuzzFeed, it was really always the first referrer. Yeah. When you look back on BuzzFeed News, could it have worked or was it always sort of because of the macro environment, you know?

194
00:30:48.268 --> 00:30:56.558
I mean, the core bet was that you could build a news organization on the back of social media, and that was wrong, right? I think that just-- well, that's what Jonah and I thought.

195
00:30:57.088 --> 00:31:02.628
We then made a lot of mistakes, including spending too much, just way too more money. We just thought that it could support a bigger business than it could.

196
00:31:02.687 --> 00:31:13.148
I mean, there were lots of mistakes that we made, but that kind of core bet that so- that the social media ecosystem was kind of gonna evolve into something like cable where there were business models for content businesses.

197
00:31:13.748 --> 00:31:22.558
I mean, nobody cracked that. There are individual creators doing okay, but there are no news organizations running that way, and so I don't... I think that it was fundamentally this macro thing.

198
00:31:22.608 --> 00:31:29.268
I think we could have seen that a lot sooner and tried to turn it into a smaller, more subscriber-driven thing.

199
00:31:29.288 --> 00:31:39.468
We had this great newsletter that we launched in probably twenty fifteen written by this guy, Eleamin Abdelmahmoud, who is now a, I r- recently learned, a very important Canadian cultural figure. Great, great guy.

200
00:31:39.708 --> 00:31:44.288
Check out his show on CBC. And wrote a great newsletter, and the newsletter really got traction.

201
00:31:44.328 --> 00:31:54.438
We could just feel the audience and, but we didn't, we had no idea what to do with it, and obviously, in retrospect, we should have been trying to build like a, a s- you know, a business with a smaller but more- Yeah...

202
00:31:54.438 --> 00:32:05.088
you know, but, but, but very plugged in audience. So how different is it now with building Semafor in this more with less era? I know the types of people you hire.

203
00:32:05.168 --> 00:32:11.608
Like, what are, what are, what are the differences in, in approaches from, you know, back when you're building BuzzFeed News to what you're doing now?

204
00:32:12.168 --> 00:32:26.808
I mean, I think when we were building BuzzFeed News, we considered Twitter and our sort of competitive advantage for a little while was that we figured out that Twitter was the front page of news and just, like, said it that clearly and I told, you know, Rosie Gray and Zeke Miller and these great reporters I hired in twenty twelve, "Just think of Twitter as your front page.

205
00:32:27.348 --> 00:32:30.368
If it's already on there, don't write it 'cause it's already on there. Break news.

206
00:32:30.848 --> 00:32:38.848
It can be small news, but break stuff that people on Twitter are curious about, answer their questions, and that's how you build a news brand and news organization," and it totally worked.

207
00:32:39.428 --> 00:32:47.268
And it, and, and the kind of journalists who did really well were often journalists with this very, very sort of sixth sense sensitivity to social media and sense of what was being talked about all the time.

208
00:32:47.808 --> 00:32:53.728
Still a useful skill, for sure, but I think that kind of micro scoop matters a lot less actually.

209
00:32:54.288 --> 00:32:59.808
You know, it's, it's hard, much, much harder to cut through, and to cut through, you need more velocity, more sort of weight to a story.

210
00:33:00.388 --> 00:33:08.308
I do think original reporting scoops still just, you know, there's no, there's no replacement for that. They do call it news, and it has to, there has to be news in it.

211
00:33:08.828 --> 00:33:33.808
But, but the, the, but the, the thing that the audience wants often is a direct connection with the individual journalist, which is so different, and also just help nav-- and I think if, like, people ten years ago thought, "Wow, this opening of social media is so delightful, and the fact that instead of just being stuck reading one publication, I have everything at my fingertips, it's wonderful," now people hate that and are looking to publishers to give them an alternative that synthesizes all this stuff coming from all over.

212
00:33:33.888 --> 00:33:52.218
And so a lot of our effort is, is now directed toward synthesis, and we have this product called Signals, which is just really about saying we're n- 'cause I think the breaking news ecosystem is so broken, and so many organizations are doing this thing of something happens, and you write, like, a really quick one-sentence story and throw it on the internet in the hope of getting the Google link.

213
00:33:52.238 --> 00:33:59.688
Yeah. And then maybe you fill in some more words 'cause Google wants words or something, or some SEO expert told you it did. But that, that is just not a good piece.

214
00:33:59.768 --> 00:34:04.288
That's not a thing that is helping anybody understand the world. And so we've been, I think our approach has been the inverse.

215
00:34:04.448 --> 00:34:19.198
Wait a beat, figure out what the facts are, and then get, find people expressing really thoughtful, informed analysis, often that dis- you know, disagreeing, if we can find it, and, and give you something that reflects what kind of almost used to be the best of the social media experience, which is, "Here's what happened.

216
00:34:19.588 --> 00:34:28.608
Here's how to understand it." So you're making aggregation great again. We are making aggregation great again. [laughs] I, I believe I prefer the word distillation, I think. Well, that's the thing.

217
00:34:28.648 --> 00:34:30.148
I mean, aggregation moves on, right?

218
00:34:30.208 --> 00:34:46.468
I mean, I think aggregation was frequently done for algorithms, and it always drove me crazy when B-Business Insider would, in my view, rip off, like, a piece of original content, put it into a slideshow, and get ten times the traffic.

219
00:34:46.508 --> 00:34:57.108
Just drove me nuts. [laughs] Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But it also has a very long history in the media business. Yeah. The Associated Press began aggregating. So I think you, you know, you wanna do it really well.

220
00:34:57.148 --> 00:35:06.948
You wanna add intelligence and, and, and, and also be- make sure that, and, and not, there is that sense of we are s- and it's a little hard to put your finger on, right? The, like, "They just stole our story.

221
00:35:07.008 --> 00:35:14.378
What the hell?" Versus, "Oh, cool. They linked us." And it's a bit about humility- Yeah... among other things, and just how you do it.

222
00:35:14.388 --> 00:35:22.328
And the fact that, like, I think anyone in any, any walk of life should remember that, you know, most people don't care. [laughs] Right. Yeah. Get the steal. But we, but it's not a... Yeah.

223
00:35:22.388 --> 00:35:28.028
But that's about being a good citizen in the news ecosystem- Yeah... not about the reader. So let's talk about being good citizens.

224
00:35:28.188 --> 00:35:36.688
These AI companies and the AI deals that are taking place, I think there's roughly two camps, and really your business model depends on which camp you're in.

225
00:35:37.208 --> 00:35:43.998
One says there's, there's little choice, there's not much, I mean, my, I believe this, there's not much leverage that publishers are bringing if, if they ever had it.

226
00:35:44.028 --> 00:35:50.868
At least they now know that they don't have any leverage. And money that goes to, straight to the bottom line, great, great.

227
00:35:51.148 --> 00:35:57.168
Don't, don't bank on it, though [laughs] I wouldn't, I wouldn't extrapolate it in any ten-year plan, if anyone can have a ten-year plan.

228
00:35:57.528 --> 00:36:05.588
The other is, you know, the Charlie Brown with the football gif that we kept running on any platform story for five years at Digiday.

229
00:36:05.988 --> 00:36:29.980
What's your take?I guess I, I think, yeah, I found Jessica Lessin's argument pretty persuasive, that if you can afford to avoid doing these deals, it is too early, basically, and that there's a real risk in a deal that is basically like, "Hey, here's some money, stop complaining," as opposed to a deal that is a clear value exchange, and it's just too early to figure out what the value exchange is because these companies don't have businesses yet.

230
00:36:30.440 --> 00:36:38.220
And so I do think it's-- th-this current round of deals is a sort of hand-wavy, leave us alone, here's some goodwill kind of a deal.

231
00:36:38.769 --> 00:36:52.060
Although that said, the details matter a lot, and a lot of them are quite short-term and don't actually preclude the publishers from turning around and suing in two years, and don't necessarily sign away, you know, and, and concede all the rights questions.

232
00:36:52.680 --> 00:37:00.040
So I don't know. We'll see, we'll see how it plays out. I guess I do think that there's a lot of different ways the AI, AI industry can go.

233
00:37:00.580 --> 00:37:08.540
I mean, I think the notion that it's gonna be this kind of incredible monopoly business like the social and search platform business not, is not for sure.

234
00:37:08.640 --> 00:37:14.560
It could be, you know, a huge business that loses money or a product that gets really commoditized.

235
00:37:15.020 --> 00:37:24.090
And so I think those questions that are sort of hovering around what kind of a business is AI make it hard to figure out how the news business and how the media business plugs into it. Mm-hmm.

236
00:37:24.180 --> 00:37:35.740
I mean, I guess my own view is that, you know, it's in some sense, it's like in the way, the way that you experience it, if you look at Perplexity taking whole news articles basically last week, it's just- it's distribution.

237
00:37:36.320 --> 00:37:45.280
And it doesn't seem to me that it's written in stone that the distributors should get ninety percent of the revenue and the content should get ten. That's what the last era of media was, but not the one before.

238
00:37:45.920 --> 00:37:55.260
And so I think, I do think the publishers ought to be pretty greedy here and be say-- and if you're The New York Times, and you're looking at these platforms, I do think you're saying, "Wait, this is a lot of our information.

239
00:37:55.300 --> 00:38:01.880
They should have low margins for re- for rejiggering our information, and we should, and we should get most of the profits." Yeah.

240
00:38:01.920 --> 00:38:11.220
And a lot of these deals are for, I mean, they're looking backwards to some degree, and I think what's unknown is how valuable news that's new will be- Right... in this.

241
00:38:11.300 --> 00:38:17.049
Because they, they need to keep learning, they need to be up to date, and they s- they took all the stuff. So I can- Yeah, but now-...

242
00:38:17.060 --> 00:38:26.760
understand, you know, look, not all the money's going to compute, a lot of it's going to lawyers. And so if a publisher's looking at it, they're like, "Oh my god, let The New York Times take on this battle."

243
00:38:27.220 --> 00:38:35.420
[chuckles] Yeah, but it is true they're just literally running out of training data, and they're trying to figure out whether you can create, you can basically use AI to write new words that it can then train on.

244
00:38:35.460 --> 00:38:47.960
There is some interesting and promising research in that direction. But they're gonna have basically used all the words up, like this year. And so maybe there then is relatively more value to new information. Yeah.

245
00:38:48.160 --> 00:38:55.860
But it's not changing your... I mean, you're still a believer in, in words as a main output of Semafor. Yeah.

246
00:38:55.880 --> 00:39:02.440
I mean, I think that there's a misperception among people who aren't in our business that we spend most of our time typing, that journalism is just typing.

247
00:39:02.940 --> 00:39:10.320
But actually, most reporters spend as little time as possible typing, and most time gathering information that is out, that is not on, that is not yet on the internet.

248
00:39:10.809 --> 00:39:17.510
And in some sense, like the core thing that great journalists are doing is taking things that are not on the internet and putting them on the internet. And that's not really...

249
00:39:17.540 --> 00:39:24.640
I mean, I think, you know, there are probably AI tools that can help you do that better, but that's not something that I think is immediately threatened by AI.

250
00:39:25.120 --> 00:39:37.040
And I think the kind of worst and least valuable and least sort of socially valuable and least fun forms of journalism are the ones where you're writing eleven blog posts a day about, you know, like cool things to do in Seattle- Yeah...

251
00:39:37.120 --> 00:39:45.600
and maybe AI, based on your reading of TripAdvisor, and I think, like, probably AI can do that. Are you using AI in, in, at Semafor in the newsroom? Yeah.

252
00:39:45.720 --> 00:39:57.180
We, you know, we have a, we do have a, a deal with Microsoft and OpenAI, although it's not a, it's a different, it's not around the corpus of text, like we're new, we don't have a lot of text, and so I, I fortunately didn't have to, didn't have to weigh that decision.

253
00:39:57.720 --> 00:40:10.610
But the, I mean, these things are incredible research tools and, and they're sponsoring our, you know, our use of OpenAI for this, this tool that we're using for s- uh, one, one of our sort of value propositions is, is trying to make sure that you're getting a global point of view on stories.

254
00:40:11.160 --> 00:40:16.860
And searching, even though machine translation is amazing, search across languages is hard.

255
00:40:16.920 --> 00:40:24.960
Like, if I said to you like, "Hey, could you see if there's anybody say, in Japanese, Chinese, or Korean talking about yesterday's news?" That's a non-trivial challenge.

256
00:40:25.260 --> 00:40:30.100
You could, I suppose, translate into Korean and Google in the Korean Google, but that's really hard.

257
00:40:30.640 --> 00:40:37.060
And we, we, and, and OpenAI allowed us to build a tool that allows you to search across multiple languages for analysis of stories.

258
00:40:37.080 --> 00:40:49.520
And then we're not copying and pasting their OpenAI text, but it's an amazing research tool. Do you think that lo- when you look long term, you'll have to build a far smaller newsroom in order to...

259
00:40:49.820 --> 00:40:57.900
Can you cover more ground with fewer people? I mean, you look at like Klarna, you know, they got, they got, they got... The CEO of Klarna is like, "We're stopping recruiting.

260
00:40:58.420 --> 00:41:05.240
We're gonna need twenty percent fewer people in every area." I think it really depends what kind of, what people in your newsroom are doing.

261
00:41:05.760 --> 00:41:11.200
I mean, I do think, you know, things that I guess you could call AI have been chipping away at copy desks for a long time.

262
00:41:11.400 --> 00:41:18.220
Like, I don't think Grammarly is gonna be out on street corners gunning down, you know- Copy editors always go first-... people-... yeah... Minority Report style. That's what I say.

263
00:41:18.300 --> 00:41:25.180
But I do think copy editors are kinda getting screwed again, for sure. And they're production jobs. I mean, I do think the s- you, the s- you know, I mean, the, if you...

264
00:41:25.240 --> 00:41:41.020
I mean, before the previous wave of the internet put a lot of drivers and printers out of business, and I do think it's continuing to kind of chew its way up that ladder of production and take out a lot of production tasks, which if you're running a big newsroom, I mean, you have a lot of people you really have to worry about.

265
00:41:41.060 --> 00:41:45.500
These are people's jobs. Mm-hmm. If you are starting a thing from scratch, I mean, for us, it's a huge advantage.

266
00:41:45.640 --> 00:41:55.400
It just means there's stuff that we can do much more inexpensively and use that money to hire journalists, which is what I'd rather do. Yeah. Actually, that's unfair. Those people are journalists. But to hire reporters.

267
00:41:55.820 --> 00:42:00.740
What other advantages do you have starting from scratch? 'Cause it is, this seems like a great time to start from scratch.

268
00:42:01.080 --> 00:42:10.059
But just- It is a great- From the outside, I look at what's going on in these, in these big newsrooms, I'm like, "Oh my God." There's so much going on that's threatening from the outside world.

269
00:42:10.100 --> 00:42:12.780
And- Yeah, it's a great time to start from scratch. It truly is.

270
00:42:12.820 --> 00:42:25.220
I mean, partly because the landscape is, because the distribution landscape has changed so radically and you can put your energy into reaching people one to one, into doing events where you would have, as opposed to trying to, you know, feed a kind of social media beast.

271
00:42:25.400 --> 00:42:39.220
I mean, just it's a very different way of thinking.The other big change, which we've talked about a lot, is, is around, you know, just the readers and attachment to individual journalists and wanting to amplify the voices of individuals versus a kind of faceless brand.

272
00:42:39.560 --> 00:42:51.340
And then, you know, there's space for some of both, but certainly if you are, you know, a great reporter at the, the Wall Street Journal or The Washington Post, give me a call, let's talk about how to make your byline bigger and have people know who you are.

273
00:42:51.560 --> 00:43:03.200
I mean, I think that's a real advantage for, for startups that are built in this particular moment when... And I, and I do hate these words like influencer and creator and all that, but, and personal brand, right?

274
00:43:03.260 --> 00:43:06.760
Like, everybody sort of just rolls their eyes in, in, in the sort of hard journalism world.

275
00:43:06.840 --> 00:43:18.200
But at the same time, that is, that is the direction of travel for the industry and figuring out how you can do that in a way that kinda, you know, where you're not turning over your journalism card to, you know, at the door- Yeah...

276
00:43:18.380 --> 00:43:26.660
is pretty exciting. Speaking of that, I was, I was intrigued that you're, you're reading ads now. I mean, was this something that you [laughs] would have thought of when you got into this profession?

277
00:43:27.200 --> 00:43:36.420
You know, I think I'm, I'm very-- I love breaking stories. I'm not, I don't have sort of ideological views on, you know, on, on, on this kind of stuff, on, on the business.

278
00:43:36.500 --> 00:43:47.200
I think it's really important for journalists to have very, very strong ideological views about journalism and be pretty agnostic about revenue. I just mean, like, actually being...

279
00:43:47.220 --> 00:43:54.240
Like, I think one of the interesting things with podcasting is- Right, is that it's like early days radio and you're reading the ads yourselves?

280
00:43:54.260 --> 00:44:05.520
Well, yeah, because, like, in, in, in print or text-based journalism, I mean, nobody, very few journalists, I mean, outside of some lifestyle categories are, are, are writing the ads. Yeah.

281
00:44:05.560 --> 00:44:15.260
I mean, I am glad that, I mean, in we, in our case, I think actually I read the ads in the first one, but my colleague Rachel Oppenheim is perhaps slightly more forcefully and enthusiastically reading some of the ads going forward.

282
00:44:15.760 --> 00:44:16.180
But we did.

283
00:44:16.200 --> 00:44:24.500
I mean, I was concerned when we started talking about audio that I would, and I got beat up when I said this before, but that I was gonna have to talk about green juice, and actually, in fact, love green juice.

284
00:44:24.580 --> 00:44:30.800
You're talking about Google instead. It's great. But instead I- That can get more awkward, to be honest with you, when you're talking- I'm talking about-... with your media podcast [laughs]... advertising.

285
00:44:31.740 --> 00:44:39.950
Well, let's talk, well, let's talk about advertising and with the, with, with this, with, uh, this very senior Google ad exec who's genuinely totally wired into it. So it's, it's pretty... I don't know.

286
00:44:39.980 --> 00:44:50.260
I think, I think you could do worse. Yeah. No. I, I'm not precious about it. Um, but- Thank you. Uh, you're my, you're my ethical North Star, Brian. [laughs] I don't know what that means.

287
00:44:50.900 --> 00:44:59.700
I think that was an insult, but I'm not sure. We'll just leave it there. [laughs] We'll leave it hanging. Ben, thank you. It's always a pleasure. Fun to talk. Yeah. Thanks for having me on.

288
00:45:04.740 --> 00:45:11.680
[outro music]