“A problem worth tackling”

image_6487327 (1).JPG

Topics Discussed

Thank you for being a part of our community! We couldn't do what we do without you. To become a financial supporter of the show, please visit our Patreon page, purchase a copy of our book, I Think You're Wrong (But I'm Listening), or share the word about our work in your own circles. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook for our real time reactions to breaking news, GIF news threads, and personal content. To purchase Pantsuit Politics merchandise, check out our TeePublic store and our branded tumblers available in partnership with Stealth Steel Designs. To read along with us, join our Extra Credit Book Club subscription.

Episode Resources

Transcript

Sarah: [00:00:00] I think the power of those radical conversations when somebody says, you know, no, maybe we don't need police, that outweighs the benefit of people's defensiveness, because I just think it opens up the room. It shifts the territory, it shakes the foundation enough that people can get out of there sort of default modes and as human beings, our default modes are very powerful and they are very difficult to shake and I think the aggressive activism has been a gift because even if we decide or the policy settles in a place that is not that radical solution, that aggressive activism opened up possibilities that were not there before.

Sarah: This is Sarah

Beth: And Beth. 

Sarah: You're listening to Pantsuit Politics.

Beth: The home of grace-filled political conversations.

[00:01:00] Sarah: [00:01:20] Hello everyone and welcome to another episode of Pantsuit Politics. We are so thrilled to be here with you today. Today, we're going to talk about the verdict in the George Floyd murder trial. We're going to share our interview with Niala Boodhoo from Axios, and we're gonna talk about what's on our mind outside politics.

 But before we do all that, we wanted to say, thank you for all the kind feedback about our feature in the New York times. We were not expecting it. It was very exciting. We are thrilled and honored as well as our feature in the Apple podcast subscription announcement. We're going to have lots more information for all of you on what Apple podcast subscription means here at Pantsuit Politics in the coming [00:02:00] weeks so look for that.

 Uh, we did want to say nothing's going to change on Patreon and we're still in the middle of sort of Patreon orientation here at Pantsuit Politics. We wanted to speak to today what is the Nightly Nuance? You'll probably hear us talk about it a lot. And if you're new here, we wanted to take a moment and let Beth share with you. What Beth, what is the Nightly Nuance?

Beth: [00:02:17] It is a show, relatively speaking bonus podcasts that I make Monday through Wednesday evening and that Sarah and I make together on Thursday evenings. And it's a lot of different things because people come for different reasons and like everything we do on the show, we try to follow our instincts about what people are looking for. So often the Nightly Nuance is a pretty intense look at a particular topic. Sometimes we cover Supreme court cases. Sometimes we cover foreign policy stories that we can't spend enough time on, on the podcast to really dig into. So we look at a lot of different aspects of the world.

It also occasionally includes a really personal reflection for me on something happening in the news or how I'm talking to my kids about it. And Sarah and I, when we're together, usually give a lot of [00:03:00] what's going on behind the scenes at Pantsuit Politics. What we're thinking about. Sometimes it's a place where our grace level drops a tad bit because we are only humans and we feel really comfortable and trusting with our Patreon community and so it's a lot of fun. I love the people who listened to the Nightly Nuance. I love their comments, all the questions that I get there, make me a better thinker. And so I would love for you to join us.

Sarah: [00:03:37] Well, obviously the big news of the week is the verdict and the George Floyd murder trial. Derek Chauvin was convicted of second degree unintentional murder, third degree murder, and second degree manslaughter. He will be sentenced in about eight weeks. The three other officers who were on the scene the day that George Floyd was killed will be on trial as well in August.

So that is going to be coming up. [00:04:00] But this part of the process is over and there was enormous relief across the country with the verdict. And we would just wanted to talk a little bit about the emotion surrounding the verdict, how we felt about the media coverage surrounding the verdict with all of you here today.

Beth: [00:04:15] I think it is both fair to say this part of the process is over and important to note that it appeals here are anticipated. It is a very serious thing for a person to go to prison for life for murder and lawyers are supposed to make as vigorous of an argument as they can about what happens next with that person so the sentencing phase for Derek Chauvin is something to watch and what happens in the appellate process is something to watch. 

You know, I just felt a profound sense of relief at the verdict because I, this trial has been really complicated for me. I am very convinced that our entire approach to crime in America is broken and that we need to [00:05:00] rethink completely how we think about crime. What should be a crime? Um, how many crimes we should actually have, how we adjudicate and punish crime, who do 

Sarah: [00:05:10] we send to the scene when there is a crime? 

Beth: [00:05:13] So many things. Exactly. I just I'm ready to whiteboard all of it and I am out in front of where a lot of people are on this and I don't mean that in a judgemental way. I'm, I'm acknowledging that most people, if they sat down with me would say, you have very extreme views about this. And I do, um, I have probably very libertarian leanings about crime and punishment.

 And so I strongly believe in the right of the accused and this trial has been a challenge for me because I just couldn't watch the vigorous defense of Derek Chauvin. I think the video here is so compelling that it was impossible for me to take the evidence in, in an unbiased way. And I felt so relieved that the system did not make more complex [00:06:00] what seemed to me to be very obvious in this case. 

Sarah: [00:06:05] Yeah, I think no matter where you fall on your opinions about the criminal justice system or policing, look, this was just a difficult exercise for everyone. This was a difficult, this was a traumatic moment in American history. Rightfully so. The video is horrific. This man's death was a tragedy. He should still be alive and that has to stay at the center of any conversation surrounding this verdict and surrounding this trial. And the difficulty of talking about progress of talking about how this sort of verdict is so rare in policing and to acknowledge how rare that was and that this was important that we got this verdict and also in the same day.

The same day, watch a 16 year old girl in [00:07:00] Columbus, Ohio get shot by the police is just so intense and horrific and brings so many emotions to the surface surrounding policing surrounding race in America. That even that the, the relief in the face of the verdict was cut short, right? It was cut short. It was, it began to feel like, can I be like, can I even feel happy?

Can I feel happy that this verdict came down the way that so many people wanted it to? How do we feel relief when then the next moment we are watching a 16 year old girl lose her life from body cam footage. Like it's, it's just, it feels so impossible and I just think we have to name that. I think we have to say that clearly it feels impossible as so many [00:08:00] things do when it comes to race in America.

And in particularly as a white person, how do I talk about this? How do I, you know, make clear that I was longing for justice and I'm heartbroken another tragedy and also not claim ownership of the tragedy in a way that is hurtful to people in Black and Brown communities like that is just, there's so much there.

Beth: [00:08:25] I think it's particularly difficult when you think about Ma’Khia Bryant to remember that about a thousand people a year, depending on what year you're looking at, lose their lives to police shooting and all of those people are equal and all of those deaths are tragic. Uh, and they are tragic for more than just the people who are killed in their families and friends and communities, but for the police officers that take their lives and they are [00:09:00] quite different in terms of the circumstances.

Yeah. And it is important I think in our conversation about how to reform the system it is important to be accurate and honest about that. I am still struggling to really understand the circumstances of what happened to Ma’Khia Bryant. Even with the body cam footage I think a very full and complete investigation is required here.

I have so many questions about what happened. Now, are there answers to those questions that would make me not grieve the death of a 16 year old girl? Of course not. None. What piece of this very complex picture that we have, Ma’Khia Bryant's death at the hands of police represents I want to be very precise and accurate about it. It doesn't serve anyone in any posture in this conversation [00:10:00] in my mind to make assumptions beyond just saying a 16 year old is dead and that is horrific. 

Sarah: [00:10:09] And I heard that. I think that's, what's been, so I don't know if encouraging is the right word to use, but when I look at how this conversation is in a folding, in the media coverage and around the country, I do feel encouraged.

I feel like in almost no place did I see it conversation surrounding the George Floyd verdict like justice in surf, moving on. We fixed it. I saw a very concentrated effort in the media and other places to avoid that exact posture and I think that's positive. I saw continuous and concentrated coverage of Ma’Khia Bryant's death in relationship to the verdict in relationship to the ongoing struggle [00:11:00] surrounding policing.

I think that's positive. I saw so many places, not all of them, but so many places trying to grapple fairly with the complexity, with the, uh, wasn't then maybe not even with the complexity, with the unanswered questions. And listen, I think that is captured in the video. When that bystander said she was a kid, she was a kid, I thought, yeah, that's it.

That's it. You know, sometimes the rawest reactions capture it the best. And so I can't help, but be encouraged. And I have to acknowledge that and I think it's important. And I think that even two years ago, the coverage was not good. I think the media and the way it speaks about policing, in a way it speaks about the victims of policing is, has come a long way, has come a long way.

I think our conversations have come a long way. [00:12:00] I think the fact that everybody went hold up, Kyle Rittenhouse gets taken into custody without injury and this is what happens with a 16 year old girl in a knife. Like that was the, I mean, I read that immediately lots of places and I thought, okay, This is good.

It's heartbreaking and awful that we have to make that observation, but that the observation was so immediately apparent to many people, feels important to me because to make any in no scenario where we ever going to fix this quickly and so to make progress, we have to acknowledge progress where it's been made. I think that's an important. An important component. 

Beth: [00:12:39] I spent a lot of time on Instagram this week, hearing from our audience about what's going on in their lives. And what many of you told me is that you're really struggling with conversations in your families about this. Some of you are struggling with respecting your relatives, partners loved ones yourselves as members of law [00:13:00] enforcement while having an honest conversation about what's going on with policing in the United States. 

Some of you just cannot understand your relatives who think the jury was pressured here or that they only convicted to avoid rioting in Minneapolis. You know, I think I want to kind of come back to some of our core principles here at Pantsuit Politics. We joke a lot like if you're going to Thanksgiving with your family, you all don't have to draft like a healthcare plan at the Thanksgiving table to have a good fruitful discussion of healthcare in the United States. And I think that that's the thing about policing as well.

We really don't have to in our families come to consensus. We don't have to come to consensus even about what should happen with Derek Chauvin. We just have to keep talking about this stuff and asking good questions and I think especially where there is a member of law [00:14:00] enforcement in a family or in a beloved circle of friends, I would really listen to those folks because I have a feeling that putting the language aside, you know, so much of what divides us in the United States right now, I really believe is just like the words that we use to describe things and the order that we put those words in. 

But I really believe that if you said to a police officer, Hey, what is stressful about your job right now? Hey of the calls that you respond to, when you consider your training and your resources and your time, what percentage of those calls should you be responding to? What are you asked to do every day that you are not equipped to do? I think there would be significant alignment among members of law enforcement and some of the most aggressive activism out there. 

I think there would be tremendous alignment because a system that hurts people is broken for everybody [00:15:00] operating within that system and we can do the whole debate of do we sort of burn this down? Defund the police, like whatever language you want to use to say, like, we just need to eradicate this and start over or reform from within.

We can do that argument all day, but I think it would be helpful for us to spend a lot of time just kind of defining the scope of the problem and I think the scope of the problem, almost everybody, including law enforcement acknowledges it's a bigger problem than this really big problem of lots and lots of officer involved, shootings and lots and lots of clear racial bias in those shootings. Um, and so I, I feel honestly like a weird optimism as well that we can have pretty healthy conversations and get to some pretty consensus positions that would have seemed radical a couple of years ago, to your point, Sarah. 

Sarah: [00:15:59] Well, and I've [00:16:00] just learned to sort of embrace those radical conversations because it feels like when the conversation is radical, I understand that it, it hardens people. I understand that risk, but I think the benefit of it sort of dropping the scales from other eyes far outweighs that I think the power of those radical conversations when somebody says, you know, no, maybe we don't need police, that outweighs the benefit of people's defensiveness.

 Because I just think it opens up the room, it shifts the territory. It shakes the foundation enough that people can get out of their sort of default modes and as human beings, our default modes are very powerful and they are very difficult to shake. And I think the aggressive activism has been a gift because even if we decide or the policy settles in a [00:17:00] place that is not that radical solution, that aggressive activism opened up possibilities that were not there before. 

And I think that that is so important. It's why the media coverage feels different. It's why we have a president that everybody thought was P the centrist pragmatists out there talking about being the next FDR. That's why.

Right? Because. A new generation of people and sometimes generation long activists themselves, like, because they, they pushed and pushed and pushed us out of that default mode so that we could see the problem more clearly and were more open to solutions that will actually affect change. It is a gift. And I just think that that's like, we cannot lose sight of that.

And instead of being scared of it, realizing like, that those radical ideas, the radical conversations help [00:18:00] us not to make the same mistakes we always make as human beings surrounding broken systems, which is to believe that there's nothing we can do to fix that brokenness. 

Beth: [00:18:11] Because if I'm saying, I don't think that we need police, let me be clear on what I am and am not saying. I am not saying, first of all, every police officer is bad. I am not saying that every current police officer should be unemployed. There are a ton of societal needs that I think we have a lot of people who could fill well. What I am saying is, I don't know that someone should sit in a car on a road watching for reckless driving.

Now that we have technology that can do that pretty well and that eliminates the risk because no one should die in a traffic stop, not a driver, not a passenger, not a police officer and there's risk for everyone in that equation. Yeah. And so, so that's the thing that I'm saying. If I'm say, I don't think that we need [00:19:00] police, I'm saying, you know, what should happen when somebody gives a store clerk a $20 bill. Should someone who has armed force arrive at that situation immediatel? Isn't there a better way to deal with that?

If I say, I don't think that we should incarcerate people anymore, I don't mean no one is held accountable for anything and people who truly present danger to themselves and others shouldn't be restrained. I mean, I think we have got to acknowledge that no one can live the best life they're capable of living for themselves and for society if they are cut off from real meaningful relationship and real meaningful work to do and so I want to find a way to give people connections and relationship and as much Liberty as we can afford them in the rubric of keeping them safe for themselves and for the community. So it's not that radical when we [00:20:00] flesh out what I mean behind it. Right. And I think that's the part that we just need to keep working through in our conversations about all of this.

Sarah: [00:20:08] Yeah. I think the radical newness allows us to go, but like, what are we doing? I think the radical activism for me has allowed me to say, Oh, wait, it does, Oh, we could just try something different. Oh, we could, we could ask really difficult questions, which are, should we do it this way or should we do it at all? And I think that's really helpful and I think that it has been, that activism has allowed the progress, not in the conversations, not just in the coverage, but the verdict itself. 

Beth: [00:20:41] It's really great to be able to have a conversation with teachers who say like, what are we trying to do with school? You know, it's really good to have a conversation with lawyers about like, does court work? I don't know of court works and I think that's just what we're trying to do here and I want to [00:21:00] say that I think sometimes the sentiment among those of us who care so passionately as white people about contributing to racial justice. I think that it, that a good way to channel that is to be in the position of asking questions. 

I think a lot of us feel all this pressure to sort of convince everyone around us to sort of adopt our positions and that actually our greater activism can be in like prompting those questions within our families, because any kind of change around this is going to take a broad base of public support that is hard to get when the whole conversation is Black Lives Matter or back the blue. And so we can do our own radical activism of helping create that broad base of public support so that something like the George Flay [00:22:00] justice and policing act can pass the United States Congress without it feeling so politically fraught.

Sarah: [00:22:06] So as our moment of hope today, we wanted to talk about climate change and how the conversation seems to be shifting here as we are recording on earth day 2021. Uh, president Biden is hosting a climate summit. There has been enormous progress, particularly on the inclusion of the Chinese President Xi is in attendance. That seems positive that there was a joint communique between the United States and China, also incredibly positive. And, but if you want to just talk specifically about some Republicans rolling out their energy slash climate change agenda, and that you see progress there as well. 

Beth: [00:22:41] If you are new to our show, welcome. I'm so glad you're here. We just jumped right in. I was a Republican in 2015 when we started this podcast and I think it is important to say as I often do that the party's shifted and so did I. And so it is a little bit odd for [00:23:00] me. It's a little bit awkward sometimes to examine what's going on with the Republican party today, because I don't recognize a lot of it, even as I work through what was there all the time that I didn't see.

 That as a preface to me saying it is nice to see the energy innovation agenda coming from the Republican party. It is nice to hear someone like Nebraska, Republican representative, Jeff Fortenberry say we have to earn some credibility in this space. He told the dispatch, we have to do a better job of appealing, particularly to the younger generation who really longs for the steeper set of values and propositions that we can protect things and create wellbeing for people and community at the same time. 

The Republican reaction to public policy can not just be the word no. And it I'm just delighted about that. Now, is that going to move mountains immediately? No. Would a representative Ocasio Cortez [00:24:00] read the energy innovation agenda and say like, this is it. They got it. No, but I am for a contest of ideas about how best to combat climate change and for a mix of approaches on how best to combat climate change.

And I'm for people using different language that appeals to their voters to convince everybody that this is a problem worth tackling. Even if they don't tackle it in the language that mirrors the severity and urgency that Democrats use, who cares if they are passed, it's it doesn't exist. It's a lie. That's wonderful progress. I think. Um, and I do think some market based solutions are important around climate change, married up with some government initiatives. This is what could create a really healthy functional Congress, right? When we have these competing ideas. So I'm heartened by this.

[00:25:00] Sarah: [00:25:10] Next step. We are going to share our conversation with Niala Boodhoo who is the host of Axios Today, a long-time journalist Night Wallace fellow and the host of the Asian American journalist associations program AAJA at this time. So we had a fantastic conversation with her and we're not going to wait another second to share it with you.

Beth: [00:25:30] We're so grateful that you're joining us today and so interested in talking with you about the new world that we're all occupying and how to do news under the Biden administration. So we wanted to kick off just by asking you as someone who does a daily news show, how different do things feel post let's not even say January, because January was its own situation, but like post February, how different do things feel to you then? Maybe September of last year? 

[00:26:00] Niala: [00:26:00] Well, hi, and thank you so much for having me. That's a great question. And I feel like it's almost too soon for me to answer that because I just feel like it's been, I mean, I've been a journalist for a long time, so I've been a journalist for 20 years and I feel like the past two years to four years have felt like a decade, right. So I think that it's really hard to think about it not being a crazy news cycle because we've gotten so used to it. I will say things definitely seem like they have settled into more stability, but I feel like the news is never that, like, there's always something.

 You know, there's always like a cargo ship, getting stuck in the Suez canal, maybe putting us on the brink of another global economic collapse, you know. So I think there's always something, I just think the volume at which we have been, I think we've just been going at [00:27:00] 200% in so many ways for such a long time that it's hard to slow down.

I will say for certainly like my colleagues who, who run websites have noticed like a difference. Like they're certainly seeing like a dip in traffic from the Trump bump. We are not seeing that on my podcast. We are not seeing our audience numbers drop off at all and I don't know how much of that is I think just inherent. In my mind. I think it's a lot to do with the way people listen to podcasts. I think they're habits and also, I think that's sort of like one of the selling points and like one of the things that makes my podcast so attractive is it's 10 minutes and that's a big part of the equation is you can have 10 minutes with us and still come away we hope pretty well-informed about a few things that are going on. 

Sarah: [00:27:45] Well, I think part of the issue is it's not just the difference between the administrations, it's the changes in the media environment accelerated by COVID right? It feels like we're not only in a new administration, we're in a new media environment. I [00:28:00] mean, I know that you made a career change recently and I wonder how you see that changing landscape. Like where do you see that particularly manifesting when it comes to news and political coverage? 

Niala: [00:28:13] I think that journalism has also been equally in upheaval for my entire career so I have never, I will say, like, I think I'm in a better place than people who are just starting out and people who are just starting out in the past couple of years because, or people who started like in 2007, which was when I was in newspapers and the bottom kind of fell out.

So I think that there's a cyclical nature to the news industry and unfortunately it seems for American news media. I think a lot of that is really difficult from a financial standpoint right now. I do think that there are really important bright spots and I think one of the blind spots of the media and I'm putting that in air quotes, is this bias towards always talking [00:29:00] about the negative.

And so, like, I think if you look at numbers of audiences, there are local and hyper-local news sites that are doing very well. My company Axios is doing great. We have just launched a lot of local sites because we're really hoping that we can make a difference in the local space. I someone who's paid a lot of attention to this in the past couple of years, I love local news.

That's where I got my start at the Miami Herald. You know, I'm a native Miami in, I think it's really important for cities to have really vibrant local news. I think that where we are now with the pandemic is an acceleration of a lot of things that we're all seeing. And I think that on the one hand, it's a really difficult business climate for some organizations but on the other hand, I see opportunity for others. For people who are willing to innovate for people who are really creating an audience in an authentic way, I think there's a lot of room for growth. 

Beth: [00:29:59] Can you [00:30:00] help us orient ourselves as news consumers to what's happened financially because you have so much experience doing local news, newspapers, public radio, and now you're at Axios. I would love for you to just give us a high level. How did we get here in terms of where journalism is today?

Niala: [00:30:19] Well, I'll tell you why I think we got here. So I don't know there are journalism professors and people who study this, but I will say someone who started as a business reporter, I have paid a lot of attention to it and frankly, that has been why I have pivoted. That is why I left newspapers and went into public radio because I wanted, I wanted to stay in journalism and I was also sort of starting to fall in love with audio and that media I'm so it worked out really well for me.

 But I've had to pivot my career. I think the only reason I have been a journalist for two decades is because I've evolved. I think there are most American newspapers never really forced their audience to pay what the newspaper cost [00:31:00] and they depended on advertising and then the internet came in. Right. And so I think that there's just sort of like all of these waves of technology that have changed things, but I think the biggest, the biggest thing that we that I think maybe non news consumers don't think about is news organizations with the internet and social media, our whole role has shifted. Like we've become aggregators. We've become fact checkers, but we are no longer broadcasting out the news.

 Like that doesn't really happen anymore. Like it's a much more cyclical. It's a much more integrated. I don't even know if it's like a circle. I just think it's sort of just like a back and forth between the way that information is being exchanged. And so I think just that, and I think that leads us to where we are now, where we are incredibly divided in terms of the type of media that we're consuming.

And there are [00:32:00] very few news outlets that are listened to by people across the political spectrum. And so I think, and I think that polarization that's happened across society has certainly happened at an accelerated pace in news organizations so I think if you're a local newspaper-

 It's kind of like airlines, right? That's how I would think about it. Like the legacy airlines, like I think of like a newspaper, like Delta or American airlines, like they had all these really expensive costs and it costs a lot to do what they did. And if you think about what they were producing, Just the fact that they're delivering a paper to you everyday and it costs what, like 25 cents or like $3.

Like that's not the cost of the paper. And when you, so that's sort of like you think about that equation, like how do they get their money? Do they get it from advertisers? Do they get it from their consumers? And then you shift from the for-profit model, which is, that's kind of where that, that revenue comes from to nonprofit and public radio stations.

And then [00:33:00] you also see that most public radio stations first of all, I should say very few public radio stations have a majority funding from the government. It's basically like most and especially the larger, the public and the stations that do get a lot of CPB, which has quote unquote, the government funding of public radio.

They are the smallest, most rural public radio stations in the country. The biggest stations, like where I work to like WBZ in Chicago get I think it was like 2% of their funding comes from government sources and that kept going down and down as like state sources dried up.

 Most of the funding, like most public radio stations like it'll be something like 50% or a little bit more, a little less, comes from membership and from people giving money. Then they'll get funding from advertisers, which in public radio is called underwriters. And then there's grants and other foundational ways to like other foundations and other support for non-profit profit media.

So that's kind of like the, the business [00:34:00] landscape of how you see it but I do think none of that works if you don't have a growing audience. And that gets brings us back to like the polarization, because if you don't have people who are consuming and to my mind, if you don't have people who value what you do, then that's a real problem and I think that we have not, we haven't, we don't have a culture where we ask people to value information. 

And I think that's actually a good byproduct of the Trump administration's attacks on journalism is a lot of public radio, I was in public radio during all of that time and we had more giving more people, gave us money because they were like, Hey, we do really value that you're giving us this information. So that's a very long winded explanation, but that's kind of like where, how I see things going if that helps.

Sarah: [00:34:47] I think media sits at this really interesting intersection between politics and culture and you know what we've been talking about a lot with polarization is that it's not [00:35:00] that there is this sense that particularly the right is losing policy fights. It's that they're losing the culture Wars that they, that they sense that that intersection between culture. And the sense that like there's bias and, and I don't mean, I mean, culture as in media entertainment, sports, corporate, America, and politics, where the landscape is a little different. And I do feel like journalists get caught in that.

 They get caught in the intersection of that conflict and I wonder how you think about, especially now that you're at a new media organization, how you think about that polarization, how you think about the influence of culture, media and also news and politics? 

Niala: [00:35:45] I think there's two ways that I'm thinking about that. I think the first is when you think about, I work at a company like Axios, we don't have the legacy media costs. We're a digital media company. We don't have printing presses. We don't have supply problems. [00:36:00] Like we don't like our logistics are all digital and so those obviously have costs, but nothing compared to what you think about with TV, radio, newspaper, right, magazine. So I do think like that's our leg up. I think journalists, when I think about journalists being caught, I think journalists are caught in technology.

Like I think that where journalists are being caught right now and where people don't understand the value of what we do is when you have companies like Facebook which don't recognize their role as a media company. Like they have like, that's where, if you think about how people are accessing content, whether it's Facebook or Apple news or Google news, they're deciding sort of like they're the gatekeepers in terms of how much people can see vetted news sources and that depends on like, that creates an audience problem, like those are all ways in that.

 I think that's, to me, that's how I see journalists getting caught. I do think the other half of this is I think [00:37:00] journalists have a responsibility to be better at what we do and that's what for me was a really big draw to Axios. Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen, when they started it I just felt like my values really aligned with theirs because there, the promise of Axios is that the way that journalism is done is pretty broken and we need to be doing a better job of it. 

And I think that was something that was really important to me because I was looking at the journalism and the organizations that I worked for and feeling like it was broken and the process was broken and I'm talking about the way that we do journalism, the way that the business model works, all of those things. So I think the other half of that is that as journalists are being caught up in all of this and the culture, like we also have to do a better job and I think like some of the polarization is the fault of like, I mean, I would be completely like disingenuous for me to like, Come here and say to you guys like, Oh, like media hasn't caused polarization. Of course it has, you know, but so [00:38:00] has technology and I think that those are sort of like, I think the biggest challenges that news organizations are caught up in now. 

Beth: [00:38:08] Something that I really value about Axios is that I feel even in the sort of daily tick talk of here's, what's going on there is this sense of let's zoom out and look at the trends and I really appreciate putting things in that kind of context. I think something that it feels like a lot of journalists are working through right now in terms of covering the Biden administration is how much context to wrap their coverage in. For example, is the situation at the Southern border a crisis right now?

I think that that depends a lot less on what Jen Psaki is calling it and a lot more on the context. How does this compare to previous years? Where are the trend lines taking us? When you have a figure like former president Trump looming so large [00:39:00] over everything I just sense that journalists are really struggling with how much of that context to bring in, because there is such a sense of bias if you, if you sort of touch the previous administration and I wonder if you think that's an accurate observation and if not, can you tell me what I'm 

Niala: [00:39:19] missing? I think I can only answer that for Axios. I don't know that I can answer that for other news organizations and I even then, I'm not, you know, I'm not covering the white house. Like I'm not speaking. I can't speak for as much for our white house in our politics team.

I do think that one thing that we do at Axios, and this is something else I really appreciate is is there sort of an understanding that the analysis that we do is understanding the convergence of all of these trends. Right? So everything that we've been talking about, technology culture, business, globalization are all part of the world.

And it's kind of weird to do your journalism in a vacuum and not incorporate all of those things. And [00:40:00] so I guess that's how I see Axios as a differentiator, like things that we do a little bit differently as we are thinking about those sorts of different trends and how that sort of like, I think the best of what we do is understanding and incorporating that.

I also think we have a lot of freedom because we're not a news organization of record. So we don't have to cover everything and I think that's a huge differentiator because we choose what we want to cover. We choose what we think is interesting. And I think that ultimately is a really important part of what news, the role that journalists should, should be playing in society now that I think a lot of people, I think that's sort of like an evolution that I think a lot of news media maybe haven't seen or haven't gotten to yet. 

And also, I mean, I think there are news organizations that have to play that a central role of just kind of the basic information of all of these things are happening. I think that when you're in that situation, it's much harder to do what we're doing, if that makes [00:41:00] sense. 

Beth: [00:41:01] Can you tell me what you think is the biggest challenge of a 10 minute daily podcast? The decision-making involved in getting to 10 minutes every day. 

Niala: [00:41:11] 10 Minutes. We, and actually our real estate, we're really strict about this. Like we try to, we include our advertising in that 10 minutes, which means that generally the content of the show can be nine minutes and 12 seconds because if we even go to like 10 Oh one, you guys, you all probably know this, like the podcasts, like Apple or Google will say that it's 11 minutes, even 10 minutes and one second, which kind of kills me.

So just because one of our big principles at the company and for the podcast is audience first and I think the 10 minutes is so important because to me that is our promise that we really value your time. And then I think people are really busy. And I also, I think just because people are busy doesn't mean they don't want to be informed.

And I think that [00:42:00] inherently, we should think that in 10 minutes you can do something. It takes a lot of time. It's always this sort of the secret of journalism. Like anything shorter is so much harder and takes so much more time, but you can do it. And so I think our struggles every day are how do we take like 10 seconds out of this conversation? Do we, how do we really hone, like, this is what I work with the producers on, really honing the questions and really being very focused about what we want every conversation to be about before we even start recording.

 So I think those are just the challenges and I think. Also it's 10 minutes, it's three, four topics. There's always something that we want to cover that we can't cover. The great part about a daily show is you have the next day to do it so you have a, you have a pretty long runway landscape of podcasts where you can cover something later on. But I think our biggest challenge is always just the time. And just making sure that we have it.

 And I [00:43:00] actually love when we hear from our listeners that they think the show should be longer. I'm like, great. No one ever says that about journalism. Like I was like, that means, I think that's like a great sign to me. It makes me happy when someone's like, I wish your show was longer. I was like, great. Keep wishing that.

Sarah: [00:43:15] Well, and what do we always tell people is when you follow something every day, you're not just getting 10 minutes, like you're, and you're not just getting the two minutes of that story. You're going to get two minutes of that story that day, and then maybe the day after that or the next week and so you're layering on information about similar trends and topics and stories over time. 

Niala: [00:43:32] Right. Like, I will say we have been talking about the rise in hate crimes against Asian-Americans well, before Atlanta. In fact, the week before the Atlanta, we did a whole, we were doing a whole special series with our China reporter about President Trump's language and the choice of words and what kind of that decision, like what the ramifications of that were for the community, for the AAPI community. And so I think like, if we [00:44:00] think about all of those, like if I kind of stack up like all of those little conversations, you know, it does you're right. I think that's a really good point that it does all add up. 

Sarah: [00:44:09] Is there anything else that you think we've missed or that you want us to cover? 

Niala: [00:44:12] I guess the one thing that is a really important thing to me personally, is I think part of the way the journalism is broken is just that I think we need to be approaching things with more empathy and humanity and I think that as journalists, I actually really appreciate all of the journalists who are sort of like now, like the newest generation of journalists, because I think this is what they lead with. But I think that the events of the past few years have made it really clear to me personally, that I just think we need to be empathetic.

We need to be very aware of the power structures that are very inherent in journalism. I think that we do not pay attention to the power dynamics between who's being interviewed and the person who's doing the interviewing [00:45:00] and I also think like part of that humanity is also just recognizing that it's not all bad, right.

There are good things. And so that's just my personality, like as that's just kind of how I go about life. So that's a really important part of Axios today for us is that is reflecting some of that. Right. And so I feel like it's just important just as people have news fatigue. Part of the reason why people have news fatigue is because if we're only talking about the bad things, Then it's very natural you don't want to listen. So I think it's really important, even if we're talking about things that are really difficult to do that in a way that's more approachable and more human.

Sarah: [00:45:41] Well, because I think empathy can sometimes become I'm fighting on your behalf or I'm asking the hard questions or I'm digging into the injustice, but sometimes empathy, I think empathy can be more complex. I think empathy is also sharing victories and empowerment and encouragement and positive [00:46:00] trends and solutions that are coming forth. And I think, I think you particularly saw this with COVID. I mean, I'm not breaking into new ground here when I say that there were concerns that the coverage was too negative and that there wasn't enough spotlight on the positive trends.

There wasn't enough spotlight on the vaccines and that could manifest as vaccine hesitancy. And you can, you know, and I even feel that a little bit with the Biden administration. I think we found a way in journalism to say, We should report on the good news and you see more movement, but like it's also okay to report when a politician does a good job.

Like that's, that's also an okay thing to report on and I feel like we haven't quite broken that ground yet where we can say like, no, the, the government did something, right. That was a success. Let's just call it what it is, because I think that as a, like, New era since even since Watergate, the idea is like, government is something you always have to watch. Government is something you always have to question. Government is something always you have to investigate. And I think we saw sort of how far that can go with COVID and that sometimes it goes too far. 

Niala: [00:46:59] I think the [00:47:00] pandemic has shown all of us, maybe this is how people felt during like world Wars, right? Like that we're all in this. And it doesn't really matter what situation you're in, you have to face this. And so I think just having that common experience is in some ways, like a real equalizer, like I think it really flattens the fact that everyone is exp like obviously people are not, I'm not going to say that everyone is experiencing the pandemic in the same way, but I do think there is something about this that is like Everyone is experiencing like everyone ostensibly has the same level of risk, right?

Like we're all and so I think that creates a shared experience that. I feel like should be a great thing. And I think in some ways it is right. Like I think, I think we're also in it, right? It's like what you guys asked me in the beginning. Right? Like it's too soon. I think we're in it. Like we don't know now, but I think maybe we'll look back and I hope that maybe we'll be like, [00:48:00] Hey, this was a great thing for humanity to realize this and this and move forward in this way.

Beth: [00:48:07] I think what you just shared is another consistent thing that I value about all of Axios is products, which is that you manage to bring that voice and empathy and real personality, but it is clearly news, not opinion and that seems very difficult to get right to me. I feel like most media companies have to inject opinion to get to that empathy and personality and I don't know how you all pull it off in your products, but I sense the people behind it without knowing anything about their politics. So, you know, kudos on that I guess is what I have to say. 

Niala: [00:48:43] Thank you. 

Sarah: [00:48:44] Well, thank you for joining us today. 

Niala: [00:48:46] Thanks for having me.

[00:49:00] Sarah: [00:49:01] Beth what's on your mind outside politics? 

Beth: [00:49:03] Everyone has sent us the article from the New York times about languishing and I am so languished that I haven't read it yet. It's opening up my browser tabs, but I'm not ready yet. You have and you said that I, I pretty well got it. Yeah. From what people have shared with us, but why don't you do a quick summary?

Sarah: [00:49:18] Also languished in my browser tab as well for a long time. Um, it's by Adam Grant who I really like. And he, one of the best things I think he says is like, let's just name how we're all feeling, which is not quite depression. It's just a lack of motivation. A lack of excitement. It's right there. It's just, it's exactly what the word means.

You were just all feel like we're languishing. We came into 2021. I think we got the vaccines, but the pandemic is not over. I think it's even applies to this. We got the verdict, but we know the problem is not solved. Um, and that we still have so much hard, difficult work to do in this country on race and policing. We're all trying to figure out [00:50:00] if we've gotten the vaccine, what that means for our everyday lives. Just all of it. It's just, we're just, everybody's filling. There's like a lot of languishing. I think that there's a sense of some of us are like getting out in the world and that feels good and then you have to come back to your everyday life and there's still so much to navigate.

I feel particularly like this continued ramping up people want me to be places on weeknights, like more than one week, night in a row. More than one week, night in a week, which I find truly outrageous. And, you know, I spoke to it with just how I feel every week night. Like just nothing sounds good. That's to me, that's like the whole, that's why I think everybody sends that article because that's hard to calculate it and that's basically what he says. Just nothing sounds great. And it's really important to name it and to care for it because it can be a predictor for more intense mental health challenges down the road if we don't sort of notice this languishing, this sort of this beginning warning sign, red flags, that something is amiss.

Beth: [00:50:58] I've been thinking a [00:51:00] lot about the new rules of normal, you know, like how do I want come, uh, gradually out of this period of mostly staying at home because I'm with you. I don't want to be somewhere multiple nights a week. We have two obligations on our calendar this weekend, and I think it's outrageous. It's too much. I don't want to do it. And I've been thinking about, um, one of them, our listeners, I I'm pretty sure it's Amy, who we had the pleasure of meeting in person who just has a rule that she doesn't do things on Sunday. 

She just never does things on Sunday. And she's sorry if you're a baby shower or wedding or birthday party is on Sunday. She doesn't do things on Sunday. So, um, and that's just, that's her day and I love the firmness of that boundary. She's lovely about it. She's not mean about it at all. You know what I mean? It's just like she has to protect some of her time and this is how she's come to do that. And so I've really been thinking, especially as a person, you know, who works from home, [00:52:00] the kids are here all the time. 

Our work is so driven by what's going on in media, that if it bleeds into everything else, how do I set up some firmer structures now that I know that my life pre pandemic was too much and my life during the pandemic was too little? How do I get through sort of that Goldilocks moment?

Sarah: [00:52:23] Well, and again, I think the languishing comes in because that feels like a big mental lift. I'm tired from the pandemic to sort all that out and to enforce boundaries. I don't have any reserves to walk through the boundaries. This is a problem.

Beth: [00:52:40] Yeah and the boundaries take a lot of reserves. Yeah. To me, that means that we are maybe just in a time of a lot of gracious nos. Yeah. And you just make that decision right. I'm really tired. And so probably the thing to do, unless it is an immediate yes that would give me some energy, I'm excited about it is just still a [00:53:00] time for gracious no's. 

Sarah: [00:53:01] My word for this year was gentle and I received a beautiful bracelet from a generous listener that I wear every day. I don't take off, which I've never done before. I've never, that's not a thing I do usually do, but it is really helpful to just look down and remember, no, no, no I'm being gentle and so I'm trying to even be a little gentle around my languishing. Like to not beat myself up because I don't have productive weeknights, even like productive relaxation, like really good weeknight activities that make me feel revived and refreshed.

But let me tell you, when I say that being gentle with myself and others about where we all are right now is a daily if not hourly process, like it's just a. I'm never gonna, I'm never gonna reach the destination of gentleness with myself. This is what I've realized. Like it's just gonna, it's a constant care situation [00:54:00] and like dialing into that self-compassion and that, that feeling of it's just a lot right now. 

And cause we're we're Americans, we like beginning, middle and ends. I just think that letting go of that, I had a conversation with a friend of mine who's usually like pretty type a and she was like, I just can't control it. So I'm not going to stress about it. And I was so impressed with her zenness. I was just blown away by her, her ability to be like, I cannot control it. And we did name this thing that I think does make it easier, if anything makes it easier, which is the feeling of like, it's not just happening to you. So you don't have to tap that, that deep well of unfairness we all carry around this.

Like, why is it happening to me? It's not fair because it's happening to everybody. And that makes the languishing easier and that makes the things we can't control be it, you know, back ordered or travel or real estate or public [00:55:00] school, or, I mean, I could list and list and list and list for days that makes that easier because at least we're all languishing and we're all experiencing this and we have smart people that can help us name it and see it and support us and say me too, so much easier. As always the connection, the feeling of like you're not alone, it makes it so much easier.

 So I hope that's what we'd done here for you today. That's always our goal on Pantsuit Politics to find a place to process the difficulty in life in modern American life and we are always so incredibly grateful, um, when you show up and listen, and when you email us and you say, yeah, you're not alone and thank you for making me feel less alone. So keep it nuanced y'all and we will be back here again with you on Tuesday.

Beth: Pantsuit Politics is produced by Studio D Podcast Production.  

Alise Napp is our managing director.

Sarah: Megan Hart is our community engagement manager. Dante Lima is the composer and performer of our theme music. 

Beth: Our show is listener supported. Special thanks to our executive producers. 

Executive Producers (Read their own names):  Shari Blem, Martha Bronitsky, Linda Daniel, Ali Edwards, Janice Elliot, Sarah Greepup, Julie Haller, Helen Handley, Tiffany Hassler, Barry Kaufman, Molly Kohrs.

The Kriebs, Laurie LaDow, Lilly McClure, David McWilliams, Jared Minson, Emily Neesley, Danny Ozment, The Pentons, Tawni Peterson, Tracy Puthoff, Sarah Ralph, Jeremy Sequoia, Karin True.

Beth: Amy Whited, Joshua Allen, Morgan McHugh, Nichole Berklas, Paula Bremer and Tim Miller

Sarah: To support Pantsuit Politics, and receive lots of bonus features, visit patreon.com/pantsuit politics. 

Beth: You can connect with us on our website, PantsuitPoliticsShow.com. Sign up for our weekly emails and follow us on Instagram.

Alise Napp2 Comments