Judy Woodruff on Polarization, Politics, and the Media
52:41 Share

On September 28th, the Global Citizen Festival will gather thousands of people who took action to end extreme poverty. Join Post Malone, Doja Cat, Lisa, Jelly Roll, and Raul Alejandro as they take the stage with world leaders and activists to defeat poverty, defend the planet, and demand equity. Download the Global Citizen app today and earn your spot at the festival. Learn more at globalcitizen.org.com.

On September 28th, the Global Citizen Festival will gather thousands of people who took action to end extreme poverty. Join Post Malone, Doja Cat, Lisa, Jelly Roll, and Raul Alejandro as they take the stage with world leaders and activists to defeat poverty, defend the planet, and demand equity. Download the Global Citizen app today and earn your spot at the festival. Learn more at globalcitizen.org slash bots. It's on. It's on.

Hi, everyone from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. This is On with Kara Swisher and I'm Kara Swisher. Today, my guest is PBS senior correspondent and former anchor and managing editor of the PBS NewsHour, of course, Judy Woodruff.

There are few people who have as long and comprehensive a perspective on American life and politics as her. She's been a highly regarded and respected political reporter for over 50 years. She's covered seven different administrations in Washington, starting with former President Jimmy Carter. Remember him? I do. And she led PBS's flagship news program for over a decade before stepping down at the end of 2022.

For the past year, Woodruff has been traveling all over the country for a new project, America at a Crossroads, talking to everyone from everyday Americans to civic leaders to President Biden to better understand how we've become so divided and what can be done about it, if anything at all.

I want to talk to her about that and about the role media has to play in that polarization and what Republican calls to cut government funding for public broadcasting could mean for our democracy. Our weekly Ask an Expert question comes from historian John Meacham. Hi, it's John Meacham with a question for the great Judy Woodruff. Judy, you came to Washington more than 50 years ago with President-elect Carter, and

I'm wondering when you think about Carter's Washington and now Biden's Washington, what's changed the most and why?

Do you think there are forces that have been able to corrupt and coarsen our politics beyond redemption? Or do you think there is the possibility of creating a climate in which we can exchange ideas and proposals as opposed to insults? Thanks.

Yes, good question, John. This nation turns its lonely and really angry eyes to you, Judy. We'll be back after the break with Judy Woodruff. This is all.

Hi, Judy, and welcome. It's a pleasure to have you. I'm obviously a huge fan for many years, and my sister-in-law is an enormous Judy Woodruff fan. She's losing her mind. Thank you, thank you, and thank you to your sister-in-law. So anyway, we have a lot to talk about. I want to start first with the 2024 coverage. We're in the middle of another election, of course.

Your show is about partisanship, and we're right in the middle of a particularly partisan election that very few people want to have right now. I'm just curious, were you surprised by Ron DeSantis' decision to drop out of the race before New Hampshire? And what do you think of Nikki Haley's chances going up against former President Donald Trump at this moment?

I guess I was surprised about Ron DeSantis. I didn't expect him to drop out as quickly as he did. But I will also tell you, Cara, that I'm not following the campaigns. I'm not talking to the campaigns every day, as some of the reporters, so many of those reporters are, including my colleagues at the NewsHour. So I bet Lisa Desjardins, my colleague, was not as surprised as I was. I just thought maybe he'd hang in there, at least through New Hampshire.

And what about Nikki Haley? Yeah. And you're asking, what do I think her chances are? Well, I mean, like the conventional wisdom is you look at the polls and it looks tough for her. But I will also say that Americans are known to surprise people. And I don't know that that's going to happen in South Carolina.

But the voters haven't voted until the day they go to the polls. And so we'll see. I mean, he clearly doesn't look good for her right now. And Trump himself, he's at the center of your America at a crossroads. He's an incumbent in a weird way. But how do you look at his candidacy given after January 6th, everyone thought he was finished?

I think he is sui generis. We've never seen anything like it in my lifetime. I've been covering American politics now for 53, over 50 years. 53, I don't know, I've lost count. Yeah. But I've never seen the country as...

both divided as it is right now, we can talk about that in a minute, but also kind of with so many Americans enthralled to one political figure. I mean, I remember the appeal to a degree of George Wallace and

In the South, I've read about other politicians over time and their following. But in my lifetime, I haven't seen anything like Donald Trump. And do you feel like he'll be held accountable given that popularity? I mean, we've had people that are popular, often cultural figures. Huey Long, I guess Joe McCarthy for a short period of time, although I don't know if people are enthralled with him.

But they certainly were occupied by him. Yeah. I mean, if you're asking, do I think this is enduring? Well, it's already lasted for eight, going on nine years. And the texture of it has changed. What he was in the beginning is sort of a fascinating thing.

figure out of another, out of a non-political world who then entered the political world and sort of took it by storm, sort of crept up on everybody. Today, it's very different. We've seen the record. We know what Donald Trump says.

And so it's different right now. It's evolving before our eyes. And I have to say, I learn something every time I go out and talk to voters and hear their reaction or I read what other reporters or see what other reporters are hearing from voters.

I mean, just last night I read a conversation or part of a conversation that a reporter on Politico had with a man. You probably saw the same thing. Who was against Trump, was interested in Haley in New Hampshire and completely flipped and decided within a matter of a few months that Trump is the strong voice of.

that we need. And this kind of thing deeply interests me. What is it that causes people to change their thinking in such a short period of time?

And what role do you think Biden plays right now? I'm setting this up for America at the Crossroads. When you went into this, what was, from your perspective, his role? Well, he was, it's interesting, he was the first interview we had for Crossroads. I really wanted to talk to him to begin to set the table, if you will. So I talked to him in Wisconsin back in February of 2023. And what he said about division, which was, you know, the thesis of this conversation,

project is that he's never seen the country as bitter, as angry, and he wishes that there were some way to get around it. But your question is, what is his role with regard to Trump? I see President Biden, for the most part, standing aside and letting the Republican story play itself out. Yes, he's made some speeches. He made that speech not so long ago,

where he talked about the critical role of democracy. Don't forget, you know, our role as voters and so forth. But it's not something he's talking about every day. Now, that's going to change eventually.

as we get closer to the fall. But right now, I don't see him in the fray. So let's talk about America at a crossroads. It's more than a crossroads. I'm not even sure if there's a metaphor from where we are. We're sort of deep in something, something. We had a hard time picking a name. What was the other names? What were the other names? Oh, my gosh. I had a list of about 30 things, and I've deliberately not, I've tore up the list. Okay.

Okay. But our executive producer, Sarah Just, who's great at thinking up labels and names for things like this, ultimately said, I think this is the closest to what you're doing. And I said, you're right. I just hate to make a decision here. Right. What was another? You have to tell me another. I thought about everything from divided America. Where is America? Understanding America. I wanted to leave it as open-ended as possible. But I think Crossroads-

is one way of getting at it. Yeah, I'd call it let's go back to bed. So let's back up. Tell us about the project, the impetus behind it. Why did you decide to do this? Obviously, this has been a topic that's been well covered. Even people like New York Times pitch bought jokes about, you know, we went to a diner, you know, in this town and talked to three people about finance. Like it's gotten into mockery even.

It has. This whole idea. So talk about why you decided and the impetus for you. Well, for me, it was I knew I was going to step down from anchoring at the end of 2022. And I also knew that I didn't want to stop working. I wanted to continue reporting in some form for the news hour. They wanted me to do that. And I went to them with the idea of spending two years, last year and this year, leading up to this election,

trying to understand what it is that has caused Americans not to be able to sit down over Thanksgiving dinner together. And you're right, we've been asking this question for a long time, but I still don't feel we've gotten to the bottom of it. I certainly don't. I mean, I've now spent 12 months on this with my team, and I'm very proud of the reporting we've done. We've learned a lot, but I still think there's more to learn here. There's something...

going on in the American heart, in the American psyche that we don't fully understand. We have chunks of Americans who despise other Americans.

because of what they believe politically, because of their label. And, you know, we've talked to the experts. I don't know if you watched the segment we did early on. We talked to Pew and they said, well, this goes back to the 90s. And then they talked about how just since 2016, there's been like a tripling or a doubling of Republicans who think Democrat, all that, you know. Yeah. It's a lot of feels is what's happening right now, rather than

policy. You're not arguing about policy, you're arguing about feelings and emotions. About how you feel. But why is it that our political identity has become so emotional for us, has become part of our psyche? What happened? I mean, it used to be

You know, whatever. People knew each other by, you know, where'd you grow up? You know, tell me about your family. What, you know, what kind of sports do you like? But now it's, if you're an R or a D, I already know whether I, you know, like you or not. Right. It's just, it's taken over who we are. And when we talked to those voters in Iowa back in the summer. And when, for example, we asked, among other things, why?

what would you think if your son or daughter married a Democrat? And one woman made sort of a funny comment. It started out funny when she said, well,

She said, my daughter did. It didn't go well. You know, we're estranged. People started laughing, but then, you know, we're sobered up when she said that. But the rest of the group, several of them said, my children are liberals. They're Democrats. And we managed. We love each other, even though we disagree. They know they're not going to change my mind. But the question that struck me, that has stayed with me ever since is,

was the question that we asked Sarah to pose to them. And that is, do you think it's possible to be liberal, to be a Democrat, and to be a Christian, to be a person of deep faith? And to a person, this group said no. Right. Because of abortion, because what it represents to them, and they mentioned gender. They said, we don't see how someone who

God or Jesus made one gender can change their gender. That was a deeply surprising answer to me. I didn't expect it. And when we spoke with Democrats not so long after in Pennsylvania, we went to Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, of course they were shaking their heads and saying that's ridiculous, of course. But this is where we are for many Americans. This is emblematic of the kind of division we're in.

What struck me was the immoral accusations, which were in the Pew research. It's a very heavy thing to think about. It's a heavy word, immoral. I just interviewed Heather Cox Richardson, and when we spoke, she was troubled by that, but also held out hope. But the word immoral is very hopeless, I think. Yeah.

It is. And I think of the two findings that the Pew folks shared with us, I mean, that had to be the most disturbing. As we said, seven, eight years ago, 40%, 35% of Republicans on Democrats were immoral. It's now 72% think Democrats are mainly immoral. I mean, that's a judgment about someone else. I think it does have to do with some of these cultural issues that

If we used to define party by, okay, what size of government should we have? How big should the deficit be allowed to grow? How much do you want government to do for you? Today, there is more and more of what we mentioned a minute ago. It's issues like abortion. It's issues that have to do with gender, which seems to have just seeped into the debate or the discussion over education and taken it over so that local school boards, which is something else

We covered her now, as you know, having these big fights. Yeah, although they seem to be coming down a little bit in that regard, I've noticed. But it's not astonishing. I just spent the last two days with my mother, who has become, I would say, less informed and more rabid. And I would say it's due to the incessant watching of Fox News. That's what's gotten to her. Nikki Haley is too woke for her, which is just like, okay.

it's impossible to have a cogent conversation. And there's not any solution that would work. I keep thinking deprogramming. That's the only thing I can think of, me and my brother particularly. So the hopelessness of your panel struck home. Were you surprised by that? Because you seemed surprised by sort of that there was no common ground. Yeah.

I was. I mean, we didn't we didn't we shared there was more to the panel than that. And on other questions, I think I mentioned, you know, what would you think if your son or daughter married a Democrat? There was more openness to that. We had one man say both of my daughters think I'm, you know, far out to the right. They completely disagree with me. I think he said something like they think I'm crazy. But he said, I still love them and they love me and we can still talk about these things.

The problem is in many families, people can't talk about it. I mean, we've had people write in, we've done call-outs trying to find people to talk with. And some people have written us and said, I can't even talk to my spouse, my father, my mother, my brother, my sister-in-law.

And it's painful. I mean, people describe it in a painful way. It is. That it's hurting friendships, neighbors, building walls in the neighborhood, people actually moving. I don't want to pretend that's a massive phenomenon, but in some cases, people we know are moving to areas where they think they're going to

find more people who think the same way they do? So are we now going to segregate ourselves into communities? Yeah, and it's hard because it's brought up a lot. The one thing my mom does is bring it up a lot. Like, I love Trump. Just say it on the top of her head. And I literally am like, can we talk about anything else? Barbie. Wait, no, we can't talk about that either. Because that's like...

a polarized thing about the Oscars. But we're in the middle of this, another extremely polarized election cycle. You spoke, one of your guests, a political historian at Vanderbilt University, Nicole Hemmer, about the role politics plays. Let's listen to the clip.

We talk about polarization as though it just describes the political landscape that we're in. But polarization is actually a tool of politics, right? It's something that political leaders can use to both tear down their opponents,

and to drive their base closer to them. It's something that we saw in the politics of the 1990s. Newt Gingrich, a speaker of the House, saw polarization as a powerful weapon. He circulated rhetoric that talked about Democrats as disgusting and evil, as a way of having voters recoil against this group, seeing them as enemies rather than opponents. So as someone who's been a political reporter for as long as you have,

Where do you see the starting point? Because this was, I remember this, it was shocking when he was doing this. Not that there haven't been mud flung over the many years. Carter was the subject of quite a lot of it. But talk about using it as a tool, because that's part of it. Part of it is propaganda, which is very classic. These are classic tools of propaganda. No, I actually, even before, you know, Nicole Hemmer, who, by the way, is brilliant and

We're so lucky to be able to speak with her for the special that we did back in December. Even before I spoke with her and I knew about her writing, it seemed to me as somebody who covered Washington back during, I mean, again, going back to the late 70s, but Gingrich was the one who with his contract for America on the part of the Republican Party, it was all about

tearing down point by point by point what it was that President Clinton was trying to do. It was basically dismantling it and saying this is not only wrong, this is un-American, and using language like that to just reject every one of the points in the Democratic plank, if you will.

And so, I mean, I had thought of Gingrich as being at the beginning, at least in my understanding of American politics. But the other piece of this is that while we've been watching the politicians, the media has been changing. The way people get information, the way politicians are able to spread information, the way they are able to put money into advertising, what they're free to say now on television, radio, and online. You know, we weren't in the 90s. We weren't where we are right now.

But it's clear that politicians, I think in both parties, but I think first I give credit to the Republicans for thinking about how to push their points of view in the media. And now that we've seen the media...

transformed in that we're swimming in it. It's everywhere. It's all around us. And there's so many ways to not just spread information, but to manipulate information. And I just say one other thing, Kara, the thing that I focus on a lot, and I don't know how we cover it, is the fact that, as you just said, your mother and many, many Americans listen to one set of

sources of news and information. Other Americans listen to entirely different sources of information. So how do we come together when what we know and what we believe are two completely different things? And we each believe we are right. Right. How do we, how do we come together? We'll be back in a minute.

So I want to talk about your career and media. You started at NBC in the 70s, covering the Carter administration, then moved to PBS in the 80s, and in the 90s, you were at CNN. Fifteen years ago, you returned to PBS. The Times called you a, quote, rare thing, a longtime Washington insider, untouched by controversy. You still have got some years to go, Judy, so we'll see. In the farewell to the NewsHour in December of 2022, you talked a bit about your values as a lead anchor. Let's play this clip.

Through it all, I've tried to stay true to what the program's founders, Robin McNeil and Jim Lehrer, believe so fiercely that we're here to report, to tell you as accurately and fairly as we can what's going on in the world, and to let you make up your minds about what to think.

and to have the courage, as my beloved co-anchor Gwen Ifill did, to ask the tough questions, to hold people in power accountable, and I would add, to care enough about each one of you, to respect you and your beliefs, what your lives are like. So you said care enough to respect you and your beliefs. I want to talk to you about that. Is that what reporting accurately and fairly means to you? It's something that's being debated in newsrooms right now.

Well, to me, it's such an important question right now because you're right. I think there's a perception that among some who cover our political stories right now that many Americans are misguided, that they don't have the correct information, that they're basing their views off of false, whatever they've been told that's false. And that makes what we do much harder. I still believe that.

It's our job to report what we know that's factual and to correct information that isn't accurate. But I also think we have to respect people, that it's not our job to diminish, denigrate, cut off, make fun of people who have different views and

It's one of the biggest challenges right now of journalism, and I don't have a good answer for it. I don't know how I'd be doing, Kara, right now if I were out there as a day-to-day reporter trying to cover it. Because people are saying things, they're telling reporters things that they've heard, that they believe.

that are wrong. You know, I had a, I tell a story with my mom when I did an interview with Hillary Clinton and my mom called me and started going on about how terrible Hillary Clinton was and she said this and this and this and I realized it was my interview that had been regurgitated on whatever she was watching and it was incorrect, everything about it. And I said, mom, that was my interview, she didn't say that. And she's like, oh, she did. And I'm like, no, no, she didn't, it was my interview. She believed what she had heard rather than from me who did the interview.

And I made her go listen to it. And she said, she came back. She's like, okay, she didn't say it. And then she immediately said, but you know her emails. And I literally was like, it was a moment. It was one of those moments. I was like,

your daughter did the interview. It was fascinating. It was almost impossible. There was no way out. I felt like I was in a Jean-Paul Sartre farce of some sort. But one of the things you did, and you just smiled when you heard her name in the clip, I also knew Gwen, who was wonderful. How

How do you think she would be meeting this moment? She was almost too wise for these wise-ass times, is my feeling. I'm sure she would have an insight that I don't have, Cara. I mean, Gwen was, as you know because you knew her, she was brilliant. She cared so much about what we do as journalists. I'm sure she would be seeing something that I'm not seeing, that a lot of us are not seeing today.

But I think she would be facing it head on. She'd be saying, we've got to cover this story. We've got to do the best we can. We've got to call out falsehoods when we hear them. I know she would because that's who she was. She did not, as you know, Gwen, didn't suffer fools. She believed in speaking truth to power. That's an overused term, but that's who she was.

And, you know, we could use some Gwen wisdom right now. Well, speaking of wise, last fall I spoke with CNN's Christiane Amanpour about her approach, and she, of course, has gotten well known for saying, be truthful, not neutral. And I should add a disclaimer, I'm a CNN contributor, but thoughts on that truthful, not neutral. Can you be neutral anymore? Is there neutral, or do you think it never existed? Yeah, I'm not, I don't know what neutral is. My view is that

okay, I'm not taking sides. I'm not sending money to the Republicans or the Democrats. I'm hearing all sides, not just both sides, but all sides.

And as for truthful, I mean, who has ground truth? I mean, I'm a big believer as, again, as a reporter, a humbled reporter over all these years. There are a whole lot of things that I thought were accurate in the moment that I learned a few weeks or a few months or a few years later were wrong, were absolutely wrong. And so I'm careful about what I believe is

you know, what I call truth. I have enormous respect for Christiane and her work. Oh my gosh, I mean, she has done iconic work in our business. But I think my approach is to just keep on digging, keep on reporting, keep on asking questions, humbled in the knowledge that, yes, we may get to the truth one day, but we may not get there in our lifetime. And it's our job as reporters to just keep

Keep pushing, keep asking, keep looking, keep digging, keep reading and poking around in those places that other people are not poking. I think she was making the point that you can make conclusions after doing that reporting, right? You can make, because, you know, one of the ideas is critics call it both-side-ism, right? And that gives power to liars, very much so.

In the program, you interviewed a man. His name was Steve Rader, a rancher from Texas who talked about how he disagreed with the editor of his local newspaper on her views on the Vietnam War at the time or her family's views, but later in life came to agree with her and said she was right. What a wonderful interview that was. Thank you. Yes. Is it difficult to have the both-sides-ism because it's been so weaponized in a lot of ways? I think it is. I think reporters today, if there was ever a time, and there clearly was, where

when reporters could just fall back and say, oh, we talked to somebody on that side, and now we're, you know, we also talked to somebody on that side. I think we all now know that's not good enough. I mean, it's not good enough just to hear both sides. You need to listen for the nuance. If somebody is saying something that is not borne out, in fact, you have to call them out on it. The difficulty, Kara, is when

It's a string of things that people are saying. I mean, I remember covering political conventions in the past where I would have on a member of Congress or somebody who would just come with talking points and they would, in a blizzard of points, would say this, this, this, and this. And I'd look at my, you know, whatever the clock on the wall or surreptitiously, you know, how much time do I have left?

In order to challenge each one of those points. And for television journalism, which, you know, as somebody who's worked in the broadcast medium, you know, the clock is our enemy. We have to get it done in a certain number of minutes. Sure. But bottom line is we can no longer just say, well, I talked to the left and I talked to the right and we've covered it. Right. We have to do more than that. We have to keep asking questions.

The problem is what's popular is to have a point of view, to get viewers to tune in. And coming back to the idea of polarization, which you're covering, being used as a political weapon, the same tactics happen in media. I'm, of course, thinking about Fox News because I just mentioned it, but people who stand opposite of me on some issues can say the same about CNN. They certainly say it about MSNBC, and some say it about PBS, which has gotten sucked into the cultural wars.

you touch on the role of the media when it comes to polarization. You know, you touch on not just the media, but then there's online media where most people are getting their news right now. How do you think about the role of media when it comes to the polarization? Because what's popular is to have a point of view. I think the media plays an enormous role in our polarization, not just social media, not just

Twitter and Instagram and Facebook and all the rest of it, YouTube, but also media, period, because we now know, and it's what you and I were speaking about a minute ago, people can go to their respective corners. They can listen to the media that

that just repeats and drills in hour after hour, minute after minute, a particular point of view. Yes, there's still mainstream, quote, mainstream media, straight media that's out there. But people can ignore that. They can live in their own cocoon.

How did we get to this place? You know, that's not where media used to be. And it's not that media hasn't always taken sides. I mean, we know about yellow journalism at the beginning of the 20th century. There were newspapers...

on both sides. And today around the world, there are newspapers taking sides. So none of that is new. But what is different today, I think, is that the media can spread, whatever media it is, whether it's social or television, radio, whatever, can in some form or another take a story that is completely wrong, false, and spread it and just hammer it away. And I

In other words, giving people the ammunition they need to believe what they believe and then to believe the other side is wrong, the other side is immoral, dishonest, and all the rest. I mean, if you're fed that steady diet, then, you know. There's also been a consolidation in mainstream. This week, we've seen a plethora of layoffs at national publications like the LA Times and billionaires who came into rescue, a lot of them tech billionaires, getting cold feet after losses. Is there

a business model anymore that is not huge or quite small, as Ezra Klein posited, which I would agree with. He said the middle is collapsing in journalism. You can thrive at very small or very big, and it's extremely hard to survive between those two poles. That's a disaster for journalism and for readers. And I will note that meta shares are at an all-time high, and most people get their news from meta at this point for Facebook or Instagram or whatever.

And now TikTok, obviously. So the question is about the future of journalism. I'm deeply worried, like so many people are right now. I don't know where we are headed. I'm not smart enough to know

You know, what model, what business model is going to work? Because it's clear that right now we haven't figured that out. The reporting that I did, Cara, that you referenced about local journalism and the trouble it's having. Hit hard, very hard. Very hard. Just decimated journalism.

across the country is deeply worrying for all of us because if a community doesn't have information, then what do they do? They then turn to, they don't have local information. They then turn to cable news or some other national source, which is all very much focused on the conflict. And it's entertaining. It keeps, it fills the hours.

But is it information that then makes us better citizens, that helps us understand what we face as Americans in an accurate way? Yeah, these are news deserts. And one of the things that was, I've forgotten, a lot of these news organizations also talk about happy things or just what's happening. The fire happened. This is how this particular ranch is coping. The rancher you mentioned in Canadian, Texas, who...

had tears in his eyes speaking about what had happened to the, to the Canadian record did speak about those things. He said, he said the, this was the paper that recorded, um, he said, not just the fire that, that did terrible damage to his, to his, uh, livestock and to his ranch. Um, but he said, this is a place where I could see my grandchildren, high school football team score reported in the press. I read about people's births and deaths and weddings and, and,

It's the chronicle of our lives, and it's gone. And what is that taking away from us as Americans? I mean, the American experiment has been different. I don't know many other parts of the world that have the kind of journalism infrastructure we've had in this country. And I wonder about our identity as Americans if we don't have that.

the local papers to tell those stories. And then of course, national media picks up on them. So I'm worried at every level. I'm very worried about the local level. And what I will say is that this terrific work done by these groups like the American Journalism Project,

Press Forward, which was put together by MacArthur, Knight, other foundations to try to save newsrooms. But trust in the media is at historic lows. Now, it's never been high, let's be clear. A lot of people are like, I can't believe they don't believe us. I'm like, they didn't really back in the colonial days either. And news avoidance is high because it's upsetting. Do you think these things are connected? And what can news organizations do to combat this? Because if you're not there for the entertainment aspect, the are you not entertained aspect,

And they don't want news like actual facts. What's the solution? You don't have to give the perfect solution, Judy. I think it's up to us as journalists to find ways to tell stories that will hold people's interest. I think we need to be doing the deep dives, going into the budget books and figuring out, you know, where is our Social Security money spent? How is it allocated? You know, go deep into the budgets in these federal agencies, state agencies, local agencies.

agencies and so forth, but also to present it in an interesting way because you're right, people lead busy lives. They have many, many choices of where to turn for news. So we've got to find more interesting ways to present it. But I want to also say it's also the response. This is probably a terribly unpopular thing. I'm sure it is.

But it is the responsibility of Americans as citizens. We have responsibility, too, to understand what's going on around us, to follow what

I don't know, news about spending, news about what's happening to our school system and so forth. And to read as much as we can, to understand as much as we can. I know people's lives are busy. I get it. And it's not just that, but it's burnout. People are tired of bad news and you get exhausted by the circus, right? And so why not turn on TikTok and watch people dance, right? That makes perfect sense.

And by the way, the NewsHour has a TikTok option. There is a TikTok version, not of the entire newscast, but of many of the stories that we do. We're trying to reach people where they are and where they get their news because we know that's changing. But Cara, I mean, that's a shorter version. And what we hope that will lead to is that people will listen to that, watch that, and then they'll be drawn in, they'll be curious, and they'll want to hear stories.

maybe a little bit more about that story. And my hope is that that's what happens with these shorter bites of news, that people will get the story, they'll care about it, and then they'll want to read or hear or see a little bit more. Yeah, I think one of the things that's interesting, I was just interviewed by Frontline. I've told this story before. They were doing a thing on Twitter. I thought they did a great job

And my son called me in the middle of it, my oldest son. He's 21. He said, what are you doing? I said, I can't talk to you right now. I'm doing this Frontline thing. He goes, oh, I love Frontline. And I was like, what? Like, I was like, oh, really? And he knew every single Frontline show. And I said, and I turned it on because I thought, oh, my God, these people. I've got a live 21-year-old on the line here. And I said, on the phone, I said, hey, Louie, I didn't know you watch PBS.

And he said, I don't watch PBS. I watch YouTube. He was aware of PBS, right? Of course, he knows it comes from PBS. But it was really interesting because I remember the resistance at the time of PBS people when I was talking to them many years ago to...

getting out there on these platforms, which was interesting. I mean, how do you think they're impacting your demographics? Oh, we absolutely... It's become critical for us. Everything we do is now available on YouTube. The shows are available. Segments are available. Yeah. It was resisted, I can tell you. It was resisted initially. Well, it's now absolutely essential. We've got to be...

We've got to be on YouTube. We've got to be on every platform there is because that's where, as your son told you, that's where people are. And it is making a difference. I saw some big numbers for you, actually. Yeah, I was surprised. I think people are responding to that. I mean, you know, this is not anecdotal. I mean, it's only anecdotal, I should say. But when I go through airports or sometimes walk down the street, granted, I live in Washington, D.C.,

So it's not, you know, the middle of America. Young people will come up and say they love the news hour. So, yes, you're right. They may not be watching it over the air on broadcast, but they are getting it somewhere. And that tells me that this effort to be on every platform, we're pushing stories out across the spectrum now.

Because we want to be where people are. And, you know, it's the way we all not just survive, but we have that responsibility. Is there a room for PBS in the greater media landscape with all the noise and how much it costs? And obviously, you too have been sucked up into politics for a long time now. The House Appropriations Education Subcommittee introduced a decision to zero out funding for the corporation.

for Public Broadcasting. I've interviewed your bosses about this in the current budget to cut it all together by 2026. For people who don't know, explain how the Corporation for Public Broadcasting works and what kind of cut could impact

something like PBS? Well, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was created decades ago to sustain public broadcasting in America. It is completely separate editorially from anything that we do. I mean, the NewsHour, and I can't speak about Frontline because every program has a different

funding model. But for us, it's individual donors, the people who send in, you know, write a check and they get a tote bag or a cap or a coffee mug. They are absolutely critical to what we do. We thank each one of our viewers, followers online and on the air. And in addition, there are foundations that

And there are some wealthier individuals who are writing bigger checks from time to time, which we appreciate. But mainly it's literally viewers like you who make a difference. Yes, you sound very good in the ad. But what impact would it have if this passes? It's always touch and go with this funding over the years. But, you know, eliminating funding for public media has been a

a long time Republican calling card. It's been something that's been discussed, but it hasn't happened. And I think the reason is, is that public media is in every...

corner of America. There are 350 some odd public TV stations. I don't know how many radio stations. They are embedded in the community. They are more a part of a community, I would argue, than just about any other form of media. It's more local. It's more personal. And therefore, it's harder, I think, to uproot this and to say we don't need this. So much of public broadcasting, I'm sure you know this,

It started out as educational broadcasting. So it's intertwined in ways with the public school system, with colleges and universities. The licenses often are partly college and university license. And so it's a complex. It's harder. It's complex. So calls for the Heritage Foundation to privatize CPB...

which would have a big impact on shows like the NewsHour, you think ultimately don't go far? I don't see them going far right now. I don't because, again, because we have such popular support, thankfully, that we've worked hard for across this country. People who, again, whether it's their local community, they love their local PBS station or their local radio,

public radio station. They know that the call letters, they can call it out. Or because they love a particular program. You mentioned Frontline, the NewsHour, the historic programs, Ken Burns, Henry Louis Gates and his Finding Your Roots. I mean, these are programs that

that are now must-watching in some households. Two last very quick questions. One is from an outsider. We call someone and ask them to ask you a question. This week, I asked John Meacham to ask a question of you. Judy, you came to Washington more than 50 years ago with President-elect Carter.

I'm wondering when you think about Carter's Washington and now Biden's Washington, what's changed the most and why?

Do you think there are forces that have been able to corrupt and coarsen our politics beyond redemption? Or do you think there is the possibility of creating a climate in which we can exchange ideas and proposals as opposed to insults? Such a wonderful guy, John Meacham, somebody I look up to with awe in his work.

How has Washington changed? The main way it's changed, John, I would say is in the lack of respect that each side has for the other.

The fact that people don't know each other in the two political parties. When I first came to Washington, my husband and I have talked about this a lot when we first started dating. Al Hunt. Yes. We would go to a dinner and there would be Republicans and Democrats and they would have a lively discussion about taxes or about...

I don't know, name the issue, foreign policy. And then at the end of the evening, they would be laughing and telling stories and talking about their families.

And granted, that was a time when members of Congress spent more time in D.C. Today, they rush back to their districts or their states in order to do constituent work. I respect that. But there's also something to be said for getting to know the institution of Congress. And so what we have today is a city where people come, but in many ways disrespecting the institutions of government and the city

and running against Washington and therefore not being, how do you get something done in the city when you don't even talk to the other side, when you don't know them, and then when you don't respect them? I've heard members of Congress quietly say to me, or former members, say, how can you possibly work out a solution to a problem

When you don't know the other person you don't know, you can trust them. And so that trust is eroded. The respect is eroded. Everything is played out in social media. Everything gets exacerbated on the media. The media is ready to pounce. If one comment is made, one thing goes wrong, people jump on it. And yes, that's the instinct of social media.

of journalists in a way, but there are ways around that. And you asked, John, do I see that as permanent? Do I think it's going to change? I would love to believe that we can somehow, if not go back to where we were, that we could at least find ways by some reforms to

in the political system. And there's a lot of talk about this, about changing the primary process, getting less partisan folks to run for Congress. But to do that is really tough. The political parties wield enormous power. On the one hand, people say they're hollowed out. On the other hand, they seek retribution. If members of the party don't vote the party line, if they show any sign of cooperating with the other side,

They can be punished for it. They can lose a committee assignment, lose a chairmanship, not only lose money in their next race, they may be primaried by another candidate in their next race who is even farther, in the case of the Democrats, to the left, in the case of the Republicans, to the right. So there's no reward in Washington for working with the other side. The reward is for sticking with your guys and

Which isn't a solution, which isn't a recipe for solving our biggest problems as a country. So I want to believe we can find our way through this. And part of me is the eternal optimist. I have to believe we're going to work our way through it. But I'm not smart enough as I sit here today to tell you how.

Well, excellent answer, John. Thank you for the question. So my last question is one of the things you referenced, you had an interview at the Lincoln House here in Washington and talked about a more perfect union. You know, of course, it's the famous line there. Right now, we might settle for a less angry one, but what is a more perfect union to you after doing this traveled? Wow, that's such a good question. I think for me, it's

It's a country, it's a people who are more open-minded about hearing other points of view. The thing about American, and I wish I'd studied more American history because the older I get, the more I realize how little I know about American history. But the thing that strikes me over and over again is how Americans are constantly trying to

to be better. There's always somebody trying to find a solution to overcome, to root out the bad parts of who we are and what we've done. We're always trying to be better. And so however we do that, you know, being honest, looking at ourselves in the mirror and facing who we are and what we are and saying, we're going to

you know, we need to tackle this. We need to talk about it openly and then we need to figure out ways to address it. But listening to the other side, right now I'm, I'm,

running into too many people who don't want to hear what other people have or they're covering their ears. I would have been interested to have that panels together. I would have been interested for you to put them together. Yeah. And, and, and this year, you know, I hope we'll have the opportunity to do that, but I, I want to believe that Americans will not just, you know, we'll just not make up their minds and go from there, but we'll be open to,

Yeah.

And then hug it out. But Judy Woodruff, you're a national treasure yourself. Thank you. And I appreciate the interview. Cara, thank you so much. Thank you. On with Cara Swisher is produced by Naeem Araza, Kristen Castro-Rossell, Kateri Yochum, Megan Cunane, and Megan Burney. Special thanks to Mary Mathis, Kate Gallagher, and Andrea Lopez Cruzado. Our engineers are Fernando Arruda and Rick Kwan. And our theme music is by Trackademics.

If you're already following the show, you get another PBS tote bag to go in all your other PBS tote bags. If not, you can just watch it on YouTube like Louis Swisher. Go wherever you listen to podcasts, search for On with Kara Swisher and hit follow. Thanks for listening to On with Kara Swisher from New York Magazine, the Vox Media Podcast Network and us. You can subscribe to the magazine at nymag.com slash pod. We'll be back on Thursday with more.