YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Daily Signal President Rob Bluey on the Collapse of Legacy Media and the Future of Journalism

Daily Signal President Rob Bluey on the Collapse of Legacy Media and the Future of Journalism — Transcript

by PragerU · 11,857 words · 1,781 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00The Daily Signal was one of 442 outlets
0:03targeted and had our press credentials
0:05revoked.
0:06>> Why?
0:06>> Biden decided to change [music] it to
0:08protect his image and reputation.
0:10>> All of us are trying to get to the
0:11truth. And so, journalism is becoming a
0:13lot more complicated.
0:15>> do mess up and get something [music]
0:16wrong, we will fix it. Trust in media
0:19organizations plummet in part because
0:21they haven't been honest with their
0:23audience about the [music] agenda that
0:24they have.
0:25>> The world of speech and journalism has
0:27changed forever after the murder of
0:30Charlie Kirk. [music]
0:31>> frightening to think that you need to
0:32resort to having a security team protect
0:35you. [music]
0:35>> Do you say to yourself, I don't know if
0:37this is for me anymore?
0:39Rob, it's great to be here at what I
0:41call The Heritage Foundation, but also
0:44The Daily Signal, which you are the head
0:47honcho of. And you were just explaining
0:49to me the difference between The
0:52Heritage Foundation and The Daily
0:54Signal, yet also the connection between
0:56the two. And I think that if I don't
0:57know that much about the history,
1:00probably my viewers don't know either.
1:01And it is it's actually very interesting
1:03to hear why The Daily Signal had to
1:06separate from The Heritage Foundation.
1:09So, give us a little bit of the of the
1:10history here.
1:11>> Sure. And and I should start by saying
1:13The Heritage Foundation is a 52-year-old
1:15organization, and throughout that long
1:17tenure, it's had other media initiatives
1:20that it's launched. Probably most
1:22famously in 1995, the creation of
1:25townhall.com, which 10 years later was
1:27sold to Salem Media. And I came to The
1:30Heritage Foundation in 2007. It was a
1:32time
1:33um
1:33after the Townhall
1:36folks left, and
1:37Heritage was I think trying to figure
1:39out this emergence of bloggers and
1:41digital media. Remember, it was at a
1:42time when a lot of social media
1:44platforms were starting to emerge. And
1:46it was a very exciting time to be at
1:47Heritage. And so, in 2014, we launched
1:51The Daily Signal in part because there
1:53was a frustration on the part of The
1:55Heritage leadership team that it was
1:57increasingly difficult to get op-eds and
2:00commentaries placed in legacy media
2:02publications. For whatever reason, they
2:04were just struggling to to break through
2:07in in those platforms. And so, why not
2:09create our own where we could be a
2:11resource for Heritage policy experts to
2:13publish their work. And so, that's how
2:15the Daily Signal originally started. Uh,
2:17we had a very small team of reporters at
2:19the time, and it was great. Uh, we were
2:22trying to shake things up and disrupt
2:23the media monopoly in Washington D.C.
2:26And I think having some success at doing
2:29that. And so, fast forward to 2023, and
2:32you had a situation in the White House
2:34briefing room where Karine Jean-Pierre
2:36was the press secretary at the time. And
2:39on August 1st of that year, they decided
2:41to change the rules for who was allowed
2:44access to the White House press briefing
2:46room. And the Daily Signal was one of
2:49442 outlets that was targeted and had
2:52our press credentials revoked.
2:54>> Why?
2:54>> Uh, because they said
2:56you needed to have a congressional press
2:59credential in order to enter the White
3:01House. Now, that was never the case
3:02before. We had a reporter in the
3:04briefing room during the Obama years and
3:06during Trump's first term. Biden decided
3:09to change it, I think because he wanted
3:11to restrict the number of reporters who
3:12had access. Now, remember, this is a
3:14period of time when Joe Biden
3:16was, as we've come to find out through
3:18Jake Tapper's book and others, was
3:19really trying to protect his image and
3:22reputation. There were some questions
3:23starting to be asked about whether or
3:25not he had the mental acuity to serve as
3:26president.
3:27So, I don't think it was a coincidence
3:29that they were trying to crack down on
3:31the number of people who were asking
3:32questions at press briefings, and the
3:33Daily Signal was caught up in that. I
3:35don't think it was specifically us
3:37necessarily being targeted, because
3:38obviously there were over 440 outlets
3:40that were affected. What happened was,
3:43uh, that prompted me to re-examine our
3:46structure. And, uh, went to the Heritage
3:48leadership team, Heritage president
3:49Kevin Roberts and I made the case that
3:52the Daily Signal could not function as a
3:54media outlet if we did not have access
3:56to the most important institutions in
3:58Washington, D.C. including Congress and
3:59the White House. And so, that started
4:01this process of us becoming a legally
4:03independent and separate organization
4:05from Heritage, which is how we operate
4:06today.
4:07>> Well, I have to ask the obvious
4:08question. You did apply to try to get
4:10the credentialing to get and and the
4:13Biden administration wouldn't let you
4:15get
4:15>> right. We did appeal. We we attempted to
4:18overcome this this restriction that they
4:20put in place. So, the credentialing for
4:23journalists in Washington is handled
4:24differently depending on the institution
4:26that you might necessarily be applying
4:28for. So, let's take the three branches
4:30of government. The White House was
4:32always handled through the Secret
4:33Service. And so, the Secret Service
4:35would evaluate your desire to attend the
4:37briefing room and that's how our
4:39reporter was able to go there during the
4:40Obama years and the first Trump years
4:42and the beginning of the the Biden
4:43years. Congress is controlled by a group
4:46of other journalists. So, there's
4:47there's different galleries, is what
4:49they call them, in Congress. There's a
4:51radio TV gallery, there's a periodical
4:53press gallery, a daily press gallery,
4:55and a photography gallery. And other
4:56journalists elect themselves to
4:58leadership positions and they basically
5:01determine whether or not other media
5:03outlets are allowed to enter. Because of
5:05our affiliation with Heritage and the
5:06fact that Heritage wasn't primarily in
5:08the news gathering business, they always
5:09put a restriction and said that the
5:11Daily Signal wasn't eligible. Now, we
5:14were hardly alone. There were other
5:15conservative outlets that have had
5:17fights with the gallery as well,
5:19Breitbart being one of them the most
5:21notable where it was, I believe, in the
5:24first Trump administration where I think
5:25they eventually were able to get press
5:27credentials, but there was quite a fight
5:28that took place. And the Supreme Court
5:30has a very limited, I think maybe two
5:32dozen reporters who actually are
5:34credentialed because of the limited
5:35seating that that might be available.
5:37And I think that Marissa, I the reason I
5:40we're talking about this is the media
5:42landscape is vastly different today in
5:452025 than it was decades ago when a lot
5:49of these institutions formed these
5:51groups and and the credentialing rules.
5:53And so you might have somebody who runs
5:55a substack or a YouTube channel who has
5:57a much greater audience than a
6:00traditional news gathering organization,
6:02yet they haven't figured out yet how
6:06to provide them with the access that I
6:08think that they probably need to cover
6:09some of these institutions that that
6:11make important decisions about the
6:13American people.
6:14>> I'll tell you this is something that I
6:15didn't even realize because if you if
6:18you're a pedestrian like me and you
6:20mostly hear that it it is only the Trump
6:22administration who is rocking the boat
6:24and is changing credentialing and you
6:27know, there are attorneys who used to
6:28receive certain privileges to be able to
6:31go in and out of the White House or and
6:32and it's all Trump's fault and it's only
6:34Trump who's making any changes and
6:36previously there were no changes that
6:38were ever made by any any executive
6:40orders and leaders and and here you are
6:42telling me that
6:44I mean, there was restrictive press
6:47during the Biden administration which
6:49totally makes sense because they they
6:51didn't want anybody to see what
6:53condition he was in.
6:54>> That's right. Well, and you had you did
6:56have people like James Rosen at Newsmax
6:58who were asking questions that they
6:59probably didn't like and this is since
7:01come come out in the subsequent years as
7:04now people have re-examined what was
7:06going on during that period of time, but
7:08I think that yes, I have said
7:10that that whole scenario of the press
7:12restrictions in 2023 was one of the most
7:15undercovered story by the people who are
7:18the so-called champions of the free
7:19press. You would think that they would
7:21have rushed to our defense and said,
7:23"No,
7:24the Daily Signal should have a seat
7:26there." But but we didn't really have
7:27many allies that were were coming to our
7:29defense at that period of time.
7:31It's been quite the contrast now with
7:33the Trump White House because what
7:35they've done is they've created this new
7:36media seed where you've had people who
7:38don't come from traditional journalism
7:40organizations or come from different
7:42backgrounds entirely who are now given
7:43an opportunity to ask a question at the
7:45start of the press briefing. I think
7:46it's a great thing. It's been tried in
7:48other formats before. Sean Spicer
7:50famously did this where he had a Skype
7:51seat where people could call in to the
7:54White House press briefing room if they
7:55weren't physically located in
7:56Washington, D.C. But I I'm a strong
7:59advocate for more transparency and
8:00access for individuals and I give
8:02Caroline Levin and President Trump a lot
8:04of credit for trying something new and
8:06seeing how it works.
8:07>> I think one of the things that is really
8:09changing with the media landscape is
8:11also who is sponsoring the media, right?
8:13And so one of the major concerns that
8:15most of us have is that there are
8:17foreign governments that are pouring
8:20money into large entities and then
8:22manipulating and controlling what news
8:24Americans get to hear. And you're seeing
8:26that not just with foreign governments,
8:28but we've we've heard about lobbyists
8:30and pharmaceuticals, etc. And so by
8:32allowing podcasters and smaller groups
8:36to actually go and and listen and you
8:38have more people you're essentially
8:40spreading out the risk that lies are
8:41going to be
8:42spread and and that information will be
8:45controlled. I'm curious for you at the
8:47Daily Signal, how has that impacted you?
8:50Where does your funding come from?
8:52>> Yes, so we very much operate in the same
8:55kind of spirit that the Heritage
8:56Foundation does. So the Heritage
8:58Foundation relies on over half a million
9:01supporters every year with small dollar
9:04gifts. That's not to say that there
9:05aren't some large donors who also
9:06provide support to the policy
9:08organization. So we've
9:10taken that model and we have
9:11subscribers, people who make small
9:14dollar donations and we really count on
9:16them for for that level of support. At
9:19the same time, we do have advertising.
9:21Anybody who goes to the website or
9:22watches one of our our videos will
9:24notice that there's advertising because
9:25I think you have to have multiple
9:26sources of revenue coming in in today's
9:28world. But we are organized primarily as
9:31a nonprofit news organization and I
9:32think that that's one of the
9:34distinctions that might set us apart
9:36from from some others who are reliant on
9:39ad revenue. And we've seen how there are
9:41some outside forces, third-party forces,
9:43who tried to pull some levers to affect
9:46those news organizations that may dis-
9:48they may disagree with by limiting the
9:51number of or the types of advertisers
9:53who may want to do business with them.
9:54And so, we want to isolate ourselves
9:56from that. Um at the same time, I think
9:58that you raise a broader point that
10:00there are a number of people who may be
10:02on Substack or may they may rely on
10:04Patreon or, you know, any number of of
10:06sources for for revenue. And I think
10:09that's important because you do want to
10:10have diverse revenue streams, so you're
10:12not so dependent on any one source that
10:14that could jeopardize your ability to do
10:17your job as a journalist. Well, at the
10:18same time, what we've seen in in uh many
10:21of these legacy media organization is a
10:24dependence on big pharma or or corporate
10:26advertising in a way that might be a
10:28little bit unhealthy. Or sometimes, uh
10:31this is this is where things get tricky.
10:33You see a sponsor of uh of some of these
10:35political newsletters, and you're
10:37saying, "Well, what kind of influence do
10:39they have over the content of that?" And
10:41they'll say no influence at all. And you
10:43have to [laughter] ask the question
10:45whether or not, you know, if you're if
10:47you're that much money is on the line,
10:50are you going to do that kind of
10:51critical reporting or ask the tough
10:53questions of those entities that might
10:55be uh sponsoring your newsletter or
10:57show? And so,
10:59it's uh it's it's a an interesting world
11:01that we live in because it's become more
11:03challenging, obviously, to to figure out
11:05uh the the revenue model in today's
11:07media landscape, but one that I think we
11:10will ultimately be able to to solve. And
11:12and I think that that model is to go
11:14directly to the American people and ask
11:16them for their their support.
11:19>> Have you been in situations where you
11:20had to make an incredibly challenging
11:23editorial decision? I'd imagine I'd
11:25imagine it could be, you know,
11:28NewsGuard and then possibly
11:30de-platforming you. It could also mean
11:33what your donors and your audience is
11:35expecting you to say versus what you
11:37know is true. And how do you know what
11:39you that what you're reporting given
11:41that you have sometimes very limited
11:43time to make those decisions. How do you
11:45know that what you're reporting is in
11:46fact true?
11:47>> That it's a it's a tough call and I'm I
11:49I don't joke when I say it happens
11:51daily. In fact, I think that we live in
11:52an increasingly challenging environment
11:55in that respect because we are
11:57much more traditional probably in terms
12:00of the the multiple source rule that
12:02that we have where is we live in a
12:04social media world where people when
12:06they hear something or maybe they don't
12:07even hear something but they're just
12:08eager for that attention.
12:10>> Right, just to be the first that they
12:11can say or
12:12or the most sensational and radical
12:14thing they could say to get that
12:16attention.
12:16>> That's right. And so we have to resist
12:18some of that temptation. Yes, exactly.
12:20We don't do that. And I think the same
12:22is true for So if you if take a step
12:24back and you look at the what the Daily
12:26Signal's
12:27differentiation is from other media news
12:30organizations. I mean, I think first and
12:31foremost, the access that we have to the
12:33Heritage Foundation and the policy
12:35expertise not only to provide commentary
12:37and analysis for us but also to serve as
12:39sources because sometimes they worked in
12:42government and they'll have access to
12:44information or individuals that will
12:46help us in our reporting. I think
12:47secondly, investigative reporting. I
12:49mean, you had Tyler O'Neil, my colleague
12:51on your show. I mean, Tyler has an is an
12:54expertise in how individuals have
12:57infiltrated the government with a
12:58certain agenda. He's also reported
13:00deeply on the Southern Poverty Law
13:02Center and what some of the things that
13:03they've done including you know, attacks
13:05on PragerU. And so there are are those
13:08aspects that are are often sometimes
13:11creating tough editorial decisions that
13:13particularly when it comes to
13:14investigative reporting. I mean, you're
13:16you're revealing new information that
13:18hasn't been publicly revealed before and
13:21sometimes you have to make tough
13:22decisions. And so you go through a
13:24review process, an editorial review
13:26process. And then I said the last
13:27element of that is in covering Congress
13:30and the White House and the Supreme
13:31Court and all those institutions right
13:32here in Washington, D.C. And and
13:35sometimes, even as a conservative news
13:37organization, you're reporting about
13:38other conservatives, and they may get
13:39upset with you because you're you're
13:41reporting things that might not
13:43necessarily align with their agenda. And
13:44so, those create tough editorial
13:46decisions because you'll get a call from
13:48somebody and he'll say, "Hey, it would
13:49be better if you held off reporting
13:51that." And and the the tough decisions
13:53that I'm often having to make are
13:55telling that person on the other end of
13:57the phone, "Look, we're first and
13:59foremost a
14:00journalism organization, an entity, and
14:03yes, we are conservative, but that
14:04doesn't necessarily mean that we're
14:06going to censor ourselves because it's
14:08for for your benefit." And so, those are
14:10those are some of the the tough ones
14:12that I would say happen daily. But you
14:14raised some even bigger ones, and I
14:16think that that is in the tech space.
14:18Now,
14:19it does seem that things are trending in
14:21the right direction, but it wasn't too
14:23long ago where YouTube was censoring
14:26videos that that we created because of
14:28content that they deemed as hate speech.
14:30I'd say particularly on on issues
14:32related to transgender individuals that
14:34they they deemed inappropriate for for
14:37our channel or their platform. And then
14:39you raised the big one, which is
14:41NewsGuard. We used to have, believe it
14:43or not, The Daily Signal a perfect score
14:45from NewsGuard. And for whatever reason
14:47post-COVID, we saw that score plummet.
14:50And I think it was a combination of
14:51things. It was our coverage of the 2020
14:54election and and reporting on some of
14:55the issues that President Trump raised
14:57regarding some of the skepticism that he
15:00had about various voting patterns and
15:03habits that that took place. Secondly,
15:06coverage of COVID itself and some of the
15:09treatments they took very strong
15:11criticism of of some of the reporting
15:13that we did. And then I'd say the third
15:15one was kind of a run-of-the-mill
15:17left-wing causes. Climate change comes
15:19to mind as as a big one where where they
15:21have
15:22really taken an issue with some Daily
15:24Signal reporting and as a result of
15:25that, despite the fact that we don't
15:27feel like a whole lot has changed in our
15:29journalistic operations, we've seen the
15:31score drop. And so, I know when other
15:33news organizations really have struggled
15:35with that because if your score drops
15:36below a certain number, advertisers may
15:39be less inclined to do business with
15:41you. And I think that that's unfortunate
15:42because I see that as a suppression of
15:44free speech and the freedom of the press
15:46by a third-party actor that might have
15:50of its own.
15:51>> You know what I do appreciate hearing is
15:54that in order to have discernment on
15:56your side what to share with the public
15:58and how to share it and and really what
16:00to cover, you have experts that we can
16:03trust cuz there are a lot of experts we
16:05cannot trust, but you have experts that
16:07you lean on and there there are a group
16:10of people who are making decisions as
16:12opposed to people who are trying to just
16:14chase media and clicks and shares and
16:16and you never know what kind of
16:17discernment is really placed in in some
16:20of those podcasts where for you, I mean,
16:22what does a day look like? You There's a
16:24a breaking story and you don't know what
16:26to do. You Do you run over to somebody
16:29at The Heritage Foundation or make a
16:30phone call and say, "We have a massive
16:32issue. How do we handle this?" I mean, I
16:34know for us at PragerU,
16:36we can take our time because the content
16:38that we're making is generally more
16:40evergreen, right? And then we are the
16:41clay pots, I would say, of Western
16:43civilization in America. But for to be
16:46on the news front where you kind of have
16:48to be on the forefront of a breaking
16:51news, that takes a lot to compete
16:53against podcasters that immediately just
16:56go shout stuff on X. And if they're
16:58wrong, they just get to say sorry and
16:59nothing happens to them. There's no
17:01consequence when they lie or make
17:03catastrophic mistakes. If they're
17:05correct 70% of the time, everybody
17:08forgives them. But if you are wrong 30%
17:10of the time, you are toast because
17:12you're an actual organization that's
17:14associated with The Heritage Foundation,
17:17you are a target in that way.
17:19>> That's a good way of summing it up.
17:22And I'd say that the challenge with that
17:24is particularly with a small team. So,
17:26we have 14 full-time staff and four
17:29journalism fellows.
17:31It's difficult because we don't have the
17:33resources of some of these massive news
17:35organizations with hundreds of people
17:37and fact-checkers and individuals who
17:40are able to help with that news
17:43gathering as particularly as news is
17:45breaking. And so,
17:47I'd say that, you know, there's an
17:48incredible amount of pressure on a daily
17:50basis put on those reporters and editors
17:53to make sure that they get it right.
17:54Obviously, we have a corrections policy.
17:56We take that very seriously. If we do
17:59mess up and get something wrong, we will
18:01fix it and we will acknowledge that we
18:03made a mistake. And I think it's
18:04important for even if you are a social
18:07media influencer or somebody who has
18:08amassed a large following to do the
18:10same. I think it's the most honest thing
18:12to do with your audience. And I I would
18:14hope that people follow that practice. I
18:15think often times in the social media
18:17space, they don't. And I think the
18:19challenge is with that that people don't
18:21often see the follow-up post. They see
18:23that that first post and that's what
18:25goes viral and then they might not come
18:26around. And this is where
18:29news consumers need to be much more
18:32critical in their thinking about issues
18:34that are playing out right before their
18:36eyes. Skeptical sometimes of even the
18:38sources that they may trust. Looking at
18:40a at a variety of of different outlets.
18:43And this is where I dare to say like
18:44even look at left, right, and center all
18:46together because you might have a better
18:48perspective on world events if you do.
18:51Just knowing that as we do, I mean, we
18:53acknowledge right from the founding that
18:55we are conservative. We don't hide the
18:57fact that we are a conservative news
18:58organization. And Merissa, I will say
18:59this, I think that you've seen trust in
19:02media organizations plummet
19:05in part because they haven't been honest
19:07with their audience about the agenda
19:09that they have. And I think if they came
19:11out and they said, "Hey, I'm a liberal
19:13journalist." I mean, you've seen so many
19:14examples of this. Terry Moran at ABC
19:16News, right? Went on a social media rant
19:18about Stephen Miller and then was like,
19:20"Oh, bye ABC News." And now he's doing
19:21his own thing. And you've seen others
19:24leave
19:25prominent positions at legacy media. Don
19:27Lemon at CNN and Chuck Todd at NBC News.
19:31And they're all now doing their own
19:32things. I think they can probably be
19:33more honest Barry Weiss. They can be
19:35more honest about their own beliefs
19:38because they're not hiding behind that
19:39corporate structure anymore. And I think
19:41that that's probably a good thing at the
19:42end of the day for the American people
19:45to know what what it is that they
19:47ultimately care about and their
19:48passions. And then the American people
19:50can decide if that's
19:51>> [laughter]
19:51>> the substack that they want to subscribe
19:53to.
19:53>> Yeah, I mean, I think there are big
19:55changes ahead of us as Americans,
19:57consumers of the news who want to know
19:58what's going on. And I think that we, as
20:01you mentioned, most of us cannot trust
20:04legacy media as it as it has proven that
20:07it has lied to us and taken money from
20:10all kinds of nefarious agendas. And and
20:13so we've kind of migrated towards the
20:15podcast world. And and that is not a
20:17perfect world either because, like, you
20:20know, they don't necessarily have to be
20:22held accountable, right? And maybe one
20:24would say they're held accountable
20:25because the audience would leave them if
20:27they found out that they were lying. But
20:29it it is a little difficult to hold
20:31podcasters accountable as well, right?
20:33And they have the reasoning or the
20:35excuse to say, "Well, I don't have a
20:36team of researchers and so sorry, I was
20:38wrong." And and ultimately, I think all
20:41of us are trying to get to the truth,
20:42right? And so journalism is becoming a
20:44lot more a lot more complicated. And I
20:47would say, Rob, a lot riskier, too. I
20:50mean, just recently, my very, very dear
20:53friend Charlie Kirk
20:54was shot and murdered in his throat for
20:58literally speaking, right? He He was He
21:01just wanted to debate. He just wanted to
21:03bring truth. He just wanted to speak. I
21:05mean,
21:06maybe in some ways Americans got used to
21:08the the concept that a president's life
21:11might be at risk because we've studied
21:14about it our entire lives. But the idea
21:17that somebody who's speaking truth that
21:18some people might think is wrong or hate
21:22speech would get shot, to me that's a
21:25turning point in the belief that there's
21:28real free speech in America. And so for
21:30those of you who are on the front lines
21:33with your face and your body speaking
21:35about things that would upset people.
21:37And the Heritage Foundation, I don't
21:39need to tell you, is labeled all kinds
21:42of very nasty names. I just think the
21:45world of speech and journalism has
21:46changed forever after the murder of
21:49Charlie Kirk.
21:50>> I think you're right. I I
21:52It's It's apt to call it a turning point
21:54for sure. And there are a couple of
21:56things there. Number one, it happened on
21:59a college campus where isn't that the
22:01environment where free speech should be
22:03celebrated and and free inquiry of
22:06thought and all of those things that if
22:08you went to college in the United
22:09States, that was the place to have those
22:13debates. And so I think that it's it's
22:16tragic that
22:17>> Everything Charlie was warning about.
22:19That's the He would say to me all the
22:21time, "The least free place in America
22:23are college campuses."
22:25>> It was two decades ago when I was in
22:27college that these bias-related
22:29incidents committee and bias-related
22:31reports would start to pop up. And I
22:33experienced it firsthand on my own
22:35college campus and I I saw what at the
22:37time I I feared and you had people like
22:40Bill O'Reilly and others warning about
22:42this and I think Charlie would talk
22:44about it often, right? The suppression
22:46of debate on on campus or or or speech
22:49more more precisely. And it's
22:53The most concerning thing to me is when
22:55you have public opinion pollsters go out
22:57and talk to college students and they
22:59talk about these issues of free speech
23:01and debate and people who think that
23:03it's okay to resort to violence against
23:06somebody that they disagree with as
23:07opposed to engaging in a conversation or
23:09a debate. And And who did that better
23:12than Charlie, right? He was willing to
23:13talk to anybody that disagreed with him
23:15and and and he was so not only
23:18thoughtful and graceful in his
23:20presentation and approach to engaging in
23:22those conversations, but so articulate
23:24and smart. And that's what I always
23:25admired so much about Charlie. And I
23:28think that if we can learn anything from
23:30this tragic moment, um is that I hope
23:33that people will be still willing to
23:36engage in those conversations and don't
23:38retreat because you're right. Um there
23:41there certainly is that intimidation
23:44factor. You brought up the Heritage
23:46Foundation and and I think the
23:48what's happened over the course of the
23:50past year with regard to Project 2025
23:53and and how so many people are
23:54exasperated by it with the protests and
23:56and everything else that you've seen
23:57take place.
23:59This is something that Heritage has done
24:01since 1981 with President Reagan in
24:04terms of putting together a a playbook
24:06and policy ideas and personnel
24:08recommendations. And don't think that
24:10those on the left who try to silence you
24:12are going to affect, you know, how we do
24:15our business. Yes, we may have to beef
24:16up our own security and take
24:18precautionary measures to protect
24:20ourselves, but that's not going to
24:22silence conservatives from trying to
24:25achieve the truth, which you talked
24:27about, but also a better life for the
24:28American people, which is ultimately why
24:30I got in this business, which is why I
24:32think so many people have gravitated
24:34toward conservatism, including Charlie,
24:36because they ultimately want to see
24:37people in this country flourish.
24:39>> When you first went into journalism,
24:42>> Mhm.
24:42>> did you ever imagine that
24:45we will be in a situation where we would
24:47have to travel with armed guards and
24:50worry that people would recognize our
24:52faces?
24:53>> Not really, no. I did go to journalism
24:55school
24:56um on a very liberal college campus. Uh,
24:59my first
25:01experience in intro to journalism class
25:03was from a professor who came from a
25:04far-left view and was talking about
25:06advocacy journalism,
25:08uh, which I'm not necessarily opposed
25:10to, but when
25:12young impressionable minds are
25:14indoctrinated with that belief and you
25:15have an entire generation or multiple
25:17generations coming out of journalism
25:19school with that mindset, then I do
25:21think that we end up in a situation
25:23where we are today, where it is
25:25difficult for a conservative to go into
25:28a liberal newsroom and have have a
25:30successful career. Uh, I think that's
25:32partly why you've seen such a growth of
25:34conservative media organizations because
25:36they have been shut out of of those
25:38environments. And I think that's great
25:40that we're flourishing, that you have
25:42the Daily Caller, the Daily Wire, the
25:43Daily Signal, the Washington Examiner,
25:46Breitbart, PragerU giving a platform to
25:48so many young people who otherwise might
25:51not have pursued a career in media. At
25:53the same time, it's it is it is
25:55frightening to think that you need to
25:57resort to having a security team protect
25:59you just because you want to share
26:01conservative values and beliefs, which
26:03by the way, I would say broadly in the
26:05country, if you just look at the the
26:07votes for President Trump in the 2020
26:09for election, there were many Americans,
26:11a majority of them, who agree with those
26:14sentiments. And even if you don't
26:17necessarily like the particular
26:18candidate who might be on the ballot, I
26:21still think that we are fundamentally a
26:22conservative country. What's happened is
26:24there are these elite bubbles in New
26:26York, Washington, LA that control a lot
26:29of the media, culture, academia,
26:30Hollywood, and they have a certain
26:33mindset that they want to project on the
26:35American people,
26:37but ultimately, I I do think that
26:40there's a resistance to that, and I
26:41think that, um, you're a testament to
26:43that and your organization and the and
26:45the work that you do. There's an
26:47audience that's that's wants to consume
26:49this content. They'll find a way around
26:52those power centers uh, to to get the
26:54content if they need to. And and that's
26:56why it's so important going back to the
26:57earlier question you asked about
26:58technology to make sure that the content
27:00is actually accessible and available.
27:02And so if it's if being restricted in
27:03other ways and by other players, that
27:06creates a challenge for all of us who
27:07are creating that content.
27:08>> There is a text chain that is going
27:11around with some of our friends who are
27:12in media and conservative media. And
27:15what we're saying to each other is that
27:16we need to spread the risk. We need more
27:18people to be added, right? We we don't
27:21want I mean even though one would think
27:23that maybe there's competition, there is
27:25actually no competition. We're all in
27:27this together. The competition are the
27:28people who are trying to take America
27:30and the West down. And so we're all
27:31saying we need we need more people. We
27:33need more people to speak up. We need
27:35more people to step in. I mean thank God
27:37for the world of podcasting really and
27:39and social media. As much as it hurts,
27:42it also allows more young and new people
27:46they they may not even have to be young.
27:47They may come from the other side and
27:49realize that
27:50they're done with that evil world,
27:52right? And come over and and start
27:54speaking truth. And so we say join us
27:56and help us spread the risk so that one
27:58Charlie Kirk turns into 10,000 men. And
28:02so I I'm wondering on your front, do you
28:04do you ever feel like you ask yourself I
28:07mean your father, you have little kids.
28:10Do you ask yourself
28:11why me? Why am I in this? Do I even want
28:13to do this? Maybe I just want to move to
28:15take whatever money I have and move to
28:17Bora Bora and be a farmer or something.
28:20I don't know what they do and what but
28:21but does that ever cross your mind or do
28:24incidents like the threats that you
28:26receive at Heritage or Daily Signal or
28:29or what has happened to Charlie Kirk and
28:31and others the other
28:32folks that have been intimidated through
28:34Antifa, do you say to yourself I don't
28:37know if this is for me anymore?
28:38>> Yeah. Yeah, including some of our our
28:40own Daily Signal colleagues. One who was
28:42attacked by Antifa when when covering a
28:46protest. And so no, it's it hits home
28:48very close to to to those of us here.
28:51I love what I do. And and I think that
28:54I'm driven not only by the curiosity and
28:57the storytelling and all of those great
28:59aspects of journalism that first
29:02led me to into this field to begin with,
29:05but also that passion for a mission. And
29:08The Daily Signal is unique also in that
29:09it is a mission-driven news
29:10organization. Not all conservative media
29:12are. Some are some exist for variety of
29:14other reasons, but our our mission very
29:16much aligns to lead us to the good life
29:19and and telling stories and and trying
29:21to focus on policies that end things
29:25that we think would lead our country
29:27down a better path. And so, I do feel
29:29that that is
29:31why I show up to work every day, get out
29:32of bed, and what I'm what I'm striving
29:34to do. At the same time, it is
29:35increasingly difficult because we live
29:38in a society that doesn't seem to want
29:40to welcome that debate or have that
29:42conversation. And it's one of the
29:44reasons why whenever I get an invitation
29:46to go on CNN or NBC News and platforms
29:51that are outside of the conservative
29:52media world, I I jump at that
29:54opportunity. And even though it might be
29:56difficult and some people say, "I don't
29:57know how you sit there at that table and
29:59have that debate." And I say, "No, I'm
30:00proud to actually stand by my values and
30:03belief and articulate the principles
30:05that we believe in because I think it's
30:07important to not only
30:09do that and make sure that those
30:10conservative ideas are present in the
30:12conversation, but hopefully
30:14I'm persuasive and somebody who's
30:16watching on the other end will hear the
30:18message and say, "Actually, you know,
30:19that's common sense." Or or that that
30:21what what Rob is saying isn't so extreme
30:24and it's not it's not the divisive
30:27characteristics that that an anchor on
30:29one of these stations may have
30:30articulated previously. And so, I do
30:32think it's important for conservatives
30:33to be in that environment. At the same
30:35time, I made a choice. I made a choice
30:37when I first came to Washington, D.C.
30:39And I was my my first job I was working
30:41for an organization that advocated for
30:44for students in college and high school
30:46they were encountering censorship and
30:48freedom of the press issues. And after I
30:50did that fellowship
30:52I was applying for jobs at places like
30:54the Washington Post. And it was during
30:57that experience of looking at what
31:00opportunities existed again over two
31:02decades ago that I decided to enter
31:05conservative media. And I knew by doing
31:07that honestly at that time that I would
31:09never get a job
31:11at at a legacy media organization like
31:13the New York Times or Washington Post
31:14because I was branding myself. I was
31:16choosing to brand myself as a
31:17conservative. And it was one of the best
31:19decisions that I ever made. And so I
31:20spent about five years as a reporter
31:22covering Congress and and working for
31:24for two great media organizations before
31:27coming to the Heritage Foundation in
31:292007 and then later founding the the
31:31Daily Signal. And what we're trying to
31:32do today is through our journalism
31:34fellowship program and other things that
31:36that we do is is to give those that next
31:39generation an opportunity. They could
31:41choose to go in to some legacy media
31:44organizations and maybe be that that
31:46common sense voice in the newsroom. And
31:48I hope that they do. And then there will
31:49be others that choose the path that you
31:51talked about whether it be podcasting or
31:53maybe building your own media empire or
31:56whatever it is that they they decide to
31:57do. But we do need more of them. And
32:00it's so critically important. And by the
32:01way, I think we need more of them in all
32:03facets. We need people who are really
32:05creative when it comes to producing
32:07documentary videos and short films and
32:10telling a story that way. We need people
32:11who are interested in doing
32:13investigative reporting and the deep
32:14dives and all of that political
32:16journalism that that we strive to do
32:18here at the Daily Signal. And then we
32:20also need people who are
32:22like Charlie Kirk and just beautifully
32:25articulate in in having these debates
32:27and conversations and going on news
32:29programs and being able to mix it up
32:31with Governor Gavin Newsom or the next
32:33person, right? And
32:35and whatever suits you I would say if
32:37you're interested if you're watching
32:38this and you're interested in journalism
32:41or media, I'll pursue that career
32:43because they're definitely
32:44>> to college though, would you recommend
32:45going to
32:46>> [snorts]
32:46>> journalism college?
32:48>> That's a That's a tough one. How would
32:49you recommend if somebody is listening
32:51and they want to enlist? Because you
32:52know, truly Rob, I believe enlist is a
32:54good word, yeah.
32:55>> I believe it's it's enlisting because it
32:57is very unlikely that America will ever
33:00be taken down through outside bullets
33:02and tanks. If If something happens to
33:04America, it's from within. It's through
33:06education, it's through limiting free
33:09speech, and it's through journalism and
33:11the and and fake news media, everything
33:14we've been talking about, right? And so,
33:16if you want to help our country, want to
33:17help save a our country, it's about
33:20teaching what our country is about. It's
33:22the attack from within. And so, when you
33:24enlist, really in the way that Charlie
33:27Kirk enlisted, Charlie and I used to
33:29talk about PragerU being the Air Force
33:31and Turning Point the boots on the
33:33ground. And And I think it's true
33:35because we recognized that it's bad
33:37ideas that will take America down, not
33:39necessarily a tank at, you know, our
33:41border.
33:42And so, but let's say somebody wants to
33:45enlist, the problem is do they go to
33:47journalism school at Cornell?
33:50>> There are
33:51there are some great aspects about
33:53journalism school and there are some
33:54great journalism schools and I'm glad to
33:56see that some more conservative or
33:58Christian colleges are investing in
33:59journalism schools. I think of the
34:01Hillsdale journalism program as being
34:03one of the premier
34:05organizations led by John Miller. It's
34:08It's fantastic and I think that if you
34:10go and you you are able to understand
34:13some of the foundational principles
34:14about the First Amendment and some of
34:16the the practices in journalism, if you
34:18can if you can acquire those skills,
34:20that is just tremendous. At the same
34:22time, there's that balance. If you go to
34:24journalism school like I did and you
34:26spend a lot of time in in the practice
34:28of journalism, you might not get that
34:31experience in the more classical
34:32education that you would receive in a in
34:35a humanities and sciences program,
34:36right?
34:37>> And journalism is changing so rapidly,
34:39right? By the time you graduate, the
34:41whole terrain is different.
34:43>> is. Yes. And and and certainly that that
34:47was my experience in college. I mean, it
34:49was it was changing then and it's even
34:50changing at a faster pace today.
34:52And so this is this is the tension that
34:54you have because you and I were talking
34:56about it earlier. I do think that if you
34:58go to journalism school, you will learn
35:00to do some of those things like here's
35:02how to fact-check and and contact local
35:04law enforcement and do some of those
35:06things to make sure that you get the
35:07facts right, which is critically
35:09important for people who
35:11amass a huge following on social media
35:13in particular.
35:13>> Huge responsibility.
35:14>> is a responsibility. Uh whereas at the
35:16same time, the trade-off is that if you
35:18spend your all your time learning the
35:21practical aspects of doing journalism
35:23that you might not understand some of
35:25the more core and fundamental things
35:27about our what makes our country great
35:28and some of those big ideas that uh that
35:31I think you you would get through a more
35:32classical education. And so trying to
35:35find that balance, if you do go to
35:36journalism school, don't don't disregard
35:38those other courses that you might get
35:40in college. And if you don't go to
35:41journalism school, look for
35:42opportunities to practice journalism.
35:44And there are so many organizations that
35:47provide that opportunity today to create
35:49a campus newspaper. It might not be the
35:52the sanctioned campus newspaper, but you
35:54might be able to do journalism in a in a
35:56different different aspect on your on
35:58your college campus. Um and even if you
36:00don't choose to do that, you today can
36:04practice journalism on your own through
36:06social media or through podcasting or
36:08through some other through some other
36:09means. And so I think it's I think that
36:11that's one of the aspects. And the final
36:13point I'd make on it is if you decide or
36:16if you're if you're already a college
36:18graduate and you have a desire to move
36:20into journalism, there's so many great
36:21programs that exist today, whether it be
36:23the National Journalism Center, the Fund
36:25for American Studies, or the
36:27Intercollegiate Studies Institute or
36:29programs like our journalism fellowship
36:31or the Daily Caller News Foundation has
36:32a great journalism fellowship program.
36:34And so, I think that those are things
36:36that exist today that may not have
36:37existed a couple of decades ago when I
36:39was coming into the field that I
36:42certainly appreciate. And I've seen
36:44students come through those programs
36:45much better off because of the training
36:47that they received. And I think that
36:48that's really phenomenal. I think we're
36:50in a better position today as
36:52conservatives because we have those
36:54those training programs than we maybe
36:56were in the past.
36:57>> Rob, you mentioned the Washington Post
36:59which has given the Heritage Foundation
37:01a lot of free press, but I know that you
37:03go on many other, I would say, left-wing
37:06platforms. And I'd imagine that they
37:08have asked you many, many questions
37:10about Project 2025.
37:12>> [snorts]
37:13>> And I would love to hear your
37:15perspective as if you are speaking to
37:18not right-wingers, just the general
37:20public, not extreme left, not extreme
37:22right, just
37:24the mass normals that are out there but
37:26are probably quiet. They have heard all
37:27kinds of things about Project 2025. And
37:30my belief is that the project is
37:32misunderstood and miscommunicated, but
37:35let's just get to the bottom of it. Tell
37:36me about Project 2025.
37:38>> Thanks for the opportunity. Um so, in
37:40prior to this We've been talking a lot
37:42about the Daily Signal. So, prior to
37:45stepping out and leaving the Daily
37:47Signal, I served as the Vice President
37:48of Communications at the Heritage
37:50Foundation for 7 years, including when
37:52Project 2025 or as it was known at the
37:55time, the Presidential Transition
37:56Project, was launched. Uh Kevin Roberts
37:59became President of the Heritage
38:00Foundation in 2021, came from the Texas
38:03Public Policy Foundation. So, he came
38:04from a policy background and he he
38:06understood that the dynamics at play,
38:09particularly when it came to the 2024
38:11election, were going to require
38:14conservatives to gather policy ideas and
38:17personnel so that whoever that next
38:20president would be would have an
38:22opportunity to tap into those resources.
38:24It's not much different from how it was
38:27in 1981 when President Reagan took the
38:30Heritage Foundation's Mandate for
38:31Leadership and put it on the seat of
38:33every cabinet secretary and said, "I
38:35will judge your performance based on how
38:37you implement these ideas." I think the
38:39difference about Project 2025 is that
38:42the left, recognizing that they could
38:45not mount a sustained or effective
38:47attack on Donald Trump, was trying to
38:49grab something else and they saw Project
38:512025 as an opportunity to do so. And so,
38:54that's when the attacks really started
38:56in earnest in the course of the 2024
38:59presidential campaign. They tried to
39:00take the ideas that were in the Mandate
39:02for Leadership book, tie them to
39:04President Trump, and use that as a as a
39:06bludgeon to attack him and therefore
39:09attack the Heritage Foundation. But,
39:11honestly, Project 2025 was a collection
39:14of 110 110 conservative groups that had
39:18convened, brought together their policy
39:20expertise, put ideas into a book, put
39:22people into a database that whoever that
39:25was, whether it was going to be Kamala
39:27Harris or Donald Trump, could tap into.
39:30It was it was really nonpartisan in that
39:32respect. If Kamala Harris wanted to
39:33embrace some of the ideas in the book,
39:35we would have welcomed it at the time.
39:37Obviously, it was they were conservative
39:39ideas, so it was more likely that a
39:41Republican candidate would probably
39:42seize on them. And I think what you've
39:44seen is many of those people who
39:46contributed to to the project have
39:50taken jobs within the the president's
39:52administration. They've been successful
39:53at what they've been implementing. And I
39:55think going forward, you're going to see
39:57organizations like Heritage not shy away
39:59from putting together policy proposals
40:01in the future. That's why they exist.
40:04>> Well, I you know, I appreciate that it
40:06there's transparency and honesty because
40:08people can actually see what's
40:09potentially on the agenda.
40:11>> true.
40:11>> But, Rob, what I want you to do is I
40:13want you to imagine that right now, as
40:15people are watching, they're writing all
40:17kinds of comments because they are.
40:19And what what I am predicting that
40:21they're saying is but Project 2025 is
40:25really bad and really extreme because
40:27dot dot dot. Now, you've you've been
40:29that space before. And so, I want to
40:31give you a chance to answer. What
40:33specifically upsets the moderates or the
40:37people on the left about Project 2025?
40:40Just give me the things that they think
40:42are absolutely the worst.
40:44>> Well, there there's a whole list. I
40:45think Mark Hamill had
40:47put it together
40:49and articulated a bunch of myths that
40:51are in Project 2025. So, I mean, we
40:53could talk about any number of things. I
40:54mean, they they took ideas that were
40:56fully thought out. I mean, the the book
40:58itself, I wish I had brought a a copy
40:59for you, Marissa. I mean, it's it's
41:00quite thick. I mean, and if you look at
41:03all of the content and all of the policy
41:05ideas that are articulated to try to
41:07boil it down into a list of 20 things
41:09that that irritates and gets the left so
41:11fired up is is really doing an injustice
41:14to the work that went into these very
41:16thoughtful policy ideas. But I I'd say
41:18they happen on a number of different
41:20levels. There are social issues that
41:21they are upset about. I mean, certainly
41:23on the issue of of gender or life, those
41:26animate certain portions of the left.
41:28They they certainly don't like certain
41:29some of the proposals that were in there
41:31with regard to immigration and border
41:33security. And what I'd say is if you
41:35actually take a look at these ideas,
41:37they're not radical in any respect.
41:40>> let's go into border security because I
41:42think this is an issue that Americans
41:44are very passionate about. I think it's
41:46what
41:46>> deportation was
41:47>> Exactly. It it brought them out to vote
41:49for Donald Trump. It was one of the key
41:51issues. So, what did Project 2025 say
41:55about immigration specifically that
41:58labels the Heritage Foundation as so
42:00extreme?
42:01>> Yeah. Specifically on the issue of
42:03immigration and border security, there
42:05were a number of proposals. There was a
42:06whole chapter on on that particular
42:08topic. I would say on border security,
42:10obviously making sure that you had a
42:12system in place, not only with the
42:14policies at the federal level that would
42:17allow the administration to deport those
42:20individuals who entered the country
42:22illegally, but also putting in place the
42:25security measures that we've seen Tom
42:26Homan and others talk about on almost a
42:28daily basis. And so, one of the things
42:31that passed in the one big beautiful
42:32bill were all of these resources that
42:35that Tom Homan has spoken about and and
42:37why he needs, whether that be more ICE
42:39officers because there's a massive
42:41number of illegal immigrants in this
42:43country who came in during Joe Biden's
42:45tenure. It's the going to take more than
42:47they have right now to be able to do
42:49that. Um whether it be the deportation
42:52policies, putting in place systems where
42:55there are enough beds and enough
42:56resources to process people and remove
42:58them from the United States in a legal
43:02way that allows them to return to their
43:04home country. And then obviously
43:05finishing the wall, all of those things
43:07that Donald Trump has been talking about
43:08what it seems like for 10 years, right?
43:10Those things are I don't think that
43:12should have come as a surprise to anyone
43:14that you see now playing out in in this
43:16country. And yet it seems that you have
43:18big city mayors or Democrat governors
43:20who are reacting in in ways that they
43:22are shocked that they would perhaps send
43:25ICE to Los Angeles or Chicago or other
43:28big cities to do these immigration raids
43:30and enforcement. And those are some of
43:31the ideas that I think are consistent
43:33with the ideas that were articulated in
43:35the mandate for leadership in Project
43:362025 that have probably
43:39sparked so much protest among the left.
43:41But often times it's interesting when
43:43you have a protest and you actually talk
43:45to them. Armstrong Williams, who's a
43:47commentator and somebody who runs it has
43:50his own show, the Armstrong Williams
43:51show, went out and interviewed some of
43:53them. And it was really interesting for
43:54it to listen to the conversations that
43:56he would have with some of the
43:57individuals. And they really are
44:00ultimately just boiled down to calling
44:02you names. And and fascist is one that
44:04comes up frequently and dictator. And I
44:07think that if you if you ask them
44:09substantive questions about what's
44:10actually in Project 2025, they have a
44:12hard time articulating it because
44:14chances are they haven't read it.
44:16>> read it. I mean, they won't watch a
44:175-minute video from Gregor you and
44:19attack us. You think they'll read your
44:21entire document? No way.
44:22>> right. That's right. And so, there's
44:24there are the policies and then and then
44:26I think one of the other aspects of it
44:28that was was different this time is that
44:32we recognized, if you go back to the
44:342016 election and Donald Trump wins, it
44:37was a surprise I think to many people,
44:39certainly in the establishment, maybe
44:40not to conservatives as much, and and
44:42Trump was putting together his team. And
44:43so, making sure that you had dedicated
44:46conservatives who were going to actually
44:48carry through and and cuz we all know
44:50personnel is policy. And if you put the
44:52wrong people in place, they may not
44:54carry out the policies that that were
44:56were promised by the the Trump campaign.
44:58And I think that's one of the other
44:59differences this time around in the
45:00second term than maybe existed in the
45:02first term. And I think Trump's
45:04effectiveness over the course of his
45:06first six, eight months, you know, has
45:09allowed him to do things differently
45:12than he did in his first term. First of
45:13all, he was dogged by Russia, Russia,
45:15Russia in that first term. He didn't
45:16necessarily have all the people in in
45:18place. And this new cabinet and all of
45:21the people who are working for them have
45:22been much more effective and I think
45:24that that's probably generated some of
45:25the hostility and anger because they see
45:28that he's actually getting the job done
45:30and carrying through on the promises
45:31that he made.
45:32>> Mhm. Do you think that the left-wing
45:34media has been unfair in the way that
45:36they're describing Project 2025 or are
45:39they honest about it, but they're just
45:42throwing ad hominem attacks and are
45:44shocked by it?
45:45>> Well, what I've seen in my time,
45:47obviously being affiliated with the
45:49Heritage Foundation, including running
45:51the comms team here, is that any
45:53headline usually now screams Project
45:552025. I think I think that there's a
45:56sensationalism and there's that
45:58clickbait mentality that a lot of them
46:00have adopted because they know that that
46:02is the term that is going to get
46:04eyeballs. And so naturally they will
46:05lead with that whenever they're talking
46:07about any particular
46:09situation, whether Heritage puts out a a
46:11new policy report on family policy or or
46:13our approach toward China or Big Tech or
46:16what what have you, it's always going to
46:18be framed in that lens. And that's what
46:19I think is probably not an accurate way
46:22of of describing things. At the same
46:24time, yes, I mean I I do think that
46:26there is I I think the fact that there
46:28is so much attention on the Heritage
46:30Foundation is in part because they know
46:32that Heritage is the most influential
46:34policy organization in Washington, D.C.
46:36And so naturally they're going to pay
46:38closer attention to some of the things
46:40that were recommended in in Project
46:422025. And particularly if those policies
46:45are now being enacted by this
46:47administration. And so it's a balance. I
46:49wouldn't want to cast too wide of a net
46:50and and and describe all of it as
46:52unfair. But for the most part, I do
46:55think that those who work in legacy
46:56media don't understand conservatives.
46:59And they don't really even take the time
47:00to try to understand conservatives
47:02because again, I'll use the term before,
47:04I think they live in their bubbles. And
47:06they probably don't have many
47:07conservative friends. They don't
47:08interact with conservatives a whole lot.
47:10And so therefore when they see a
47:11conservative idea come out,
47:13they they react with a certain level of
47:15alarm that I think is probably un-
47:17unfair.
47:17>> Who do you think are the people that
47:19continuously attend these riots or
47:22protests outside of the Heritage
47:25Foundation building? Who
47:26Who are they? Are they paid? Are they
47:29random board people?
47:31>> I don't have uh any evidence to indicate
47:33that they're paid. Uh they It's
47:35interesting though that they usually do
47:36show up at the start the top of the hour
47:38and and leave at the bottom of the hour.
47:40So you know, that that that is curious
47:42that they seem to be on the clock.
47:44>> with a coffee break a large coffee break
47:46in the middle.
47:47>> Right, right. And there's an encampment
47:49at Union Station, which is not far from
47:51the Heritage Foundation. And they tend
47:54to congregate there for various
47:57protests. And by the way, it's it's not
47:59just Heritage. They they were protesting
48:01outside of the Hall of States, which is
48:03where NBC News and Fox News bureaus are
48:06located. And so, they go around to
48:08various locations on Capitol Hill or
48:10throughout the Washington D.C. area.
48:13Obviously, Lafayette Park and Lafayette
48:15Square across from the White House is is
48:17a is a big destination for them as well.
48:20And again, they could be a combination
48:23of people who are are committed
48:25left-wing activists who are deeply angry
48:28about the direction that they see the
48:30country going, or they could be other
48:32individuals who may be making
48:34>> [laughter]
48:34>> some money off of an opportunity to show
48:37up outside of these locations. But, I
48:39will say as as so many people have said
48:41in the past, I mean, you're not going to
48:43be catching that flak if you're over if
48:45you're not over the target. And so, I
48:46think that that's probably why some of
48:48these entities have have faced
48:49increasing protests, including the
48:51president and vice president themselves.
48:52Wherever it seems they go, including
48:54dining out in Washington D.C. and being,
48:56you know,
48:57>> [laughter]
48:58>> having protesters encounter you right at
49:00the restaurant. It's it's kind of sad
49:01that you can't even venture out into the
49:03city and and not experience that.
49:06>> So, here's another hard question. And
49:08honestly, I contemplate this question
49:10all the time.
49:11What do you think the media landscape is
49:14going to look like in 10 years from now,
49:16given everything that we're going
49:18through, AI coming into the picture,
49:20podcasting, legacy media distrust,
49:24what happened to Charlie Kirk, the the
49:26riots, the fear-mongering,
49:29NewsGuard, everything that we're going
49:31through? If you if you could just
49:32imagine what 10 years from now looks
49:34like, what do you think that looks like?
49:35>> Wow, I wish I had all of the answers
49:37because I would definitely set me and
49:40The Daily Signal on a course to figuring
49:42out where the audience is going to
49:43gravitate toward and how to best reach
49:45that audience. I would say I think a few
49:47things. I mean, you mentioned AI.
49:49There's no question that AI is already
49:51having a profound impact on the media
49:54world and it's going to probably create
49:57a situation where I will just give you
49:59an example from sports journalism.
50:02There's an app called Game Changer,
50:04primarily for baseball, right? And it
50:06uses the box score to write a story for
50:08you. Now, will we see that for
50:11professional sports, NFL games, NBA,
50:14Major League Baseball? I don't know. I
50:16mean, does that does that replace the
50:17reporter who tells the story of the
50:19game? Because AI can look at the
50:22statistics and come up with a story that
50:24is much faster and maybe even superior.
50:27>> can even you can even tell it to write
50:29in your voice, right? It would learn
50:30your voice and so it could sound like
50:32that.
50:32>> you have that for congressional votes
50:34where it can look at the roll call votes
50:35and you know, tell you what what
50:36happened? I don't I don't know, but I'm
50:38just saying like those are scenarios
50:40that I think we who are in the
50:41journalism business probably need to
50:43start contemplating and grappling with.
50:45At the same time, I think it can have
50:46some probably really good uses. Maybe
50:48when it comes to editing or even
50:49fact-checking and and simplifying some
50:52of the processes there. In terms of the
50:54actual democratization
50:56or fracturing of of media, I do think
50:59that legacy media organizations, which
51:01have for far too long in my opinion, set
51:03the narrative and agenda for what is
51:06being discussed in Washington D.C. and
51:07these power centers in our country, will
51:10lose more influence. I think you're
51:11going to see an increasing rise of
51:13podcasters. You saw that certainly
51:14during the 2024 election, Donald Trump
51:17going directly to podcasters, having
51:20long-form conversations like we're
51:22having now where the American people
51:23were able to see him not through sound
51:27bites and and clips that were cut and we
51:29continue to see some of these legacy
51:31organizations do that to this day where
51:34they distort the context of what
51:35somebody may be talking about. You're
51:36going to see more of that, I think.
51:38Politicians gravitating less toward
51:40those traditional outlets and going more
51:42directly. And then I think finally, the
51:44distribution's going to change entirely,
51:46how people consume their news. And so
51:48you have an older generation that is
51:50still getting the newspaper delivered in
51:52their driveway or in their mailbox every
51:54day. Fewer and fewer people are going to
51:56rely on that. Maybe we'll even have
51:57fewer and fewer newspapers, which I
51:59think is a sad thing because I I do
52:01worry about those news deserts and then
52:03the fact that you can't get local news.
52:05I got my start working for a weekly
52:06newspaper in upstate New York. So I mean
52:08that's you know it was a very important
52:11not only for the community but to know
52:13what was going on at the town council
52:15meeting and the school board meeting and
52:17local sports.
52:18>> had mentorship when you did that, which
52:20is really hard if you're working
52:21somewhere online and there's nobody
52:23around you to teach you what was done
52:25prior.
52:25>> But I think that the American people
52:27will still want and they still need that
52:29information about what's happening in
52:30their local community. So there's an
52:32great opportunity for entrepreneurs to
52:34figure out how is it that we're going to
52:36distribute the news in a new form. It
52:39might not take the 6:00 local news
52:42broadcast or the local newspaper, but is
52:44there another mechanism that the
52:45American people will consume information
52:47with? And I think that that's probably
52:49a few ways that the media will be
52:51different in 10 years, but I don't know.
52:52Do you have
52:53>> Yeah, I mean I I think through this a
52:55lot all the time and I I actually I
52:57don't mean to sound like Switzerland,
52:58but I think it will be somewhere in the
53:00middle because I think the legacy
53:02institutions have obviously failed us
53:04and we don't trust them.
53:05But I also think that anybody who just
53:07becomes a podcaster and is able to say
53:10sensationalist radical emotionally
53:13evoking things might get a lot of clicks
53:15in the beginning, but people eventually
53:17may not trust those people, right?
53:18They'll say, "Oh, this is entertaining
53:20or it's causing my
53:22my heart's to race a little bit and so
53:24I'm going to continue watching it, but
53:25will they count that as reliable?" You
53:27know, I know that I don't, right? And so
53:29I I rather lean on somebody like you
53:31here at The Daily Signal cuz I know you
53:34have a team of multiple people who have
53:36multiple reputations at stake. And so
53:40>> [snorts]
53:40>> I think that again with the advent of AI
53:43our disappointment with legacy
53:45institutions and you know we've been
53:48very impressed with many of the
53:49podcasters with that said we've also
53:51been disappointed with many of the
53:52podcasters and so you know it's kind of
53:54going back and forth a little bit as
53:56we're going to have to learn who to
53:58trust and how to adapt to all these new
54:00technologies and just because some
54:02experts disappointed us it doesn't mean
54:04that we're never going to the hospital
54:06again because no expert can actually
54:08help us right? We're just going to have
54:09to find a way to live in the normal
54:12space and not those extremes which we're
54:14kind of living on the fringes of
54:16extremes right now because of the
54:18extreme reaction that we have to the
54:20extreme treatment that we've received by
54:24frankly the government.
54:25>> Yes and I I think you raised something
54:27there of that is all that I don't have
54:28the answer to and it's going to be very
54:30interesting to watch is his
54:32traditionally it's been large brands
54:36news brands and we and I both work for
54:38organizations that have brands right
54:41PragerU and the Daily Signal but
54:43individual personalities are
54:45increasingly going to compete with those
54:47those brands and that's where I think we
54:50talked about it earlier individual news
54:53consumers are going to have to discern
54:55>> Yeah.
54:55>> who do they trust? Do they trust the Joe
54:57Rogan of of the world who you know is
55:00obviously able to attract have a huge
55:02following and get great guests or do
55:04they trust a more traditional news
55:07organization that might have a clear set
55:09of journalistic standards and and I
55:11it'll probably be a combination of the
55:13two I don't know that that anyone will
55:14rely on on any one source I do sometimes
55:17talk to donors of the Daily Signal and
55:20they'll say you're my only source of
55:22news
55:23I worry I say well we don't
55:25>> be the case.
55:26>> we're not covering the entire world and
55:28so please make sure that you're looking
55:29for other sources of news as well and
55:32that is one of the things that hopefully
55:35as more adept individuals and and figure
55:38out different sources and and ways to
55:41because we have to remember there are
55:42other things happening in the world than
55:44politics and news, right? I mean they're
55:45trying to they're trying to live a life
55:47and work a job and raise a family. How
55:49do you have time for all of it? And so
55:51maybe that's another thing that we can
55:53figure out in the next 10 years is to
55:54deliver the news and and to a time
55:56constrained audience that they find more
55:57valuable.
55:58>> Yeah, on the one hand you need to listen
55:59to the entire podcast in order to really
56:01discern whether you can trust that
56:03person. On the other hand, you know, you
56:04know people don't have that time and and
56:06so I think there's a lot of confusion.
56:07Ultimately, I would say two pieces of
56:09advice is if you're listening to
56:11anybody, whether it's an organization or
56:13a podcaster, I would say what do they
56:15have to lose? What is the consequence if
56:18they actually spread a lie, right? Can
56:21they be sued? Can they actually lose a
56:23reputation? Is there a consequence? Have
56:25they spread lies before and there was no
56:27consequence to them and so therefore
56:29they could spread lies again. And the
56:31other thing I would say is, you know,
56:34how do you call hold them accountable,
56:35right? Is there somebody else that they
56:38owe allegiance to? Possibly. And is that
56:41maybe a reason why they may not be
56:43sharing the truth with you. And so, you
56:45know, I but I think ultimately there is
56:47more responsibility than ever before on
56:50the consumer and the viewer because we
56:53just need to put in the work. We can't
56:54be told, you know, the experts are going
56:56to tell you or that one podcaster or
56:58person that you just worshiped is always
57:00going to be correct on everything 100%
57:02because they were correct on a few
57:04things that you were really passionate
57:05about. It takes some work.
57:07>> It does. It does. And I I think that
57:08that accountability you spoke about, I
57:10mean certainly PragerU and and Daily
57:12Signal confront this because we have
57:14donors that that expect us to to deliver
57:17on on the promise. I mean they are
57:18giving their treasure to us to do our
57:20work and carry out our mission. And and
57:22I suppose that on a certain level if
57:24you're a if you run a Substack
57:25newsletter, you have supporters who are
57:27making a financial commitment to you and
57:29you will the whole hold them accountable
57:31whether you renew your your support for
57:34them or not. But, that is it probably
57:35one of the best ways that the American
57:38people can make that that judgment call
57:40about who is telling the truth. Uh
57:41because that's ultimately I think what
57:43we're all after. And it's so important
57:45to have the mechanisms in place to be
57:47able to do that.
57:47>> Yeah. Well, I know that both you and I
57:49share a passion for leaving this country
57:52definitely not any worse off than how we
57:54found it.
57:55>> Yes.
57:55>> Um we have kids and we are planning on
57:58God willing raising them here and God
58:00willing they'll be safe and prosperous
58:02as as we had a beautiful life and have a
58:05beautiful life here in America. And so,
58:07I want to give you an opportunity. We
58:08call PragerU the clay pots of Western
58:11civilization and America. So, I'm going
58:13to give you an opportunity to leave a
58:15message in our time capsule that maybe
58:17your great-great-great-grandchildren,
58:19God willing, will be able to listen to
58:21their great-great-great-grandpa
58:23in 250 years from now. What would you
58:26like to say to your kids?
58:27>> Well, I'm going to pick up on that theme
58:29that we were just talking about, and
58:30that is pursuing the truth. I think that
58:32that is one of the most admirable things
58:34you can do in your in your life. And and
58:36obviously for me, faith is is a big part
58:38of my life. And so,
58:40um believing in the word of of Jesus and
58:43and following the the teachings that
58:45that he made. But, on a more practical
58:47level, Marisa, I would say, you know,
58:49give your best at whatever you do and
58:51treat people well. That's what I I
58:52ultimately try to do. I think that as
58:54conservatives, we've talked a lot over
58:56the course of this conversation about
58:58the position that we're we're often put
59:00in. But, I I firmly believe that we have
59:04the better ideas uh to lead more, you
59:07know, to have a more flourishing country
59:10and let the American people prosper. And
59:12if we're given the ability to articulate
59:14those and persuade the fellow citizens
59:17of uh what opportunities exist, I think
59:19that 250 years from now, as we're
59:22approaching the 500th anniversary of the
59:24Declaration of Independence, uh we'll be
59:26a much better place.
59:27>> God willing. Well, Rob, it was a
59:29pleasure getting to know you better and
59:31chatting with you and uh thanks for
59:32coming [music] on.
59:33>> Well, thank you, Marisa. This was a
59:34pleasure to join you. I appreciate the
59:36opportunity.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Daily Signal President Rob Bluey on the Collapse of Legacy Media and the Future of Journalism by PragerU, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 11,857 words across 1,781 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to choose a caption track available on the video.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, caption language selection, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.