Some Future Day

Marc Beckman: Matt, welcome to Some Future Day. It's so great to see you. I'm so enthusiastic about having you as a guest today. How are you?
Matt Murray: Thanks, Mark. It's, it's, it's great. I'm good. It's great to see you. I'm excited for our conversation. I really appreciate you having me on. So let it
Marc Beckman: let's just, let's just dive into it. I want to like really get into all things journalism here. You know, obviously the concept of journalism extends into so many topics of our time from freedom of speech and beyond, but why does America need traditional journalism? Now,
Matt Murray: Oh, well, I think America, I think the world always needs traditional journalism. And to be clear, we're going to talk, I think for [00:02:00] my background is really news journalism, and I want to be clear, there are different kinds, there's opinion journalism, there's obviously lots of different kinds of journalism, but talking about.
News journalism. Look, I, I think it's always been clear. Uh, it certainly is clear from what our founders said in this country at the beginning, uh, of, uh, the country that you need a well informed citizenry. And on a very fundamental level to your question, strong, Clear, objective, factual news reporting is central to informing the citizenry and helping us understand objectively, the best that we can, many facts that are relevant to what's happening in the world, in our country, in our lives.
I'm also a believer, that, uh, when you're getting news right, in a certain sense, it's a unifying thing, uh, you know, the old, the, the expression, uh, that, you know, you can have your opinions, but you can't make up [00:03:00] your facts. if you're going to live in a world of facts, and I think today's technology and internet culture in some ways puts that in greater danger than it's been in some previous eras, you're standing for some.
Standard of factuality and truthfulness that should be linking people and bringing us together in some way. So you can play an important kind of cultural function that way, too.
Marc Beckman: it begets the, the next question of, um, is it difficult then for traditional journalism to thrive, um, even starting at its core? Like, for example, when we look at the culture of a newsroom today, there might be, it seems like certain news entities sway to the left, sway to the right. and that could have a chilling effect on one's freedom of speech on the First Amendment, which kind of like, you know, screams in the face of journalism at the core of it.[00:04:00]
I'm wondering then, um, can, can that, the culture of a newsroom negatively impact, the, the, the journalism and then in turn have a negative impact or a chilling effect on society at large?
Matt Murray: Oh, it's a complicated question. There's obviously a lot of things that are swarming journalism today and putting journalism as, as at least I started out at the beginning of my career, the profession that I sought out to enter has changed dramatically. There's a lot of things causing that change and, uh, uh, endangering some of those kind of, uh, older traditions.
Some of which we can discuss, you know, are certainly outmoded, by the way. newsroom culture is its own piece of it. I think, uh, and again, a very complex question. Look, one thing in the discussion of journalism that doesn't get talked about enough as our industry, uh, shrinks and is in crisis is [00:05:00] how we've, in some ways, uh, hurt ourselves and things that we've done that have undermined Sometimes the mission that we're engaged in and the confidence of, of readers and their dependency on us.
So, and big, large traditional newsrooms. I managed one for five years. I am, you know, uh, and this is not a comment on, on that newsroom at all, but they are, uh, they, they are facing, uh, new kinds of challenges, you know, there's not a shared view always about what free speech means, what good speech is, what bad speech is.
Uh, there are managerial challenges with the staff that large. There's, there, there's raucous ongoing debates about, you know, what constitutes so called, uh, you know, good discourse or not. I, I think there's a lot of confusion about the mission of journalism that, that too many, uh, journalists think that we're in the business of telling narratives or shaping errors instead of reporting facts.
and then I think, you [00:06:00] know, uh, Having said all that, I think that part of it is also, you know, being forthright about your mission. There's nothing to me inherently wrong, to be honest, about being a left leaning newsroom or a right leaning newsroom, if you declare that that's what you are. if you let the world know you're coming at things from a particular perspective and you own it, that's better than, coming at the world from a particular perspective and pretending that you're not.
So, I think
Marc Beckman: a
Matt Murray: of it is about truth in advertising.
Marc Beckman: Yeah, so is that like a more modern definition of journalistic integrity where like the New York Times can come out and say like, look, we, we lean to the left and in fact, we want to shape a left leaning narrative and therefore it will deliver the facts, but it's going to be leaning towards the left.
And that's the new definition of journalistic integrity. Like that would be okay.
Matt Murray: I think it's, well, first of all, I think it's actually an old definition of what journalism was. Remember that journalism in [00:07:00] this country, and still to a large extent in Europe and many parts of the world, started as partisan organs in many ways, specifically arguing particular points of view and wearing the opinions on their sleeves.
What we think of in a modern sense is modern kind of so called objective journalism. Journalism or journalism aiming at objectivity, uh, or some kind of neutral stance was a really kind of a creation of the 20th century news culture in the United States, uh, spearheaded by, uh, Walter Lippmann, particularly, but other journalists, it's not necessarily the natural state.
So there's an argument to be made that if you're saying we come from the left, we come from the right, we have a perspective that you're reverting to what journalism used to be. and, you know, it's, there's a tension that's being played out in front of us right now in these newsrooms where sometimes they culturally want to cling to sort of the traditional mission, but we are [00:08:00] living in a digital age of audiences and audience data, and they're leaning into audiences.
And they've got to, you know, satisfy a certain audience. And the metric is engagement. We've got tools that we didn't used to have to measure, uh, the, the impact of our journalism. And they are not, those things are not adding up in my view, in some cases in some of the newsrooms. So, uh, truth in advertising would help a lot.
The Guardian in London, or sorry, in Manchester, The Guardian, The Guardian says it's a, it's a liberal newspaper coming from a perspective on the left. And you could like The Guardian or not like The Guardian, but you get that that's part of The Guardian's mission. So they're pretty open about it. So it's not necessarily a brand new idea.
Marc Beckman: but you, you just like set up this, um, this, uh, dichotomy between the commercial goals of a news or media entity versus let's say, um, reporting the facts just to keep it really basic. So should [00:09:00] journalistic integrity start with the entity, um, the corporate entity who's, you know, perhaps it's a publicly traded company, the fiduciary duty is to create economic value to the shareholders.
Or should the journalistic integrity start with the reporter,
Matt Murray: Well, uh, I think journalistic integrity, I mean, to be honest with you, if you're in the media business, every one of those stakeholders has a piece in that. It's not illegitimate as a company to make money, of course. Uh, in business, you have to make money, but think If you're in the journalism business and you're in the media business, broadly speaking, and you aspire and espouse some high ideals, it can't just be about the money.
You've got a public service component and a public mission component. That has to be strong in the newsroom. It has to be Clearly articulated by the editor and understood by all the people in the newsroom and practiced by the journalists [00:10:00] themselves. And the journalists shouldn't be working at that organization if they don't aspire broadly to those, uh, to those beliefs.
And then on the corporate side, they have to understand that mission and endorse it as well and recognize that, that The idea of making money and the idea of espousing your mission aren't necessarily at odds on an ongoing basis, but occasionally they will be. And if you take journalism seriously and you believe you've got a public responsibility, uh, the journalistic ethos, uh, you know, should prevail most of the time in those circumstances.
I think on top of it, you have to be honest about Where you come from, what your perspective is, what you're espousing, and state it as such. I think, I think one of the things that has undermined trust in journalism, and I think maybe this is part of what you're getting at, and one of the things that, that people, uh, are getting really frustrated in journalism is about, is candidly, sometimes, you know, you read a newspaper and you know that it's got a particular perspective.
Very often it might be a liberal perspective. [00:11:00] Or the way stories are framed comes from a particular perspective, or it's got a particular political view, but it doesn't acknowledge it, or even necessarily, in some cases, recognize that it's coming from a particular point of view. Uh, and people go, well, what are you talking about?
You know, obviously you're taking sides here and the journalists say, no, no, no, no, we're just telling it straight. There's a, there's a mismatch that's happened. And I think we have to be more honest in the profession about what we're doing in that regard. And. The answer could be, we're going to lean into a partisan point of view.
And there were some very successful publications that do that. Or the answer could be, we've got to really be honest and straighten out our principles and try the best we can to be down the middle. but whatever the approaches you're taking, it's kind of match the message you're making.
Marc Beckman: Yeah, it makes a lot of sense, but just going back to one of your, um, ideas that you shared earlier, um, like, and I know there's really no way to, to, to give a, an empirical, based, opinion on what I'm about to ask you, [00:12:00] but in your opinion, with your, you know, from your professional opinion, like, how, like, what percentage of journalists today do you think feel like their job is to create the narrative?
Versus report the facts
Matt Murray: I don't know if I could put a, uh, percentage figure on it, but, uh, and again, I want to be really clear that I'm not talking, uh, in any way specifically from my own experience, uh, at the Journal or our own newsroom there.
This is a broader view. but the, but the percentage is too high, you know, uh, whatever it is, it's way too high. I think you see these, you know, These debates playing out in newsrooms that are reported, you see, you see sometimes, you know, publications putting forth very clear narrativization. It's, to be fair, it's really, really hard if you look at something like the, uh, the war that's playing out in the Middle East right now.
It's one of the [00:13:00] most intense examples I could think of in my entire lifetime of very aggressive narrativizing by both sides. And the sides are almost irreconcilable. So it takes a real discernment and judgment to try to report the straightest that you can and avoid Uh, some of that overt narrativizing, but I think the, the, the openness of the internet, the debates about speech, the, the, the, uh, sort of censorious nature of how we think about terminology, uh, how we talk about supposed harms and hurts, uh, group identity, the rise of what's being taught at our, our colleges about acceptable language and discourse and safe spaces, all of those things.
I have fed into a lot of ideas, unfortunately, about what journalism should be doing, uh, and many people in journalism feel what we should be doing is, is, is, is controlling or trying to shape the discourse. there [00:14:00] aren't too many people in journalism, I would add, and I have these conversations sometimes, where I think they don't have enough faith in what I think journalism is, which is give the facts the best that you can, constantly try to improve the facts and supplement and give more, do it with humility, let people decide based on what you're reporting what to act.
There are a lot of journalists who don't feel that's enough. They actually want to take an active role or they feel that they're standing off to the sidelines. I feel standing up for speech and trying to report the facts and trying to have a certain empathy and outreach and talk to as many people as possible is in and of itself a very worthy contribution to society and a very important one.
but there are a lot of people who, who, who want to go further than that. And I think that's, uh, that's one of the ways that we're really hurting ourselves. Sorry to rattle on, but, uh.
Marc Beckman: it is very complex. And, you know, obviously the truth matters. The Supreme court a long time ago spoke about this concept of marketplace of a marketplace of ideas that [00:15:00] allowed for the citizenry to, I guess, to a certain extent, do their own research and provide deductive reasoning.
to do the work and figure out where they should land with regards to a particular policy. We've moved away from that. I was, um, listening to the interview that you had with Walter Isaacson and, you know, what you and I have been talking about just now is about the entity, the media, Um, pushing out into the public, but one of the topics that you and Walter Isis Isaacson spoke about is, um, whether or not trust in journalism has collapsed.
So do you think we've gone that far? Would you say that, um, today from a, a consumer's perspective, that their trust, um, in the, in, in journalism has actually collapsed and they're looking for new sources and, and new ways to find the truth.
Matt Murray: Well, every survey would tell you that trust has collapsed, uh, in journalism, as it has, to be fair, in most of our public [00:16:00] institutions over the last generation or so, it's in very bad shape.
And so I think we do have a trust crisis. Now, I think there's a lot of things that contribute to it. I've, I've talked a little bit about some of the self inflicted, uh, wounds, and we could talk a lot more about those. Some of it has to do with. Other factors, right? The ecosystem is changing quite a bit.
We're flooded with information now. I mean, if you really think about it as a step back, and this is not, I don't want to sound like I'm lamenting a lost past because it was not perfect. But, you know, even when I started, uh, in the beginning of my career, in my lifetime, there was a kind of a, you know, gatekeeper function that media organizations often played.
Because the means of, uh, or the barriers to entry in the profession were fairly high. You had to have a printing press or a TV station. The number of outlets was fairly limited. And so, structurally, the media [00:17:00] played a very different role. Today, it's the opposite. You know, it takes, all the tools are in our hands, in everybody's hands, to start a publication right now.
Uh, we've got social media streams on our phones, and we're all glued to our phones all day. We are so flooded with information, that we have almost an inverse problem, which is trying to sort out all the different things and facts we get. and figure out what's real, what's less real, or what's, uh, what's, uh, hyped, what's, you know, that is a gigantic challenge for us as a society, uh, that I don't know the traditional media is, you know, in a position to quote unquote fix, but it's made everybody suspicious of everything that you get.
And then of course, we also have sensory responses. You know, we all look at video and video is very visceral and real. And we go, Oh, that's gotta be real. Often it's, you know, whatever video you're responding to, you may miss the context or not know everything. So we have a problem as individuals of, of processing [00:18:00] information and knowing what's true and what's not.
And, and that's a gigantic societal cultural issue that, uh, it's going to take us a long time to sort out if we ever do.
Marc Beckman: Right. And then, you know, so technology is really disrupting in a, in a very decentralized way, journalism and the way that people can access news, deliver news and beyond. And then you also have these major personalities, people like Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan that, um, you know, they might, well, Joe Rogan from time to time will say like, I'm not reporting the news.
Like during the COVID moment, uh, we know that there was like a lot of tension with regards to what he was. Uh, sharing, let's say, with his fanbase surrounding, uh, COVID and, and cure, potential cures for COVID. but like, for example, look at Tucker Carlson. Like, what a, what an incredible career move, um, on so many levels where he was able to leave Fox News with the biggest audience during that time slide.
And, and some are arguing that, um, it's even, his audience is even bigger now. It's even greater [00:19:00] and he's set up to. You know, he just had this big Putin interview. So, you know, I think the, the personalities are driving to a certain extent, the way that we, we get news, we take in news, but do those personalities have, are they obligated?
Like is Tucker Carlson taking with him the obligation of delivering honest news with integrity from a Fox platform into his own platform? Do we, should we be relying on Joe Rogan to provide a certain standard of integrity as it relates to journalism that you might see from one of the traditional legacy media outlets like the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times?
Matt Murray: well, it's a complicated time. Let's start by saying, I think, in this country, you know, and I think happily so, there's no license to be a journalist. There's no governmental approval to be a journalist.
There's no process to officially declare yourself a journalist or not a journalist. Essentially, freedom of the press belongs to everybody. The First [00:20:00] Amendment applies to everybody. And you've got the freedom to, uh, to speak and to, uh, to, to say what you want. So in that sense, no, I don't think any of them necessarily has an obligation or has to have an obligation, but I, I think, you know, in terms of, of what we think of as objective media or what we think of as truth, are they journalists?
Well, it's all blurring together, isn't it? I mean, and I think that that's part of the problem we're having as a society, processing them. Uh, look, there's always been Tucker Carlson like figures. You know, I mean, in the 30s we had, uh, you know, the famous Father Charles Coughlin, the sort of, uh, you know, famously demagogic, uh, Catholic priest, uh, conservative on the radio was a very popular figure.
So we, we have figures who have voices who, who gather followings, who make noise. I think that. What we don't, what, what's, what's, what's a challenge now is we don't have so many mediating, moderating, [00:21:00] middle tier voices that, that balance those or counter those, or, you know, in a certain sense, even gatekeep those, that's not an endorsement of gatekeeping.
That's just simply an observation that the structure has changed in today's media world, increasingly. So everybody is a voice and. There's not necessarily any dominant voice, and your legitimacy as a voice, in many ways, derives from how many followers you have and how many people listen to you. In the metrics of the internet, that frankly incentivizes a lot of people to be more extreme, more vocal, make noise, you've got to shout to stand out in the din.
And I think we're seeing the consequences of that play out in our society every day. You know, one of the challenges for objective news is it's one of the, you know, there's no other objective news. People want it, people rely on it, but there's a little bit, uh, [00:22:00] of a medicinal element to it. It's good for you, but it's not necessarily what you're always going to click on or read or follow.
It's not necessarily the things that are going to move the emotions, move the dials. So one of the things that happens as the internet's taken over is sort of the only objective measurements that we have that register Quote unquote success are these, you know, tools of the internet. And I think that's having a distorting effect on the overall nature of our, of our discourse.
So, you know, is the problem, is Tucker Carlson or Joe Rogan, quote unquote, a problem? Well, it may be not on them individually, but on the whole ecosystem in which they become larger relative to other, you know, You know, supposedly moderating forces. We haven't sorted that whole ecosystem out yet and it's in flux and it's going to be in flux for quite a long time.
I think, um, uh, the technology as is often the case with new technology [00:23:00] has, is, is well ahead of where we are as a society, as individuals, as, as, as, you know, whatever regulation we want to, to manage that flow. And I think that's the consequence of what we're seeing now. So I'm, I'm cautious about. I mean, I don't particularly care for Tucker in, in, in, in almost any way.
Rogan, I'm a little more hot and cold on depending on the moment, but regardless of my individual feelings of them, uh, uh, you know, they have the right to be out there and saying things and doing things. It's just that, uh, I wish that there were other voices that were sometimes equally prominent or more prominent against them, and I think, you know, Frankly, many citizens, including many citizens, that, uh, they're just confused.
They're just confused by the plethora of voices on where to go and where to turn, and they're getting their head spun, and it's a real challenge for us as a society. That's a much bigger question than just journalism per se, but it's, it's an informational ecosystem that's growing up in front of us [00:24:00] that, uh, we, we haven't figured out how to manage.
Marc Beckman: So will that ecosystem then allow for journalists today to be truly objective?
Matt Murray: It does. It can. There's objective journalism that gets written right now. There's strong journalism that gets done. Uh, I, I, I believe, yes, absolutely it can. Uh, uh, you know, look, one of the most, and even some startups are out there, uh, doing, uh, doing one of the most successful startups is a newsletter called 1440.
That is a very, uh, straight, uh, delivered newsletter, and that's been the niche that they've carved. So, yes, I think absolutely it does. I think. But, but I think it's one among, you know, one or several among many different voices and I don't know what the mechanism is. I mean, I know what it is for me as an individual, but I think essentially we're, we're, we're getting to a place where it's up to each individual to sift and sort the news sources right now and try to determine what is credible to, [00:25:00] to, to them and what's not and how to manage that.
Uh, and we're going to have, With AI coming along, we're going to have more and more and more new sources and voices fighting for everybody's individual attention. And I think that this kind of sorting issue is a real challenge.
Marc Beckman: So it's interesting, like, when you evaluate the ecosystem of journalism and you think a little bit about the tension between legacy media and social media, Um, social media, I'm sure you would agree, I don't want to speak for you, but I'm sure you would agree, in, in societies, for example, where, there isn't freedom of the press, like we saw, I don't know, maybe 10 plus years ago with the Arab Spring, social media provided an incredible tool for Humankind.
It was, it was really a great moment in time, but perhaps when you look at social media's impact in a place like the United States, where we do have the First Amendment, it's having a chilling effect on delivering quality news, objective stories, the truth. So, um, do [00:26:00] you think like, We were talking about this with Bitcoin, actually, like, do you think, like, ultimately, as we evolve forward, the ecosystem of media will have a place for legacy media, will have a place for social media, maybe we're already there today, um, and if you think that this ecosystem of media will develop into something, where, where do you think journalism, legacy, traditional journalism will fit in?
What will be, what will be the need for it within this ecosystem?
Matt Murray: well, I'd say a couple things, I guess, and, uh, you know, I'm no better a predictor probably than anybody else. social media is mass media.
It's true mass media. So that distinguishes it right off the bat from, from what I think of as, or what you might have characterized as sort of traditional objective media. We should remember that, The United States, uh, at least in its recent history, has never been a gigantic, media consumption, [00:27:00] uh, country on the level of some others, you know, certainly, uh, you know, local TV news is the number one source of news for people in the United States, and there's still a lot of local TV news channels, but traditional channels like the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, or the Washington Post that we might think of as, uh, as, uh, sort of legacy channels.
They've always been for a tiny sliver of the population. And in fact, all three of those publications are, are at or close to the largest they've ever been, but the country keeps growing bigger. So news itself, I'm not sure has ever, or at least in recent history, been a gigantic preoccupation for everybody in society.
It is true that local news has really collapsed and has really been, been deeply challenged and, and, and local newspapers used to be, you know, much bigger and broader, more popular. Some of that, a fair amount of that probably had to do with the service component of the newspaper rather than the news per se.
You know, you've got the movie listings and the [00:28:00] sports scores and the classified ads that you now get on the Internet. so. I don't think that we, I want to over romanticize, uh, the, the past era. Having said that, this is the challenge today. Legacy Media can and will survive, and some companies are making efforts to do it.
And despite the collapse of a lot of traditional outlets, there are some promising and encouraging startups happening out there, and I think that there'll be more efforts to, to start things up. But, the cost base is going to be far different than it's ever been. I think it's going to be It's almost impossible to build or sustain a gigantic legacy newsroom in the way that we've thought about it.
They're going to be much smaller, they're going to be more tech enabled. The market is going to be more niche, it's going to be more appealing to a certain sliver, a certain audience, a certain group of readers, but breaking through to the mainstream is going to be very difficult. and, uh, at least for now, the, the, the, [00:29:00] the urgency of having a business or a company or a situation in which you can make money to survive and be viable is going to be very high.
The business model, of course, of traditional media, uh, has been destroyed, in this age, and, uh, it's not coming back. So. There's room to do it. There's a few people out there trying to make the effort. There's more who are going to be trying to do it. There are people who, you know, believe news should become non profit.
I'm, I'm more of a skeptic of, of non profit news. There will be quality news, but discoverability of it is going to be harder for people, at least in the foreseeable future, I
Marc Beckman: Yeah, it's interesting because it, um, you know, I'll get into this in a minute, but the, the, uh, tech oligarchs have a ton of power as it relates to, influence as well. But just going back, like something you spoke about as it relates to like the death of local newspapers, what, like what impact does that [00:30:00] have on our society?
Like what have you seen? Like what, what are we losing? I, I realize that you're saying we could replace local newspaper, newspaper stories with digital media, but I think that there's something that's been lost in, you know, in America with the death of local newspapers. Like, do you see, do you see something specific about that?
Matt Murray: To be very clear when I say there are local startups, they can make a dent in it, but a tremendous amount, in my view, has been lost by local media. First, on the most basic level, very basic accountability, coverage of journalism, coverage of the city council, cover of the mayor. You know, there are plenty of studies that suggest that when the local news vanishes or declines heavily, you know, they call them news deserts that, uh, you know, corruption can increase, politicians are operating with less scrutiny.
Um, so there's, there's all kinds of ways in which the [00:31:00] accountability and the sort of just sheer reporting aspect of local news Going away is incredibly damaging to our democracy and to our system and to our structure. Look, newspapers also had a very positive proactive function in many cases that we've forgotten about, which is community building, in a sense.
You know, my first job was at the Virginian Pilot in Norfolk, Virginia. And I was a, I was part of the problem. I was part of the problem for journalism and I didn't know it because I was a fairly typical suburban, college educated snot who went down to the Virginian Pilot and hoped to put in some time there and then quote unquote get to a big city paper or get to someplace more prominent.
There were a couple of people, and I remember my friends and I are very sure of ourselves, young, uh, you know, early 20s kids. By the way, being sure of yourself and sure that you understand the [00:32:00] world in your early 20s is nothing new. That's not just for the digital generation. That's how it's always been.
But we, we were very, um, snooty about certain aspects of local news or about some of these columnists who'd been fixtures at the pilot for 30 or 40 years and were writing, you know, about the community, but actually they were a binding agent for people in that community. They were, they were talking about their home and their, where they were from and people loved seeing their name in the newspaper and seeing themselves written about.
There was a binding function that, as I look back on it, was so powerful and. You know, a great deal of all of this has been lost and has been gone, and by the way, to talk about some of the challenges for journalists, it would really be good to For journalism and society to have more journalists living in different parts of the country and in part of their communities and reflecting their communities [00:33:00] than we have now.
Because as those papers dry up, journalists go away or they go into other jobs. So one of the challenges I think we face as a profession is we become much more heavily concentrated in my lifetime in New York and in Washington and in San Francisco and Do respect to those cities, which are all great places, and I live in New York, and even with the best intention of journalists, and I think very often people think journalists have ill intent, and they don't, they have good intent, but in a more stratified country, you're naturally going to reflect the community in which you live and we're missing a lot of perspectives and a lot of insights and a lot of views of different parts of this country because journalists aren't there to talk about them or write about them which explains part of the gap that we have between journalists in these cities and you know, many normal people across the country.
That's a real problem.
Marc Beckman: So I wonder, Matt, if that's like, um, part of why [00:34:00] we're seeing with our politics today, this, um, kind of like top down type of policy movement where, um, the federal government is pushing policy down across the entire nation versus, um, Um, you know, community oriented, local needs, local, um, wants and needs using their, their local government and perhaps even their local media to push up, right?
Like, without a doubt, we have these arguments about the electoral college and, and, you know, whether or not a, you know, small, um, segment of society in the Midwest should have so much influence over The Big Markets like New York and LA and vice versa, but I wonder, um, you know, if you look back in time, you know, someone like Martin Luther King Jr.,
he was incredible at knowing exactly what his local, constituency at the church level wanted and helped push up for them as it relates to setting policy and setting new legislation. if we, if we eliminate, we've, [00:35:00] we pretty much have eliminated all of these local newspapers and, you know, if there's a lack of accountability as a result, um, at the political level, I wonder what happens over time as to whether or not this, uh, top down type of, uh, construction that we have in the government now will ever be pushed back from, you know, the local level up.
Does that make sense?
Matt Murray: Yeah, I'm not sure I totally, uh, agree with the premise.
Uh, in this sense, look, I think, I think our media is getting more nationalized, and so I think we read about and think a lot harder about national and federal issues. As I said, there's a concentration of journalists in Washington, and they, they write about Washington a lot in ways that I think sometimes magnifies the importance of Washington.
Look, there's a lot. Happening on, uh, local levels and in some towns and certainly in some states, you know, Texas is, uh, Texas and California being two different examples of states pursuing statewide [00:36:00] policies that are, you know, very, uh, potent for them. And in some ways, uh, in both cases, different from the federal policy.
I don't think it gets covered as much. I don't think it gets written about as much. I don't think it gets as much attention. It's harder for this kind of much, much smaller. Much more nationalized media to write about, you know, you have to go out and seek those those stories out. And certainly there's a larger political issue going on in the country of some people who want greater federal control over aspects of government and society and some people who want to push back against that.
That's certainly true, that that battle is going on, but I don't know if I, I would agree or, or assert that definitively the federal side has won. What I think I see happening locally a lot that concerns me more is that as things get politicized and it's just that people check out. People are so turned off by [00:37:00] political fights, by the nominees of the major parties, by politics creeping into everything that they, they withdraw.
from the community and they, they focus on themselves, their families, their lives. I think I think that's worrying in its own way, because I think ultimately the, you know, that might, and that's probably draining in some ways on the local level, because again, the role of the paper play, the role of active local citizens engaged locally has historically been important.
People withdrawing from that. is, is, is quite damaging to the society long term. I'm not sure if I would totally associate it with sort of the federalization effort, but I think a lot of people are just checking out because they're so turned off by that political cultural debate right now. Um, you know, there's not a lot of incentives.
Being a moderate is not very exciting. Uh, it doesn't push anybody's emotional buttons [00:38:00] on the web. It doesn't get you likes, it doesn't get you follows. It's not always emotionally very satisfying. But most people are either left-leaning or right-leaning. They're, they're moderates and they're compromises, but there's not a lot of incentives or rewards for people doing that right now in the political system or in the internet system.
So I don't know how you pull that out, but again, I think a lot of people are just checking out.
Marc Beckman: For sure. And then, and then I think like, if you look at social media's play as it relates to that, right, like you're taught, you you've brought up this theme of impressions clicks over and over again during today's conversation. it's interesting to see the, uh, the way that today the legacy media has shifted their perspective because they see the challenge of impressions that social media are getting as it relates to delivering the news.
I read recently, in fact, that like, Twitter. is one of the biggest news sources out of all of the social media platforms, or is the number one biggest news source out of all the social media platforms. We mentioned the Tucker Carlson Putin interview. I think over [00:39:00] a hundred million people actually took the time to go on to X and view that.
So Matt, I'm curious about why legacy media has gone from loving the tech oligarchs like Zuckerberg and Musk to now I feel like they just despise them. They hate them. Is it, is it just a question of economics? Are they seeing, for example, that X is the number one outlet? For social media, um, on social media for people to get the news and they see that as lost revenue, or is there something deeper that legacy media is feeling towards places like Instagram and, and, you know, TikTok and X Why are the tech oligarchs, um, kind of like in the mud today
Matt Murray: Well, uh, it's a, it's a pretty complex question. I think, look, I, I don't, as a general rule, people don't believe this. I don't really believe that, [00:40:00] uh, corporate business concerns in most cases, uh, bleed directly into news coverage. So while I think, you know, there, there's a lot of corporate drama going on with, with traditional media companies and tech companies, I do, I don't think that's, that's driving news.
I think one of the. Look, I think it's probably, I can't really, I mean, I can't necessarily explain this in great terms, but I think that There's a problem sometimes in covering media and particularly when it comes to complex businesses and new technologies that people don't understand very well. And I think early in the days of, uh, Facebook and these other tech companies, and there was a great deal of coverage that was frankly, just very, very shallow.
The shiny new thing, the exciting new thing, the fun new trend, the cool new stuff, and it was very shallow and not very well informed or very deep. [00:41:00] At some point. people began to realize how profound the effect of these technologies was on our society and the worm turned. You throw in some of these other concerns, which by the way, are not illegitimate concerns about the effects that they're having on society.
You throw in things like the research out there about how having phones in their hands all day is affecting our kids. And I think that caught up. To a lot of reporters in the media in a way that they realize we're missing a gigantic slab of the story here and Possibly there's been an overcorrection on writing about the ills and the challenges and the shortcomings, you know, my challenge always and my view always was What's hard about these kinds of things is the complexity of them all.
I mean, I feel that I feel Elon Musk For instance, a great deal of Elon Musk coverage is very surface. It's very focused on whatever outrage he said on Twitter [00:42:00] this week or who he's mad. The last few days, there's been the stories of this bakery that they, I guess, Tesla ordered some pies from and didn't pick them up and the baker complained and they're 000.
Who cares? I mean, no offense to the baker,
Marc Beckman: but, but with somebody like you, with like, but with somebody like you, with your background, your history, your knowledge, um, how much value could somebody like you bring into a platform like X to ensure that, um, the news he's reporting has that level of integrity that traditional sources don't?
maintain, like, perhaps it would be amazing to have, you know, you integrate into a platform like X or, or Tik TOK or, or Facebook.
Matt Murray: Um, I don't, to be fair to him, I don't think that the kind of things that we're talking about. It's legitimate are things that he's interested in. I mean, I think he's interested in, look, all these, there's these, there's these cases before the Supreme Court right now, and I, [00:43:00] about social media is, I don't think we know yet.
Are they, are they publishers? Are they networks? Like the phone cables are? I think he clearly, from things that he said, sees it as a gigantic open pipeline of discourse, And, uh, a bit of a free for all. I, I don't think he thinks about these things in the same way that we're thinking about them, and I don't say that to be critical of him, I say it observationally, so I don't think he thinks of himself as in the business of providing objective news in a sort of a curated way that we would historically do, um, and so, no, I don't think that the, I mean, I, I, I don't, I don't know that I would, the perspective I bring would fit into that, to be honest.
all
Marc Beckman: again, technology's impact on disrupting legacy media, I think serves a value when you look at the, um, upcoming [00:44:00] presidential election, like for example, If you look at RFK, it seems like he's been stonewalled to a certain extent by mainstream traditional media, television specifically.
I'm not so sure about print, but certainly you don't see him regularly on the main networks, but yet you see him regularly on, you know, podcasts like Joe Rogan and, um, you know, for sure, um, you know, X will provide an outlet for him and as we're moving like Without a doubt, the younger generation, Millennials, Gen Z, they're getting their news, you know, for better or for worse from social media.
So, uh, perhaps to your point, if it's just a platform and it gives everybody the ability to get their voice out, their policy out, and their information out, um, it's a good thing.
Matt Murray: One of the challenges I think, uh, traditional legacy media, including, you know, a lot of my own work history at places I've been, is facing a challenge of is that, is that [00:45:00] it's, it's not just platforms, it's content, how people experience news and what they expect of news and where they get news, as you say, is changing so quickly.
That I think there are cases in which you could argue that legacy media and how they tell stories and how they reach people and the kind of content that they share is becoming outmoded. Um, it's a very hard question to answer, but certainly there are some very, very much smarter people than I am. Uh, in this, uh, online news world, who I read closely, who think that a lot of the problem that legacy media is facing is really in the content problem, really in the delivery of stories and how they tell stories and the kinds of perspectives they share, that the world is just too shattered and fractured for that kind of, of role.
So, I think that that is a really hard thing to grapple with. Uh, as a society, but I think that there's some truth to it. It's hard, you know, I mean, I, I sat there on, um, the night of the New Hampshire primary and I was looking at, uh, some of [00:46:00] the, uh, traditional legacy newspapers and they all do the thing, you know, the, the live blog update from New Hampshire, the live blog.
And you think, I was like, You know, is that really a thing anymore for most people? I mean, people who care about New Hampshire, getting it in real time on X, right now in front of their faces, what are you adding as a legacy organization? Look, you're adding a certain amount of commentary and reflectiveness and perhaps other things, but
Marc Beckman: Very little, I to criticize
Matt Murray: Yeah, that's not to criticize them for doing that.
It's to say they're challenged in keeping up to the moment and being current and, and, and, and being in that discussion. You know, I mean, my, my, my daughter, this is a very typical story, you know, you, you talked about Insta, but I think the top news source for, for teens and kids is TikTok and my daughter's on TikTok all the time.
And I, I don't think she would mean it to insult me, but I don't think. You know, she would begin to grapple with, you know, how to read [00:47:00] traditional media very well as a news
Marc Beckman: Right. Well, it's interesting that you mentioned TikTok because President Biden just, um, moved, um, into the TikTok world. He's creating content and, you know, it's certainly to appeal to that, Younger generation, the new voters. Um, so, uh, not withstanding the fact that, that I think at this point, like governmental, um, uh, employees aren't permitted to have TikTok on their phones, but yet the Biden administration jumped right into it.
What, in your opinion, what does that say? The fact that Biden is looking to leverage TikTok specifically for. you know, his campaigns benefit, uh, what, what does that say as to the state of media in relation to this election?
Matt Murray: Uh, if you go back to Obama, Obama, particularly as his, uh, as his own, uh, presidency went on, uh, talked to the traditional, quote unquote, traditional legacy media less and less and less. He would get criticized for it, that he [00:48:00] was often, you know, more on friendly outlets. I remember when he famously did that, uh, Between Two Ferns show and gave an interview there. If you think about Donald Trump, Donald Trump, who actually, people don't always realize this, Donald Trump probably talked to legacy reporters and formulated relationships with them more consistently and successfully than any recent politician in our lifetimes. But nonetheless, Uh, whatever else one thinks about Donald Trump, he was an absolute master of social media and the alternative forms of
Marc Beckman: Master Marketer.
Matt Murray: audience directly.
And I think Biden, who is getting, you know, clobbered by some of the traditional media reporters for doing no press conferences and giving few interviews, is, is the third president now who's, Who's using alternative, but maybe they're not so alternative, maybe they're more mainstream, but niche or different channels to speak directly to his voters and in a way that, uh, frankly is a little bit more, uh, a little easier to control from the [00:49:00] perspective of the politician.
They all obviously want to control that discourse. And the press corps fulminates about it. But I think you can see in all three politicians why they did what they did, and you can't say broadly it doesn't work for them. uh,
Marc Beckman: does the American public protect itself then, um, when, you know, we're going to see so many deep fakes and, um, let's say, arguably new levels of disinformation born out of TikTok? Right, like how, how will that young consumer, that young voter know that what she's looking at is actually disinformation?
Matt Murray: Well, I think you've hit on one of the most profound challenges of our time and one of the most profound challenges for this audience ahead. And I, I, or these, these citizens that have dismissive to call them an audience. Look, there's a lot of things I think that have to happen. There are people that are a lot smarter than I am in in, uh.
In assessing them, but [00:50:00] the deep fakes problem, the risk of them and the reality of them probably coming into this election is something I think we've barely begun to grapple with. Um, uh, the technology is getting so good as, as, uh, one of my friends likes to say, imagine you're in, uh, Michigan, a close swing state, and it's a week before the election.
And you start getting sent in your email or on your phone, you get calls, uh, audio of Barack Obama saying, uh, Joe Biden is too old to be president. And frankly, he's too pro Israel for today's democratic party. The technology is good enough that you could. Make that come your way. And of course it's completely made up and completely fake, but imagine the damage that could do in a close election.
Um, imagine, [00:51:00] uh, how, how something like that could sway votes. And I don't think we've got much of a clue how to counter it. And of course, you know, if Barack Obama comes out and says, I didn't do that, a lot of people will think, well, he's lying. Of course he's covered because he's embarrassed. Some of the answer for some of that, I suppose, probably has to be some kind of, uh, you know, regulatory piece of it, but it's very, very tricky because, you know, I'm really against regulating speech, uh, I'm somewhat suspicious of how we talk about, you know, misinformation and disinformation because sometimes that's very often, frankly, those words are used as just sort of code for Information I don't like
Marc Beckman: Right. I
Matt Murray: Uh, I don't, I don't want the government coming in and monitoring, uh, things and making determinations. And we've seen some evidence already, you know, in recent years on the problems of that. But, but deep fakes, authenticating things is a real challenge. [00:52:00] And then you throw on top of that, what we've talked about before, which is, I think just the challenge.
In general as individuals and citizens that, you know, people have in filtering all this flood of content coming their way, that we're all swimming in all day and figuring out how to navigate out of it, what makes sense to, to, to, to you. And that's, that's really, that's a profound challenge for the society.
And I, I don't have great answers there, to be honest with you.
Marc Beckman: Yeah, I, I know that Google is working currently on, um, authentication of provenance of information as well. And I'm sure that some of the bigger companies in the tech space are looking to do that too. But tech companies have so much power now. You would think like the influence and power in some ways may be more, um, uh, you know, Powerful than even the United States government, right?
Like, would you, would you say a guy like Elon Musk today or Mark [00:53:00] Zuckerberg today are more powerful than Joe Biden?
Matt Murray: Huh. Well, I don't know. I'm not very good on comparisons of power, but, but they have different power for sure. Elon has, has a lot of, uh, uh, cultural sway and influence and controls a lot of very important technologies.
I mean, we, we've discussed, you and I, the, the, the, it's a bizarre situation as ai, uh, you know, barrels into, into being, and in some ways, I think, at least at this stage, aspects of AI have been a little bit over hyped, but it's a bizarre situation to have. You know, a number of, uh, private company executives saying we're, we're, we're, we're full bore pursuing a technology that, you know, could destroy humanity, uh, but we're going ahead.
Um, and I, I'm skeptical of the destroy humanity stuff in some ways myself, but the point is it's a gigantic unknown. Now, I don't know the answer. I don't think government necessarily should be regulating every step of that development, but. [00:54:00] It all goes to this larger issue, which is that the world is moving so quickly.
It's outstripping our ability to process it or respond to it or react to it. And when you, when you ask about Elon Musk and Joe, and Joe Biden, I would say this, both are gigantically influential on lots of things that are shaping the world that I, and my family, and my daughter. And I don't have any ability to control much of what either one of them does, and that's frustrating.
And I think that explains, you know, broadly speaking, a lot of the frustration people feel about where the society is right now. There's a kind of a disconnected helplessness because of these powerful entities that are controlling so much.
Marc Beckman: And it seems like the, the tech entities are going to continue to get stronger. And I think some of that is rooted in a comment that you had. I love the conversation you had with Microsoft's CEO, Satya Nadella. Um, you guys kind of [00:55:00] tackled this concept of the growth mindset. Learn it all versus know it all.
And I think one can argue that, um, the, the people in commerce, the people in tech commerce in particular with, you know, all of this new influence and this new type of power, as it relates to content and, and distributed distribution thereof, they want to learn it all. It seems like even Satya wants to learn it all.
And I wonder like, Does all, do all of our government representatives, um, do they, do they want to learn it all or do they think they know it all? And what's the impact with that dichotomy as it
Matt Murray: What do you, what do you, sorry, sorry, what do you mean our government representatives is about learning it all or doing it all?
Marc Beckman: so like in Congress, like, you know, are they curious enough to go and do all of the work and get all of the research done so that they can, um, continue to propel America forward and to regulate properly? Right. There's a lot of learning to [00:56:00] do right now when it comes to regulating cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence, et cetera, versus on the flip side, someone like Satya, where he, um, could easily say, I know it all, but he's not sitting back.
He's saying, there's more to learn and I will continue to push forward and learn more and in turn, build more. Create more, and have more influence. So there's an interesting, um, tension between those two entities as it relate the the two concepts of learn it all versus know it all, and the idea of, um, business people, like Satya, ver and and entities like Microsoft, versus government officials, like members of the Congress, let's say, and, um, uh, the the the Senate.
Matt Murray: Well, I guess I'd say a couple things. You know, Satya Nadella has the advantage that no politician has, which is he can focus. He can focus on a few things. He can focus [00:57:00] on his company. And he's got very clear metrics of success within his company.
He's got, you know, he's got to put out a quarterly statement. He's got audience numbers. He's got sales numbers. He's got very clear metrics on what success looks like or doesn't look like. And to some extent, those metrics, again, this is not a plus or minus content. Those metrics are clear and they're separate from moral and evaluative kind of impacts that they're about sales and about.
One, no politician has the advantage of that focus. Uh, two, most politicians among their top, their, their very top concern or among their prime concerns, if not that, I don't want to sound cynical about them all, is re election and political prospects. Uh, they, they're, they're focused on themselves and their enterprises and their families.
That doesn't mean there aren't politicians who don't care about these kinds of issues and, and dig in deeply because I think sometimes we're too cynical about our politicians, but there's no doubt that, you know, Their, their immediate [00:58:00] parochial concerns are, uh, important to most of them. And then, in our, in our current moment of political divides and, and, and political controversies and political issues, even within each of the parties, let alone between the two parties, coming together with a consensus on what constitutes harms, what constitutes problems and how should we as a society fix and or regulate them seems almost impossible right now.
History would tell us, we saw it in the Gilded Age, in the early 20th century, um, you know, maybe gigantic technological changes that overcome the society and force us ahead, uh, ultimately lead to some kind of problems or crises and government action gets forced. And that could happen. We could be laying the foundation right now for some kind of broad, I think uh, consensual regulatory, uh, focus on these tech companies, uh, down the road someday, but a lot obviously [00:59:00] would have to happen in our politics between now and then to create the conditions for that.
And right now we're far too divided. And we have, there's not even agreement on what the problem is, right? And I think, I, by the way, I think the tech companies play this brilliantly. You know, it's a small price to pay if you're the CEO of one of these companies to be going up to Congress once or twice a year and get flayed publicly, and you call on them.
I think you guys should do something. And then you go home and go about your business. And that's that. I
Marc Beckman: And, and arguably create a stronger moat for your, for your business model by, you know, quote unquote, aligning with Congress, right? So that entrepreneurs and, and, um, you know, startups can't even compete with, with the likes of a Zuckerberg or, or a Nadella or, or a
Matt Murray: Right, right. I mean, Mark, a lot of your questions, I mean, this is going to sound so corny and almost frustrating, but a lot of your questions kind of circle back around on what can we do and how do we as citizens respond? And I'm afraid the answers are, we kind of know the [01:00:00] answers, but will we do it? And the answers are we have to You know, take seriously our obligation to objective true facts.
That includes, by the way, being open to other points of view than our own, and being willing to reach across the aisle and expose ourselves with different views, and take some responsibility as citizens to be engaged and involved. Really, our system is going to depend on more average people doing that, and it's not, there's not an easy solution
Marc Beckman: Yeah, everybody's too, too dug in. It reminds me, so I, I looked at, um, your interview with Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, which was in December, December 6th of 2022, and you guys spoke about, um, This idea of open ended support. I think during that conversation, Blinken said, he used the words, it's fundamentally, it's up to the Ukrainians to see how much support we, the United States of America will, will continue to give to them.
And then fast forward, um, just, a little bit, [01:01:00] with regards to where we are today, uh, this past weekend, the NATO chief, I believe you pronounce his last name, Stolenberg, asserted that Ukraine will join NATO. He said Ukraine will join NATO. It's not a question of if, but of when. And I would imagine that's going to really piss off Putin from everything that Putin is saying, whether you Believe it or not, it's going to upset Putin.
So should, is it time for like the Americans to maybe have a difference of opinion or to change a little bit? Should we, should Secretary of State Blinken look at that comment that he made to you in 2022 and maybe be a little bit more flexible because, you know, perhaps this can create a wider, um, uh, field of war?
Matt Murray: Flexible in terms of changing our stance on the Ukrainians or perhaps pressuring the Ukrainians into some kind of a settlement.
Marc Beckman: Yeah, like, we're, we're, we're, it's not just open ended support anymore, but if, [01:02:00] you know, I, I think it's fair to assume, like, if Ukraine becomes part of NATO, then we're looking at a situation where a lot of the European entities will, will, can be pulled into this war. And I think that from what Putin says, like, whether or not you want to believe him, that's a whole other issue.
But it seems like, um, if this happens, he's going to become perhaps even more aggressive.
Matt Murray: Well, a couple things, I think. I don't see, politically speaking, and given the challenges of joining NATO, we just saw Sweden join. As a realistic matter, there's not going to be enough support for Ukraine to join NATO anytime soon. Um, so, I don't think that there's a real danger of that. I think secondly, we are beginning across the West to see more fractures appear.
And what, to be fair, has been a pretty remarkably unified response, greater than people might've thought. But you know, this week we're seeing, uh, uh, in France, they, I think Macron [01:03:00] suggested that ultimately perhaps Western troops might have to be engaged. And, uh, in Germany, they, they shot that down. So there's more of a debate breaking out as it is.
And of course we know the political situation here in the US over funding and the, the, the challenges of continuing that. And I, and I actually think right now the administration is doing a poor job of advocating for its case on. I think they're, they're not really, if they feel Ukraine is this vital and, and important to the future of the country, they're not doing a very good job of articulating that right now.
so I, I think the, the reality of what's happening already is forcing some kind of a shift and that the forces might be underway to, to force the kind of change that you're talking about, even if it's not articulated. I guess I would say. I'm not sure if I'm addressing what you're [01:04:00] saying. I think one of the issues right now in the public debate we have over things like Ukraine, we're seeing it played out here in front of us, which is people make broad statements about things or make assertions, but there's not really that much of an intelligent debate.
There's not really a lot of open discussion or debate. People want to make strident statements or stake out positions. And a lot of what happens happens in private. And we don't get to see what happens. So we don't really know what the real state of the conversation between the Ukrainians and the West is in private.
Maybe Zelensky is getting pressure right now to do a settlement of some kind. And so the whole thing to me feels very unsatisfying in a certain way. I'd like to read, by the way, more journalism inside the real conversations and less write ups about what people say in public. I'd like to get, journalism's not doing a great job of getting inside those closed rooms a lot of times right
Marc Beckman: I'd like to just generally speaking, do you think we'd be better as a people if the, if our political leaders were willing to [01:05:00] change their minds, were willing to be a little bit more flexible? I mean, this could apply to like Blinken's comments to you with regards to open ended support. It could apply to, you know, just basic things like do, um, like does the issue of like all, yeah.
Go ahead. I'm
Matt Murray: I think our political, I think our political leaders change their minds all the time. I think the game is to change your mind and not show in any way that you are changing your mind. I mean, how many, how many, I mean, look, let's, let's even, you know, how many policies and things did Donald Trump.
himself declare that he would enact or pursue that then later he didn't enact or he abandoned or he shifted on them. I mean, he shifted. Donald Trump shifted three or four times in COVID, you know, in the space of about two months. That I'm not saying that to beat up on Donald Trump, I'm saying, you know, yes, I think it would be good if we could more forthrightly [01:06:00] adapt and shift our policies.
and yet I think Everybody seems incentivized to never admit or acknowledge that they're doing that. Look, I think Joe Biden gets criticized from all sides for his stance on the, on the, the, the war in the least. And I think arguably his position on that has shifted in front of our eyes. Uh, so I think that they do change their minds, but I think the weird thing is, is not wanting to show that you're not.
Marc Beckman: So Matt, you've given us a tremendous amount of time today. I wanted to hit on so many different ideas with you, ranging from like how you managed the crisis um, of COVID while you were leading Wall Street Journal to your, um, uh, new role in the crypto space with CoinDesk. We weren't able to get into like China and Taiwan and, and DEI in Iran.
I wanted to hit on so much with you, but. Um, what I do is all of our guests, you might be familiar, like all of my guests wrap up the show by [01:07:00] finishing a statement that I start, like finishing a sentence. So if you're game, I would love to, uh, present you with an idea right now.
Matt Murray: Or, I mean, I think anybody who's made it through this, uh, I feel like I've been all over the place. So anybody who's made it this far, I suppose, uh, uh, deserves whatever they get here. So, fire away.
Marc Beckman: Okay. So, um, in some future day, journalism for our children will be.
Matt Murray: Um, more marginalized.
Marc Beckman: In some future day, journalism for our children will be more marginalized. That scares me a little bit, Matt.
Matt Murray: Yep. Yep. Me too. Me too. Very
Marc Beckman: Is there anything you'd like to add today if you didn't cover anything specific?
Matt Murray: Yeah, I'd like [01:08:00] to just let me let me sum up quickly on a couple fronts. I'm like everybody else trying to figure out this big complicated world and thinking about it out loud. So I don't pretend to have any particular insights or depth or knowledge. We're all in a very confusing time and trying to sort it out.
So, um, you know, hopefully my meanderings haven't been too, uh, too, uh, pointless. I do believe, though, and I still believe, and I just want to say as a positive statement, despite the concerns about journalism, the doubts about journalism, the shrinking of journalism, it's more important than ever, I really believe, for there to be the best stab we can get at objective, factual reporting.
Insightful. Done with humility. People are very critical of the media. In some cases, they're absolutely right to be critical of the media. And in some cases, we've heard ourselves. It's important that we acknowledge that we don't and can't have a monopoly on truth and facts. It's acknowledged that we, it's important that we pursue it with humility [01:09:00] and know that there are always more people to talk to and more sources to get.
But nonetheless, I think journalism done well is as important as it's ever been. It may be more important in a world where we're all trying to figure out what's true and what's not, and that if we could remember those roots and the importance of that mission, recognize that doing that mission well is a really significant and important contribution to the society in and of itself.
Uh, we could, make great strides at addressing some of the challenges that we're facing in the industry and it requires a clear head and dedication and some kind of resource to get out there and report. But we still need that, that, that beacon quite a bit, uh, today and I'm still committed to it and, and believe in it as much as I ever have.
And I think it's important, given some of the things we've talked about, to end on as positive an assertion as I can out there, Mark.
Marc Beckman: Awesome. Matt, thank you so much. I appreciate your time today.
Matt Murray: [01:10:00] Thank you, Mark. It's been great to talk.
[01:11:00]