Lulu Meservey on How Media Has Changed

Lulu Mazervi, welcome to the podcast.

>> Thank you. Thanks for having me.

>> Um, so I've been following you for a long time online and you're really interesting in having understood earlier than most that the old-fashioned

communications playbook doesn't work anymore because the old-fashioned structure of media doesn't exist anymore. Perhaps let's take a step back.

anymore. Perhaps let's take a step back.

um you know what would somebody who is at the top of the comm's game have suggested 25 20 years ago to a company when they're launching a big new product

or when they're dealing with a critical media story what would the advice have been about what they should do under those circumstances >> back then communications was very

centralized you hear people reminiscing about there were three TV channels and that was more than 25 years ago but still there were many fewer fewer TV channels, many fewer online channels.

YouTube was not what it was, Twitter is not what it what it is. And uh so so you had to go to the gatekeepers and the game is if you can win over the

gatekeepers who have the audiences, then you can essentially borrow their audience for a moment while they tell their audience something good about you because they have the people, they have

the following, and they have the trust.

And so the game is to find the 10 people there, win them over, and then they basically vouch for you to the audience.

And then there's >> so so you lunch and dine the beat reporter, the New York Times columnist, sort of all of those traditional journalists, and you hope that they're going to tell your story for you.

>> Yes. And and today even when you when you talk to people who are um sort of eminance gre I I say this in a respectful way in the in the PR world who know everybody I've been doing this

for a long time. Their go-to move is still to go uh whine and dine the editors or to put you in front of an editorial board. Um I I learned about

editorial board. Um I I learned about this thing called desk sides which is I guess it originates from you just popping up on the side of someone's desk and trying to become friends with them.

But but go >> how do you do that?

>> You you have your handler take you around and essentially meet with all of these people and try to earn their favor.

>> Huh. Interesting.

>> Yeah.

>> And so um that was effective in a different kind of media landscape. Why

do you think that that isn't effective anymore? that if you're trying to launch

anymore? that if you're trying to launch a product, you're trying to get your startup better known, you're trying to get word out there, uh it still feels like it would be pretty useful to have, you know, a favorable mention of your

product or of your company in the New York Times. Surely that still makes a

York Times. Surely that still makes a difference. Why is that no longer by and

difference. Why is that no longer by and large the kind of game you should play?

>> Yeah. Well, first of all, doing that is a nice to have. You know, having people on your side is always better than not, and having friends is always better than not. I would I am not one of these

not. I would I am not one of these people who says that the New York Times is completely irrelevant. No, there

there's some relevance and especially with specific audiences. If you're

selling to government or if you're about to IPO, there certainly is relevant. So,

so it is a nice to have. You don't have to burn those boats in order to go do something else. However, the something

something else. However, the something else that we're about to talk to is a lot more effective. That something else is now decentralized going from you to many. Now, there are still um people in

many. Now, there are still um people in your audience who are more influential than others. There are people who are

than others. There are people who are literal influencers or or creators or who whose whose voices just carry a lot of weight, but there are still very very many of them compared to 25 years ago or

a decade ago. So, it's more decentralized. You're going one to many.

decentralized. You're going one to many.

It's much more dependent on trust and credibility than it was before because it's not just you win over one person and they trust you and then they vouch for you. This is you have to be earning

for you. This is you have to be earning that trust over and over with so many people in so many quarters constantly.

And then lastly, what's what's emerging is there's uh this lut of AI slop. Um

and it's coming from people and it's it's also coming from companies. And you

see companies put things out there that are indistinguishable from like chat GPT when it was GPT 3.5 >> and that just doesn't cut it anymore. So

the bar for cutting through and the bar for quality is a lot higher. So, on the topic of many to many, by the way, here's an important caveat, which is or it's it's a it's a note, which is that it's no longer just one person speaking

on behalf of the entire enterprise. It's

not just the CEO speaking on on behalf of the company or just the candidate speaking on on behalf of the campaign.

Now, you have employees weighing in or employees of the campaign or people who belong to that political movement weighing in. And so, it truly is many,

weighing in. And so, it truly is many, many, many to many. um where sometimes the voices of employees are actually more important than what the CEO is saying. So for example, you have

saying. So for example, you have employees speaking out about workplace conditions or about doubts over the company or or disgruntled employees who leave. What they're saying can actually

leave. What they're saying can actually make much more of an impact than a press release or an announcement from the company. And so if you're the CEO of the

company. And so if you're the CEO of the company, you need to know that you have tens or hundreds of minor spokespeople

or not even minor like alternate spokespeople working in your company and they need to all be aligned. It's not

something where you just speak for everybody and they all stay they all stay silent.

>> Yeah. I'm thinking of this book that Klay Schery wrote a long time ago where he distinguished between uh a world of one to many communication and the world we're now in of many to many

communication. So,

communication. So, >> um, you know, in the old world, there just weren't a lot of people around who could reach a large audience.

>> And so, if you wanted to reach a large audience, you basically were dependent on those desk sites or on those lunches or on those dinners because the number of people who could say, "Hey, there's this amazing new tech product where, you

know, the the tech editor of the New York Times um and of Wired and, you know, perhaps of 60 minutes or something like that." And unless you were able to

like that." And unless you were able to get one of them to tell your story, you would have had to rely basically on word of mouth. Now, for some kinds of

of mouth. Now, for some kinds of products, word of mouth might work, right? They are so addictive, they are

right? They are so addictive, they are so convincing that you just give it in the hands of 100 people and you know, like a virus, it spreads to lots and lots of people. But but that's going to be a relatively limited number of

products that has those properties. Um

and and I guess now we're in a world of many to many communication where where where the set of people who can reach a wide audience is hugely expanded both because a lot of people have significant

social media followings and that if you can create content on social media that is sufficiently viral that it ends up uh taking off uh then all of a word of

mouth can can happen on the social media platforms. doesn't have to be in person word of mouth. And so that just creates these new kind of avenues of communication.

>> Yeah. I think the lazy way to approach this is to say um it doesn't matter too much how interesting we are if we can just get in front of people. We will

force them to see us. you know, they read the Wall Street Journal and we will get in the Wall Street Journal somehow through these relationships and then we will non-consensually force our news into their eyeballs and they're going to

like it. Um, that this is a caricature,

like it. Um, that this is a caricature, but that's the extreme version of laziness where you're not trying to be particularly interesting. You're just

particularly interesting. You're just like, "We've got news. We're going to force it into your feed um or into your paper." The the other um the other way

paper." The the other um the other way to do this, which I think is much much better, is it's harder. You have to challenge yourself to be so fascinating

and for your news to be so arresting that you could whisper it to 10 people and they couldn't help but each tell 10 other people and those people can't help but tell 10 other people. And so if you

put in the extra work up front, you're basically putting a multiplier or you're putting leverage behind the message. And

mathematically, if each person wants to tell a bunch of other people, you're much better off for obvious reasons than for you, you know, for for you to tell five people and then have them uh each

want to tell a bunch of people is much better than you telling a thousand people up front and then call it a day because it's so boring that they're not going to talk about it anymore.

>> Yeah. I think that people always underestimate the importance of having the right viral message and overestimate the importance of doing it in the right

way and perhaps even having the right advice. I mean, I I'm thinking about

advice. I mean, I I'm thinking about times when I've published books, um, and I've heard, you know, this from friends as well, where if you're publishing a book that for whatever reason speaks to

that moment, right, that has a message that people want to be hearing. And most

of the time when your book is really successful, it's because it has a message that people already want to be hearing, which is a little depressing.

>> Um, uh, then you're going to end up thinking that your, uh, you know, PR person. Um, usually it's a marketing,

person. Um, usually it's a marketing, you know, professional at your publisher. Perhaps sometimes you've

publisher. Perhaps sometimes you've hired one yourself is really amazing because they're booking you in all these great shows and, you know, making all of these things happen for you, right? And

if you have a book that might be a good book, it might be a more interesting book, but that doesn't have that that that that that that you know product market fit that doesn't really fit into that moment what people want to be

hearing or what producers want to be hearing from. You're going to start

hearing from. You're going to start getting frustrated with your uh PR professional with your marketing person saying, "Oh, you know, the last one was much better. You know, they could get me

much better. You know, they could get me on whatever show and this person is not getting me on that show and um they must have worse contacts or they must not be putting as much work in." But most likely um you know I mean obviously

there are differences between very good people and less good people but but most likely it's not actually the difference in that person. Sometimes it's the same damn person doing the same damn thing.

It's it's the difference in in in what you're selling and whether your message happens to have demand at that time or not.

>> Yeah. I would say the person reaching out or the medium, the shows that you choose or the the tweets that you write. Um these things

matter. They're not nothing, but their

matter. They're not nothing, but their importance pales, really, really pales in comparison to how interesting the message actually is. People do not think

enough about making themselves interesting and relevant to other people. The the challenge would be, can

people. The the challenge would be, can you describe this in a way that someone who hears this is going to tell their family about it over dinner, and they're

going to know how to describe it, and they're going to want to bring it up.

And if not, you failed the test. Like,

if nobody wants to pass it on, if they don't know how to talk about it, you failed the test. You you reach however many people you reach with the first volley. You force yourself into their

volley. You force yourself into their feed. They have to listen to it. Maybe

feed. They have to listen to it. Maybe

you trick them into listening to it because they're scrolling past it and then there's just no legs after that.

So, so I I think that's true laziness.

If you're focusing on the medium of like, how do I get on the show? and then

you're on the show and then you say something that is so bland and insignificant that nobody wants to ever revisit it ever again. So, same with books, same with ideas, companies,

product launches, you name it. What

about um uh because you're talking about the message once you're on the show. Um,

I find that the few times that I've had media training, um, it it's not clear to me that it gave the right advice because basically what it said was you go into

the show and you have the three points that you want to make >> and whatever happens, you bring those points in and you're really extremely disciplined about bringing in those

points and you have this battle plan for the conversation. um the purpose of

the conversation. um the purpose of which is to get those talking points out.

>> And I think perhaps it depends a little bit on what you're trying to do, right?

I mean, if you're uh launching a product, I can understand how, you know, you got to save a day in which it goes on sale, whatever happens, right? Or

there's like one particular selling point of this product, you got to make sure that it somehow comes up for my purposes where uh you know, I want to sell a book or I want people to, you

know, u become paying subscribers of my substack yasham. if you still haven't,

substack yasham. if you still haven't, dear listener, even though I keep saying it every damn episode, um uh uh you know, sure I can see that, but but I

find that that if I'm too focused on getting across the points that I want to make, I become inauthentic. I become

kind of weird, right? like it can be jarring because even if you're doing it relatively elegantly and subtly, people can smell that you're just trying to bring the conversation back to the thing you're trying to do. And probably the

person I'm having a conversation with is thinking, "Oh, this guest isn't great because they're not actually answering my questions. They're just going back to

my questions. They're just going back to their talking point." So, do you think that that is one of the pieces of conventional wisdom that uh people should question?

I Yeah, I think it's Lulu. I can go on mute for a second.

>> Oh, I think it's you, Yasha.

>> Yeah, it seems to have been >> But now it's gone.

>> Yeah, now it's just gone.

>> No, now it's back.

>> That's weird. And we've never had it when I've been recording, but perhaps there's something going on here.

I think we'll just Yeah, you can't hear anything, Lulu.

Right. There's not like air conditioning or >> No, for for a for a moment there, there was like a like a white >> Yeah, exactly.

>> But now it's totally gone.

>> It is totally gone. Well, we'll we'll we'll jump back in and just send us the backup recording as well, perhaps. That

way we we have two two of audio. But I

think it should be fine.

>> Yeah, we'll do. Um

>> All right. So, so should people stick to their token points or should they be, you know, more authentic?

>> Most people are excessively mediatrained and what's happening is not that you're training sophistication into the person.

It's actually that you're training personality out of them and you're training the edge out of them. And so, I I'm a big believer in not excessively media training somebody because the

vibes of the person are much more important than the specific words that they say. People are left with an

they say. People are left with an impression of you as a person. And that

impression is well according to some studies over 90% based on your vibes, your aura, your body language, your tone of voice, your appearance rather than

the actual words that you say. And so if you have to make that trade-off of am I going to sacrifice some of my vibes and personality and sparkle in order to say

the right words, that's a horrible trade-off. Now, there's probably 50

trade-off. Now, there's probably 50 people alive who don't have to make that trade-off. Maybe there's 50 people in

trade-off. Maybe there's 50 people in America who don't have to make that trade-off. If you're Bill Clinton or

trade-off. If you're Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, maybe if you're Donald Trump, I don't know. Uh if you're Pete Budajage, the these people who have extreme talent for weaving talking

points in while making it seem pretty natural, then great. It's not a trade-off. You can do both. But for the

trade-off. You can do both. But for the vast majority of people, there is some trade-off there. So you'd have to be

trade-off there. So you'd have to be very very careful how much of that you trade. And the other thing to remember

trade. And the other thing to remember is for most cases the product is the person. So if you're trying to promote

person. So if you're trying to promote your book or your Substack, the product is actually you. It's not the one specific book or the one specific piece of writing. It is your thoughts and you

of writing. It is your thoughts and you as a person. So, for example, Barry Weiss and the free press and now going to CBS, the the predominant um source of

trust or credibility around the free press was whether you liked or trusted Barry, right? Um she as a person

Barry, right? Um she as a person represented the product. I don't know anyone who hates Barry Weiss. There's a

lot of people who hate Barry Weiss, but I don't know anybody who hate her but love the free press.

>> And so, you represent the product. you

represent the company and if you show up as some clunky inauthentic um poser then that casts a Paul over the whole

company. So one of the one of um my my

company. So one of the one of um my my favorite people in tech uh Scott Woo who is the leader of a company called Cognition which creates a coding agent

and um he is somebody who is most comfortable just in front of a computer and not trying to hold forth but he has gone on podcast because he wants to tell people about their product Devon and the

feedback that I've gotten is the best podcast he ever did was one where he was severely sleepd deprived and truly uh and and sort of

undisiplined in a way, you know, just a little bit like impatient and very raw and people loved it because it was the closest that they got to the real Scott that when you >> Right. Right.

>> Right. Right.

>> he's a great hang, but then when he's in front of a camera, he's usually a little bit uncomfortable.

>> So, so this is the advice that I got before I did my first ever television interview, which was a CNN interview about doping of all things. Um, and uh,

and what somebody told me is if you if you want to be good on TV, you just have to be yourself, which sounds similar to what you're saying. Of

course, the ironic thing is that that's the thing that it's impossible to do when you're starting to do TV. I think

by now I can more or less do it. Um, you

know, I I've done enough broadcasting and the podcast and media appearances and so on. Um, that I'm not fully myself, but I'm close to being myself.

But that takes a lot of practice. That

takes a lot of hours because it's a very unnatural situation to be in a room with somebody or nowadays as likely as not on Zoom with somebody and pretend like we're just having a conversation knowing

that tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands perhaps millions of people are listening in on you. So, how so do you think that that's the right advice that actually to be gone to TV you just have to be yourself? Um, does that hold for

everybody or are there some people who really shouldn't damn be themselves on on television? And how do you accomplish

on television? And how do you accomplish being yourself?

So, uh, one of the best pieces of advice that I've gotten is nobody gives a about you. People don't care about you

about you. People don't care about you that much. And if you go out there and

that much. And if you go out there and flop and uh, it doesn't go well, people will just move on. Nobody's thinking

about you that much. Now, for some people, you know, if you're Sam Holtman and you go on an interview and you flop, it might get played a lot and and it's more consequential because your company is more consequential, but for the the

vast majority of people, it is just not big not that big of a deal. I I think >> that depends on whether you flop or you flop, right? Like like if you like I

flop, right? Like like if you like I think even if you're a no-name person and you have a meltdown on air, right?

You you have like 30 seconds of complete blankness in which you suddenly can't speak.

>> Yeah. that's going to go viral even if you're nobody, right? And and I think that's the fear that people have.

>> That's an edge case. Yeah, that's that's that's an edge case. I think you can sort of control whether you're going to have a screaming meltdown.

>> Hopefully, >> and if you can't, perhaps you shouldn't go on TV.

>> Not everyone can. There there's the Katie Porter examples that we've been seeing recently. Yeah. But but for most

seeing recently. Yeah. But but for most people, the range of outcomes is pretty tame. you know, you'll have a maybe

tame. you know, you'll have a maybe mediocre interview where you wanted to say some things and forgot. And just

don't stress so much about it. People

are a little bit like electrons in that way. Like once you observe them, they

way. Like once you observe them, they they change in the in the process of being observed. And so once the cameras

being observed. And so once the cameras are on, it's it's nearly impossible to just be our normal natural selves. So

like I pregamed for this like I get nervous for these things. Even though I know that we're friendly and you're not trying to like secretly destroy me with a gotcha question, I still am a little nervous. I just like walk around and

nervous. I just like walk around and just remind myself that if it doesn't go well it's not a big deal. Um so so for most people it does take a lot of practice. You know how um people will

practice. You know how um people will say the presence of so many fashion models gives us unrealistic expectations about bodies.

>> And you think the presence of like you know TV professionals gives you unrealistic expectations influencers so many extremely gorgeous and charismatic

people on Tik Tok and with podcasts and um it it gives us unrealistic expectations for how we're going to be in front of the camera. And if we try to emulate that, then most of us actually fall into this uncanny valley where

we're not ourselves anymore, but we're also not Jake Paul or whatever. And so

what are we actually? And it's it's it's it's this weird in between space that doesn't appeal to people as much as if you had just tried to stay put and stay you.

>> That's very interesting. Yeah. I to go back to the point about excessive media training. I was thinking about that not

training. I was thinking about that not with Katie Porter who perhaps could do with a little bit more media training or just with more hiding her true personality. Um but with um uh

personality. Um but with um uh >> sorry >> don't be yourself Katie. Yes, in this particular case um with Abigail

Spanberger, I saw clips of her debate uh with um Winom Seers um uh uh the other day and uh you know

she was in the situation where she knew she was going to be asked about something that's kind of she's just in a bind, right? So, so the person running

bind, right? So, so the person running as left tenant governor who in a sense is running for the position independently but is obviously kind of on her slate, right? Um, who is running

to be the Democrat left governor was discovered to have sent these text messages which were meant to go to a friend of his but went to a Republican instead. Basically saying that this

instead. Basically saying that this moderate Republican who had said something positive about a moderate Democrat, you know, deserved to be killed and his kids deserve to be killed. those little fascists or

killed. those little fascists or something like that he said and those kids were, you know, two and four years old right?

>> And so, you know, how should somebody like Spanberger play this, right? Like so number one is um

this, right? Like so number one is um she thinks that for whatever reasons she can't uh distance herself too clearly from that left tenant governor uh

candidate either because she thinks that other Democrats are going to be mad at her if she does that or perhaps because she thinks it's going to be hard for her to govern if she wins the governor's race and she has a Republican left

tenant governor. um you know but that

tenant governor. um you know but that means that she knows this debate is coming up and in the debate uh she's going to be asked about this right and so she comes up with this kind of slightly wooden set of talking points

that she keeps sticking to that is you know uh uh I don't approve of those messages everybody's running as an individual um uh I think I'm going to be

a great governor of Virginia or something along those lines right um what would you have advised her like is is the is the key point here just you have to be on the right side of this and

you just have to go into the debate having taken your distance from that candidate. I'm not talking morally now,

candidate. I'm not talking morally now, right? I'm talking just like is the only

right? I'm talking just like is the only way to win this comms battle to have a lack you can stand on and the only way you can have a lack to stand on is to say I disavow this you know I don't want to

be governing with him this is terrible.

Um, if not, is there, you know, is there some way to get around this? Because

what I think she end up doing just looks so unnatural and so rehearsed and so media trained that it's just deeply deeply offputting.

>> So, first of all, I think that guy sucks. So,

sucks. So, this isn't sincere advice of of trying to help them, but but I do think it's useful to use this as a case study. So,

one important thing for people to remember is if you are trying to um if you're trying to do both things at once, it is not that you're pleasing both sides. It is that you're pissing off

sides. It is that you're pissing off both sides.

>> That's always the way it goes. If you

are trying to make nobody mad, you end up making everybody mad. That's always

how it goes. And you're better off picking who's going to be mad at you and for what than trying to make nobody mad at you. Because again, everybody will be

at you. Because again, everybody will be mad at you. And people are so fed up with these wishy-washy cowardly halfmeasure things that they see right through it and they're actually looking

for it. You saw this with like the

for it. You saw this with like the initial Cracker Barrel rebrand response.

Anytime there's anything from a person or company, people are looking for them to take a stance. Now, you can take a stance and have some people be bad.

That's better than everybody being mad.

So, going back to this situation, um, in this situation, it's not an option to try to give a non-answer.

You have to have a a view on this. The

the clearly correct view on this is that it's unacceptable. I I don't I don't

it's unacceptable. I I don't I don't think there's any world in which you can defend it. However, there's two levels

defend it. However, there's two levels of unacceptable. One is the action was

of unacceptable. One is the action was unacceptable. but the action doesn't

unacceptable. but the action doesn't represent the entire person and the other merits of the entire person outweigh this or the action was operation. You could try to argue that

operation. You could try to argue that the other level is this action does represent the entire person and is illuminating something within them that

is um that is unsalvageable.

And so opponents would say the latter.

This action represents the person and it shows us something deep inside of his soul that is just like spoiled. Um if

she wants to defend him without defending the action, then you would clearly condemn the action and say I don't stand by this. No one reasonable would stand by this. But I also think

that he doesn't stand by this because what I know of him as a person is bump bump bump. And what I believe that he's

bump bump. And what I believe that he's going to do in office is blah blah blah.

And therefore, while this thing is completely reprehensible and unacceptable, I believe that he has now tasted what it is like to lash out in a moment of anger and perhaps he's become more empathetic because of it. You you

have to >> Yeah. Why is it And by the way, I I

>> Yeah. Why is it And by the way, I I agree with you that I'm not sure that the candidate is salvageable and probably both morally and politically the smartest route would be to just to

distance herself completely. But why is it that in 3 minutes you've come up like if if a constraint is for whatever political reason, right? Let's just take it as a hard constraint, you can't completely distance yourself from this candidate, right? Why is it that in 3

candidate, right? Why is it that in 3 minutes you've come up with something that to me seems better politically, but also frankly less reprehensible morally than this addiction to not saying

anything, right? Like why is it that a

anything, right? Like why is it that a politician can't be trained into going there and saying, "Look, these text messages are disgusting. but

reprehensible but look I know this person and this is not what it represent might even say look you know all of us have said something really of color at some point right and it doesn't always

represent who we are this is completely unacceptable what he said but I know him I know this does not in fact represent who he is and I think on the policies that matter he's going to do a better job for the whatever right that seems to

me >> the line you just gave that's that's again it's may not be the right line but it's a line that somehow you can do why is that instead she is advised to go out

there and you know use this wooden legalistic language that basically avoids and by the way this is not a single case right so in the same debate

there was a debate about um uh you know uh trans girls having access to female

changing rooms in Virginia schools and other questions like that and again the response was the same kind of non-responsive response, right? What

Abigail Spanberger said on those issues is this is just a decision for local districts and local parents and teachers to make, right? Which just doesn't take any kind of substantial stance on the thing. And as you're saying earlier, I

thing. And as you're saying earlier, I feel like that's going to piss off both sides because people who um you know think that we absolutely should be fighting for those kind of rights for trans people are going to say you're not actually standing up for them. And most

people are going to smell that it's just a way to, you know, not own the deeply unpopular position while actually defending the deeply unpopular position.

So, you may as well take that position or you can go where the majority of people are. Um, but you end up in this

people are. Um, but you end up in this middle place. And you know, I'm thinking

middle place. And you know, I'm thinking of um the the congressional hearing of university presidents um in which Claud Gale of Harvard and the president of Colombia at the time, the president of

University of Pennsylvania at the time, I think they're all now out of office, just could not actually defend in a substantial way what the mission. So why

is it that the advice so often seems to be don't really say anything at all? um

uh even though it it it seems to be quite ineffective.

>> There's two types of public figures. One

type is their own person and everybody else has to deal with that and work with that. Uh John Federman is an example.

that. Uh John Federman is an example.

Palmer Lucky is an example. They are who they are and if you want to work with them, you you just need to figure out how to work with them because they're not going to change. You're going to

change. Um then there are people who are

change. Um then there are people who are machines that turn consultant advice into public statements and and a lot of

politicians are in this category where they just aggregate consultant advice and then echo that. uh I I think that doesn't speak well of them as people because if you don't have your own views

and if you don't have your own personalities and principles when it comes to these statements then how are we going to trust you to have your own backbone when it comes to anything else.

But there there's a lot of people who are like this and it comes from a place of fear. Each of the consultants knows

of fear. Each of the consultants knows that if they advise um something that is safe, they're not going to get ever get penalized for

missed opportunities. They would only

missed opportunities. They would only get penalized asymmetrically for mistakes. They only get penalized for

mistakes. They only get penalized for mistakes of commission, not omission.

And therefore, the best way for them to continue collecting the fees is to avoid mistakes of uh to avoid mistakes of

commission. So, if they can just make

commission. So, if they can just make sure that you don't say something stupid, it doesn't matter if you miss an opportunity as long as there's no specific error that can be pinned on them. And so what what ends up happening

them. And so what what ends up happening is you have the principal agent problem where they're they're acting in their own self-interest. They're not trying to

own self-interest. They're not trying to find the best possible outcome for you.

They're trying to find the outcome that leads to them not being fired. And you

go along because you don't have the clarity of moral vision or the or the strength of principle to override them.

And that's when you get these weak public figures.

>> Yeah. This is something striking to me particularly in the political ecosystem where um you know if you run a consultancy um especially on the democratic side where I think the kind of f constraints

are stronger but also on the republican side um in different ways and you know you lose an election um plenty of people lose plenty of elections right the fact that you advised the losing campaign

doesn't stop you from being hired again if your candidate said something that upset the base >> and that went viral on social media in a negative way, even if perhaps it actually increased the chances that

candidate had of being elected. Um, then

the next candidate might say, I don't know, but we can work with you. You are

the people who put out that message that a lot of allies hated. Perhaps some of my staff is going to get upset if I hire you. And so, the incentive is actually

you. And so, the incentive is actually not to make your candidate win. It's to

avoid bad publicity, which might hurt your brand as a consultant. Um and and the same of course is true you know uh there was reporting that those university presidents had taken

extensive uh advice from law firms um and I think they all took the advice of the same law firm um in advance of a congressional hearing and those you know lawyers are risk averse. They're not

thinking about how do we maximize the chance of a good outcome. They're

thinking how do we minimize the chance that you say something that might somehow be of legal relevance and then obviously you end up being overtrained into not saying anything at all. Um, I

want to go to to to another case I'm thinking of. I uh

thinking of. I uh informally advised a minor Democratic presidential candidate in the primaries

in 2020 and he was very charismatic in person. I mean big booming personality

person. I mean big booming personality and you thought my god you know this person once he gets on the big stage and and people see what he's like he's going to do really great. And then every time

the camera turned on he was terrible.

Oh, interesting. Yeah.

>> It's just his personality kind of just >> went away.

>> Yeah.

>> Um, is that um uh you know, you know, is that just some people are just super charismatic in person and not on TV? Is

that something that you think most people are able to overcome? Is it just there's like one kind of form of charisma that works in a room, there's another form of charisma that works, you

know, on a national debate stage? Um,

what do you think explains that?

>> I think there's something innate, which doesn't mean that you can't improve it or work on it, but I do think that people have inherently the mediums that best suit them. And some people are better in a small group. Some people are

more charismatic in front of a large crowd. Do you ever see somebody who's

crowd. Do you ever see somebody who's hugely charismatic talking to a massive rally, but then one-on-one they don't seem that engaged? Um

>> when when uh I >> I I did I did a year in theater after college and there was an actress at the theater I worked at um who you know you

talk to her in the canteen >> and she was pretty and you know she was smart actually but but she seemed forgettable. I mean, you would never

forgettable. I mean, you would never walk into a canteen and and and and you your eyes would never be drawn to her, you know? And then she'd step on stage

you know? And then she'd step on stage and she's just magnetic, right? Like in

front of a thousand people, she had something that just like attracted your attention and and your fascination in this remarkable way and then you saw her in private. She was perfectly pleasant

in private. She was perfectly pleasant and, you know, cute, but but but there was nothing charismatic about her in that context. Mhm. People talk about

that context. Mhm. People talk about Bill and Hillary Clinton. Oh, can you hear that, by the way?

>> Yes, I can.

>> Oh, I'm sorry. We're gonna have to edit that out. That was

that out. That was >> No worries. No worries at all.

>> Weird. Okay. Uh, because I live in rural Pennsylvania, I have a landline.

>> Yeah, it's very nice and oldfashioned.

>> Yeah. Take it off the wall. And

Okay, going going back to this. Uh

people talk about Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton. I I think that Bill

Hillary Clinton. I I think that Bill Clinton was more charismatic in in front of a large crowd and I actually think that Hillary Clinton is more charismatic

in small groups. When you talk to people who have worked directly with her or interacted with her in a very intimate setting, she can be very charismatic.

but in front of this large um you know in front of a stadium full of people she's not as charismatic as her husband who obviously is a once in a generation political talent but there still is that

the other thing um before we stray too far from this topic of how to give a straight answer and a strong answer without seeming to hedge I want to just

raise the example of Michael Dukakus 1988 presidential debate you remember this he was asked on stage about the death penalty And >> the question was intense. It was, "If

your wife Kitty were to be raped and murdered, would you support the death penalty for the person who did that?"

>> This has always bothered me so much because I feel like the correct answer, you know, I I don't know what he believes, but I feel that the correct answer politically and strategically

would have been a layup. So his actual answer was this hem and ha and this very academic response that made him feel like not even a human being. Like

someone just talked about your wife being raped and murdered and you're going to sit back and go through your talking points. It's actually insane.

talking points. It's actually insane.

Um, I I think a very good answer, assuming this is what he believes, is if someone in my family were subjected to that and and if this crime were committed against someone in my family,

I would want to tear the perpetrator limb from limb. I would want to behead them with my bare hands. I would torture them in a chamber for a year. And that

is why you shouldn't leave it up to me to decide in that moment out of emotion.

That is why we need as a society to decide in advance the line between punishment and barbarism so that in the moment we're not making decisions like that because I will tell you if someone

ever did that and I met that met them in person I would commit horrendous crimes against them >> you know like I that probably is how it feels I don't know that's how I would feel

>> yeah and that that and and and the thing is that there's always the obvious emotion you feel that somehow in those situations you

think you're not allowed to share, right? That if you want to defend this

right? That if you want to defend this political position, obviously you can't flip-flop, right? Like you're

flip-flop, right? Like you're campaigning on not having the death penalty. You can't be like, "Oh, now we

penalty. You can't be like, "Oh, now we come up with this hypothetical. Let's

have a death penalty, right? Like that

makes no sense, right? I'm not perhaps h not being against the death penalty is not a defensible position, but I think it is, right? And I think actually it's not so clear that 1988 public opinion was such that you couldn't win an

election. um while while while opposing

election. um while while while opposing the death penalty. Um but you have to still allow yourself to express that human emotion, right? To say, "Of course, I would want this person to

suffer in the worst possible way, but that's precisely why we need to make rules when we're calm, when we're not the person who's affected, right?" Um um so so I think that's right and it's I

think you're right that there's this instinct to like you know because Abigail Spanberger um feels like she can't completely distance herself from this other

candidate.

She feels like she can't express the anger and the disgust over those messages. But in fact, the only way that

messages. But in fact, the only way that you can avoid completely disting yourself from that person is to express the anger and the disgust and then say, having expressed all of this, here's why

I still think they're going to be better for, you know, the state of Virginia than the alternative or or or whatever it is. Um, I want to go to a to a

it is. Um, I want to go to a to a broader question of um uh what this means for communication today. Um so uh

you know if we are no longer in this world of uh one to many communication if we're in a world of many to many communication and we've taken this kind of detour thinking about how you do well

in media and so on. Um

what is the the right strategy for a company launching a new product or for somebody um uh you know having some important message to communicate? You've

talked a lot about the importance of uh sort of directly communicating with your audience. Um what does that entail and

audience. Um what does that entail and and why do you think that that's a big part of your answer?

>> Well, direct can mean a few things and I mean all of them. So, one meaning of direct is to build your own audience and share directly with them, not just

through middlemen or through gatekeepers. Another meaning of direct

gatekeepers. Another meaning of direct is like you and I are having a direct conversation. It's a frank and candid

conversation. It's a frank and candid conversation. And that's what people

conversation. And that's what people want as well. And that's the advice that um Dukakus should have taken uh before going into this which is like speak directly without mincing your words and

just say what you mean. So people do not have the patience to sit through a bunch of PR slop and corporate pabum to try to figure out what you're actually saying.

And then another way of being direct is for the the person or the people directly responsible to have the message come from them uh from themselves as opposed to filtered through a bunch of

layers. And so again, I mean all of

layers. And so again, I mean all of these things. So if you are a founder or

these things. So if you are a founder or a CEO and you're starting something new today or if you're a political candidate, which is you're you're the founder of this movement to get you elected, right? You're the chief

elected, right? You're the chief executive of this vision that you're trying to sell it to voters. Um, number

one, you need to have it come directly from you. It doesn't mean that you have

from you. It doesn't mean that you have to personally star in all of the videos and it has to be a shot of your face, but it has to be your words and your ideas, not the average idea of 17

lawyers and 14 PR people. The people can tell. Two is it has to be um presented

tell. Two is it has to be um presented directly and forcefully and without a lot of dancing around. Just get to the point. So even on on short videos, for

point. So even on on short videos, for example, people post these videos on X.

>> The drop off after 30 seconds is probably like 90%. I don't remember the exact numbers, but it just falls off of a cliff. People's attention doesn't

a cliff. People's attention doesn't sustain, especially if you haven't earned their continued attention in the first few minutes. So you need to just say it up front as opposed to dancing around and building up to it. And then

lastly, history is long. It's never

about just this one moment. And and

politicians would do well to remember this. It's not just about this one

this. It's not just about this one election. It's not just about this one

election. It's not just about this one statement. There are many many things in

statement. There are many many things in the future. CS Lewis in a different um

the future. CS Lewis in a different um context said that every small win is a strategic point from which a thousand more victories can be gained. Something

like this. And and it's true. It's not

just about winning this specific thing.

It is about building for the long term.

And whether that's building trust or relationship with voters or if you're a company, building an audience so that you can continue to do this in the future. So, so what I hate to see is

future. So, so what I hate to see is when people create something great and genuinely interesting and they give it away to somebody else to donate engagement to them. So, if you're

starting a company and you have created something genuinely viral, genuinely engaging, and you were too scared and didn't believe in yourself enough to put it out from you and you didn't have the

confidence that this thing could blow up even if you have a smaller account. Now,

you have a much bigger account than me, but let's pretend, okay? and I am a big influencer and you're giving it to me and it blows up when I post it. There's

a chance that you just donated a bunch of engagement and audience to me no reason out of fear, >> right? So, so I hate to see companies

>> right? So, so I hate to see companies doing this.

>> So, what are some we we've talked about a bunch of examples in in politics um and perhaps a little bit outside of politics of people doing coms badly.

What are some examples of people pulling coms off brilliantly? I mean, what are the kind of things that we should emulate?

>> There are a ton of examples. I just need a second to think of a good one given the news of last week.

Uh, and and since I already shouted out Barry in this podcast, I will I'll use her as an example. Um, there are many things that Barry Weiss has done that

are brilliant comms, even though a lot of people are mad at her or don't like her. In fact, I would say that's

like her. In fact, I would say that's part of the package. Um, a lot of people think that in order to have good communications and to win people over, they need to be as bland as possible so

that nobody gets mad. And what they're doing is they're protecting the downside, but they're capping their upside. So, it's like bit of a higher

upside. So, it's like bit of a higher floor and a tremendously low ceiling.

What she has done, which I think is the right way to do it, is to elicit strong feelings within your tribe and get your people to be dieards. And if others are

mad about it, it either doesn't matter or it actually helps you. So, a lot of the vitrial directed at Barry, and there's a lot, and some of it is anti-Semitic, and some of it is just

cruel, and it's not pleasant. Like, if I were her reading through the mentions, I think I would be probably having a mental breakdown. I she's she's much

mental breakdown. I she's she's much stronger in that sense than most people.

So, I'm sure it's not fun strategically for what she's trying to build. It's not

the worst thing. You know, it it shows what she stands for and what she's not willing to back down from even in the face of all of this anger.

>> So, that's one is actually taking a stand and being willing to say >> you are going to be part of this movement and you are not. We don't see eye to eye and that's okay. That's a

hard tradeoff because it depends, I think, how much you care about the success of your enterprise versus having a pleasant life. Um,

>> uh, and I think that, uh, you know, Barry is is is fantastically successful.

Mhm.

>> Um, I think, you know, having the knowledge that any room you walk into, there's going to be some people who generally like and admire you, but also there's going to be some people who are

like snarkly texting their friend being like, "Can you imagine who I'm in a room with right now?" And you know um it uh

it has a high cost. Um so so I think you're right that that is >> the right strategy and it's one of the reasons why the free press has been successful and certainly um there's a

basic rule of politics that you know whatever you're for some people are going to be against it and so whenever you embrace a cause you're also you're building a coalition but you're also building your anti-coalition and I think

trying to avoid that leads to a form of indeterminess where perhaps nobody dislikes you but also nobody's going to like you nobody has a reason to trust and follow you and so Um but I do think that the personal

costs that are involved in that are not trivial and it actually makes people who are willing to bear that those costs whether you agree with them or not uh quite admirable because um you know

there there's this like persistent charge that always gets thrown around about anybody with whom people disagree of saying oh they're they're they're

grifter um uh and I think nearly always that's wrong because the the easy thing the convenient thing is not to break with your political tribe, is not to say things that are controversial, is to try

and minimize the the hate you get online. Uh that is nearly always the

online. Uh that is nearly always the easier choice. Um and to not do that, I

easier choice. Um and to not do that, I think is rarely I think it's actually nearly always driven by having genuine beliefs. Um because uh because the cost

beliefs. Um because uh because the cost of it is significant. Um, and I think most people would rather get along with their friends and be able to go to every dinner party without people asking them

critical questions and have, you know, a standard media job and make some amount of money, >> then then be Barry.

>> And that's why most people won't be great. You know, that's leadership and

great. You know, that's leadership and it's not for everybody. um being willing to suffer costs that fall disproportionately on you personally for the good of the enterprise so that you can build something enduring that

outlasts yourself. That's leadership.

outlasts yourself. That's leadership.

And so I'm I'm biased here because Barry's a friend. But I also think if even if you are ideologically on on the total opposite side of what she's doing, the principle still stands that you have

to be willing to say these are not my people in order through contrast to say these people are and that's the movement that I'm going to build. So, I think it just requires stepping up and having

that courage because leaders do things all the time that are really crappy for themselves personally. They will see

themselves personally. They will see their children less than their employees do. They will get less sleep than their

do. They will get less sleep than their employees do. They will get more death

employees do. They will get more death threats than their employees do. Like

all of these things are part of being the tip of the spear for the movement that you're trying to build. So, so I think absolutely um it sucks uh to be the person facing that, but also

somebody's got to do it and there is no movement without a leader of the movement who's willing to bear that.

>> Yeah, that's very interesting. Um uh I I didn't despate talking as much about politics as as I am, but I guess it is the realm I'm I'm most fluent in. You

know, I'm struck by the fact that the masters of communication that you think of have really changed uh over time. Um,

you know, you mentioned Bill Clinton earlier as a consumate communicator.

Tony Blair and Britain was similar. Um,

but their skill was certainly to be to come across as reasonably authentic and to come across like they >> incarnated at the time something in a

cultural mood. But the core skill was to

cultural mood. But the core skill was to win a news cycle, right? Um, mostly

people watch news at 7 or 8:00 p.m. on

the main television channels and you want to make sure that you or stand in for you had the right sound bite during those news because people would be half

paying attention and the right 10 word line that really framed the political issue of the day would make people think all right these people are getting it

and the opponents are not getting it. Um

uh and of course uh in a sense I think when you look at the campaign of someone like Kamla Harris they still were trying to operate in a somewhat similar world

right uh avoid negatives avoid uh controversy have you know the right kind of uh sound bite I mean know Harris for the people or whatever right like that's

that's a kind of throwback 90s style soundbite and then you have Donald Trump right who uh never listens to anybody around him about what the soundbite is.

So far as I can tell, doesn't feel like it, right? Who often says stuff that

it, right? Who often says stuff that gets him into all kinds of trouble and that alienates people, but is always himself in a different way, right?

Right. And so Kla Harris ends up and I think there's some more details about exactly the Joe Rogan booking and perhaps the story was a little bit more complicated than it seemed at the beginning. But the fundamental truth of

beginning. But the fundamental truth of it is that Kla Harris would not have been very good in Joe Rogan because she wouldn't have been able to be her authentic self for two or three hours, right? Whereas Donald Trump went on Joe

right? Whereas Donald Trump went on Joe Rogan and it was very effective because uh whatever you think of Trump and I uh see him very negatively. um he's capable of being there and actually being

himself and chewing the for 3 hours and talking about whatever D Rogan throws at him. Um and uh so so what does it mean I guess to go direct in in politics. I'm use a very different

politics. I'm use a very different example, somebody who I also have some reservations about. Zoran Zoran um

reservations about. Zoran Zoran um Mandami um he seems to have gone direct in all kinds of ways perhaps out of necessity because at the beginning nobody was paying attention to him and he was a minor assembly man really

wasn't meant to win the nomination and so sometimes uh your lack of assets your lack of access to the New York Times editorial board your lack of big donor dollars to you know run incessant ads

that are very slick on uh New York one can also end up being a strength right but but he in a sense seems to have gone direct to consumer as

Honestly, Manny is crushing it from a comm's perspective. Like the way to

comm's perspective. Like the way to think about comms, and you alluded to this earlier, is is not how well or how poorly is it going because there's so many other factors. It is how much better is it going than it should be

based on the merit, >> right? You launch a book and the book is

>> right? You launch a book and the book is an A minus and the book tour and the book reception are an A+. That alpha

comes from probably comms, right? Or

sometimes you you see companies or products that are actually really excellent but nobody's talking about them. That is negative alpha added by

them. That is negative alpha added by and so in this case on the merits Mandami in my opinion is really not very compelling. You could say stronger

compelling. You could say stronger negative things but at the very least he's not that compelling if you just look at his background on paper. But

through incredible coms and I count personal charisma as being part of that.

he has vaulted himself to a preeminent position in the race. So he and his team are just absolutely crushing it. Um

sometimes in comms necessity is the mother of invention. And so when you don't have the means to go to the traditional outlets or when you don't have the resources to do to the

traditional things sometimes it also forces creativity and wonderful things can come from that. Um, the way that I learned comms was by working with a lot

of people that today are celebrated but at the time were considered total thought criminals. You know, our friends

thought criminals. You know, our friends at Substack and and people that at the time were considered nearly unacceptable and polite company.

You know, people come around now and they're all on the B bandwagon, but we didn't have the option to just call up the New York Times and get a friendly article. that wasn't on the table. You

article. that wasn't on the table. You

sort of have to >> in part because Substack actually is and was a competitor to the New York Times and quite a successful competitor to the New York Times.

>> I think now we're seeing that for example the free press growing out of Substack. I think we've seen that it's

Substack. I think we've seen that it's very formidable but there were there were there were definitely ideological factors at play as well. So I think sometimes being forced to innovate can be very good for you. I think that Mani's campaign has both the creativity

and the drive and really good instincts as well as probably being forced to innovate because they don't control a lot of the traditional power centers of the of New York like the incumbents do.

>> Um, you know, one thing I'm struck by in the United States but elsewhere as well is, you know, we talked about Mandami who's a democratic socialist. talked

about Trump, who's Trump, and then we talked about people like Abigail Spanberger, all the presidents of various Ivy League universities, and they're the ones who are struggling. Um,

you know, you look at the media game uh in Europe of more moderate parties from the center left or the center right, they're failing abysmally. And you talk at the most more extreme movements and

they're doing very very well.

Why is it that moderates are particularly struggling in politics in this political moment? And is it possible to be charismatic, to be

outspoken, to be somebody who doesn't look like the humming and hoing and uh always saying on the one hand, on the other hand, and I'm going to avoid taking a clear stance while defending

those moderate positions. you know, if if if moderate political parties and movements, whether on the center left and center right want to learn something from your playbook, what is it that they should do?

>> So, first of all, it's easier to get people excited about one thing than about 10 things. You know, 10 things is not 10 times as powerful as one thing.

It's probably onetenth as powerful as one thing. And when you are a moderate,

one thing. And when you are a moderate, it's very hard to have one big spike in your campaign. Um, the other thing is,

your campaign. Um, the other thing is, yeah, most Americans are probably between the 40s politically, but it's

hard to have uh a rallying cry for that because it feels like, like you said, it's such a compromised position. So,

there I have a couple thoughts on this.

Actually, one way to make moderation seem more interesting is to find something um that actually sounds a little bit radical

to to take it and frame it and make it sound like a more pointed position to take. The other way is to exist in

take. The other way is to exist in contrast to a foil where you are fighting against some kind of radical takeover. a lot of the Trump campaign

takeover. a lot of the Trump campaign was actually fighting against radicals in terms of how it was framed um and trying to save America from these extremists um according to their

campaign. And so that's another way to

campaign. And so that's another way to do it as well. I think that moderates actually just we all need them to get more creative and to get more interesting. Uh and we're not going to

interesting. Uh and we're not going to get there through the average opinions of 45 consultants. We're just going to need somebody who's able to be an interesting person and be an interesting

messenger so that if people initially aren't drawn to the message of moderation, they're at least drawn to the person and then the person becomes a gateway drug for the platform. G

>> give me an example of sort of and I know that you're not a political consultant so I'm kind of pushing you into something that's really not your job. Um but but give me an

example of you know how do you choose an issue like that or how do you uh make something sound radical that's coming

from an ideologically moderate position and and and part of the problem here of course is that um you know I'm a philosophical liberal at the most fundamental level right I think that uh

basic values like individual rights and the freedom of speech and so on are what has allowed our societies to become affluent and peaceable and despite all the shortcomings of our society that

makes them a lot better than any other damn society in the history of humanity.

But of course, I also recognize that we failed to live up to those principles in some ways. Um, and so you end up being

some ways. Um, and so you end up being in this kind of difficult position where you want to say there's lots of things I'm angry about in America today, lots of things that I think don't work very

well. lots of things that don't accord

well. lots of things that don't accord to my ideals and I want to fight to change that. But also, I think there's

change that. But also, I think there's things that we need to defend and that some of the irresponsible people who say just tear everything down might lead us

to a state of affairs that is infinitely worse. Um and and and that's not hard to

worse. Um and and and that's not hard to imagine because lots of parts of the world are infinitely worse today and most parts of the world have been infinitely worse in the past. And so I

think there's always this you always you always feel crossressured between uh defending the status quo and promising that you're going to change and improve this status quo. Is there a

way of being clear about this that's not too intellectual, too complicated? I

think I can be clear about this to an intellectual audience, but I'm not sure that I would be able to be clear about this to an electoral audience. I have no political ambitions. But but those are

political ambitions. But but those are different things. I think my podcast

different things. I think my podcast listeners understand what I'm about and what I'm trying to say. If I had to put this into words that, you know, would work on a presidential debate stage, I think that is much much much harder. And

that's why, you know, it's not that like all these moderates are are dummies.

It's not like all of them are idiots. Uh

I think I think that's the most fundamental reason why why they're failing, not just the United States, but in all of these other countries as well.

>> So, let's take a position that is as boring and unpopular as possible. um

like uh individual responsibility and let's say that we need to bring back individual responsibility and uh people

need to take their fate into their own hands to some degree. Um even as I'm saying it, it sounds pretty blah. So

you'll see like a dip in listenership on your podcast.

So boring. Um, one way would be to say it in the most direct terms possible, which is like suck it up, right? You

know, there are many ways to say things.

One way would be to say, well, it's time to put individual responsibility back into the Another way is just like, you need to suck it up and I need to suck it up for too long. We've been babies about

these very things that actually we have the power to change. Stop whining. Stop

crying about it. Let's just do it. I'm

going to do the same.

>> Margaret Fetcher said, "Get on your bike. Yeah,

bike. Yeah, >> right. Like there's there there's no

>> right. Like there's there there's no more jobs in your town. Get on your bike. Now, as you were saying earlier,

bike. Now, as you were saying earlier, you know, that polarized, right? There

was people who hated that message, but there's a lot of people who like that message. And she was very politically

message. And she was very politically effective.

>> Yeah. But as opposed to everybody feeling neutral about that message, a consequence of which is that they'll never choose you over somebody else because neutral doesn't get you to the

polls, you now have people who are um going to argue with you about it and that's a good thing. And you also have people who grew with you very strongly, which is a good thing as well. Uh

Margaret Thatcher is the goat, by the way. So if she did this, it probably uh

way. So if she did this, it probably uh it probably is already the right answer.

But then the other thing you can do is you can create a little bit of a Nixon and China effect with yourself. It's

it's very um it doesn't always land well to criticize other people or to blame other people, but using yourself as an example uh is

easy to do and it just comes across as humility. um which is kind of rare in

humility. um which is kind of rare in politicians. So you could say these are

politicians. So you could say these are times in my life when I have failed to step up and these are the alternate paths that could have happened for me.

And by the way, the people who most need to step up are young men and I am a young man and I've seen this in my life.

I'm challenging you to do this in yours.

You you can disagree with Jordan Peterson on everything, but it's hard to argue that he has created a very powerful movement and following. Same

with Charlie Kirk. People who don't even like him at all have to concede that he created an incredibly powerful movement of young people by relating himself to them. This is something that you can do

them. This is something that you can do as a politician as well. I I think that, you know, it's hard to take something that is negative 10 interesting and make it plus 10 interesting every time, but it's not as hard as people make it look.

I think that with some effort and creativity, everything could be more interesting than it is today. And step

one is actually just using normal words that you would use in a conversation.

>> Well, one thing I've learned today, Lulu, is that it's very important to be authentic. And in that spirit, I just

authentic. And in that spirit, I just want to say that my producer just texted me that it wasn't Margaret Fetcher, it was Norman Tabet, one of her ministers, who said, "Get on your bike." But the rest of that point was correct.

>> Great. Sure. A wonderful person as well.

>> You're brutal.

>> Lulu, >> thank you so much for for your insights.

Thank you so much for the work you do.

And um perhaps we have to have you back on around election time to analyze the the political comps of some primary contenders in 2028 or something like

that. I'm sure everything will go

that. I'm sure everything will go smoothly and nothing chaotic or crazy at all to discuss. Thank you, Ash.

>> It's smooth sailing until 2028.