Hannity, Carlson, and Murdoch Battle for Trump’s VP Pick
47:58 Share

Hey, it's Brian Curtis from The Ringer, and I want to tell you about the Press Box podcast. The Press Box is a podcast for anybody who likes news, whether it's about sports or politics or pop culture and wants to understand how that news really gets made. We have new shows every Monday and Thursday. We have long interviews with everyone from John Krakauer to Joe Buck. Your social media feeds are bursting with information every day. Let us help you sort it out.

Join us on the Press Box. This episode is brought to you by Amazon Business. We all need more hours in the day, right? Well, Amazon Business gets it. They've got super smart business buying solutions that make the admin stuff a breeze. That means you can spend less time buried in paperwork and more time growing your business. That's pretty smart. Head over to amazonbusiness.com and see what smart business buying is all about. This episode is brought to you by Thomas'.

Hi, I'm Tara Palmieri. I'm Puck's senior political correspondent and this is Somebody's Gotta Win.

This is what some might argue is the first week of the 2024 presidential election. We have a presidential debate on Thursday, the first time that Donald Trump and Joe Biden will stand on the stage next to each other and try to prove to probably as many as 30 million viewers that they're not the same.

that they deserve to be president. The last time they did this was 2020. I know, deja vu. You very rarely see this. Two people who ran for office doing it all over again. And if you're like me and having flashbacks to 2020, it wasn't pretty. I remember just being like, oh, what a train wreck. Can we please shut this off? Well, CNN is taking over the debates from the Presidential Commission on Debates, and they've decided that they are getting rid of the studio audience. They're going to shut off the mics. And

And try to have a more civil discourse? I'm not sure shutting off the mics will do the trick, but we'll see what happens. They're kind of heading into uncharted territory, though, without the commission. And so my colleague, Dylan Byers, who's Puck's media guru, he'll explain what this means for the network. He'll also explain how the candidates are setting the stage, particularly Trump, by attacking the moderators, Dana Bash and Jake Tapper, claiming that they are not impartial.

And we'll also talk about what they should do. It looks like the network has made the decision that they don't want to fact check in real time because they don't want to seem like they are giving an aid to either side, most likely the Biden campaign, because Trump tends to make some of the most outlandish comments, like the fact that he won the 2020 election. But first,

First, we'll talk about my exclusive reporting for puck.news. It's called M for Murdoch, and it's about the shadow campaign or proxy war between some of the biggest luminaries in conservative media.

Rupert Murdoch, Sean Hannity, and Tucker Carlson. They are all burning up the lines, making their case for their preferred vice presidential candidate with Donald Trump, as he, of course, enjoys basking in the center of the attention, having these very powerful figures making their case.

It's a reminder of the symbiosis between Trump and some of the biggest names in media and how he looks to them to be his advisors. I guess we'll have to wait another week or so to see who wins, who has the most sway. Is it Hannity who's pushing for Marco Rubio or Tucker Carlson who's pushing for J.D. Vance or Rupert Murdoch who's pushing for anyone but J.D. Vance, but really likes Doug Burgum the most? It

It's all a fascinating moment. And they're not the only ones trying to sway Trump, of course. But if there's one thing we know about him, he values people who are on TV and have money. And these men have it all. So we'll see who actually wins this fight. Dylan, thanks for coming on the show. Thanks for having me. Dylan is one of my great colleagues. He covers the media inside and out. A call from Dylan terrifies me.

of every major network. I'm not even kidding, actually. So I've got a story this week about...

a sort of shadow campaign proxy war among a bunch of very prominent, I guess, media personalities, executives in the conservative world and how they're trying to make their case to Trump about who they think should be the next VP. And it's Sean Hannity. It's Rupert Murdoch. It's Tucker Carlson. It's even, you know, Charlie Kirk, who's become a little media celebrity himself, mostly through new media. And, you know, how they're basically trying

calling Trump, making the pitch for their guys. And it's kind of come down to J.D. Vance, Marco Rubio and Doug Burgum each has their own favorite. And Dylan, I was wondering, what do you think about this? I mean, Trump has always gone to media. I guess you could call them celebrities or media pundits and ask for advice on politics. But like, what do you make of the story about how they are trying to weigh in with him right now?

Well, first, let me say I really enjoyed your piece. And one of the reasons I enjoyed it was because it highlights what we have sort of come to take for granted when we write both about Trump era conservative politics, but also just Trump era conservative media, which is there's this sort of theory and was probably always too simplistic, but that there was a

you know, this like conservative media brain trust, right. Or that there was one, um, you know, that Fox news or the greater Murdoch world, the wall street journal editorial page that this, this sort of had this profound influence over the Republican party. And certainly a question such as this, like who would the Republican nominee choose as their VP? And of course the whole, everything about Trump, um,

Through that into chaos. And it's not so simple as saying that Trump is bigger than any conservative media outlet or will do whatever he wants, though he probably will do whatever he wants. But it is just much more nuanced and it is far less predictable, I think, than it was in a pre-Trump landscape.

And so you do you have all of these fissures on the right. It is not a neatly organized side of the of the partisan spectrum. You have you have different centers of power. You have different centers of influence. And Trump, of course, is so big that he is interacting with all of them, even though.

you know, ostensibly some of them are sort of quietly hate each other. I mean, I think, um, I think if you get Trump alone, uh, with friends, or if you were to get Rupert Murdoch alone with friends, I think they would talk a considerable, considerable amount of shit about each other. And I think that, um, the same is true for, uh, uh, Tucker talking about Rupert Rupert talking about Tucker, Tucker talking about Hannity Hannity talking about Tucker. So you have sort of

you have tapped into that in terms of this specific question surrounding the VP pick. And I don't,

I would be a fool to suggest that I, or perhaps anyone has, has real insight into which of those media figures hold more sway with Trump. And I think he's probably per your reporting person with the other reporting I've read, he's probably entertaining the points of views of the Tucker Carlson's of the Sean Hannity's and even to a degree, Rupert Murdoch. And, uh,

You know, look, I think fundamentally at the end of the day, this is everyone is trying to advance their own agenda. I think they're also trying to, you know, get a foothold in with what they see as being possibly the next presidential administration. And it would be really advantageous for Tucker advance this.

Is is Trump's guy, it would be advantageous for someone like Hannity if Rubio is Trump's guy. And so you're sort of reminding all of us that this is as much a media story as it is a political story, I think was was really useful. But I don't know. I mean, you tell me what did you in the in the process of reporting that? What did you see?

What sort of came to light for you in terms of like that, those those relationships and that and that broader conservative media landscape?

Well, there were a few things. First of all, how much Trump really does hate Rupert Murdoch, that came across to me, even though, you know, he has been tweeting against him. Even just last week, he was like, take Paul Ryan off the board after Paul Ryan went on Neil Cabuto's show and spoke badly about Trump. But that he really, he feels that he has more power than Murdoch at this point. And he sees it as evidence in the fact that Murdoch tried to

hype up the Sandys and was not able to do that. Murdoch tried to, he believes, get rid of him after January 6th and he wasn't successful. And now all of these anchors have become pro-Trump. They're trying to get him to be at his debate, to actually be a part of the GOP primary debates. And he believes that it's evidence of the fact that he has more power than Murdoch. Now, at the same time,

I found out that in the spring, it was Donald Trump who called Rupert Murdoch to talk to him and ask him for advice, political advice. And during that phone call, Rupert Murdoch suggested that he pick Glenn Youngkin

The governor of Virginia was just like this country club Republican, sort of the kind of ilk that Rupert Murdoch would like. And obviously, Glenn Youngkin is getting nowhere near Donald Trump, mainly because Glenn Youngkin ran a campaign that in no way touched Donald Trump and didn't even want an endorsement in Virginia. He didn't want to be anywhere near him. He's like the anti-Trump. He's kind of like a Mitt Romney Republican, really.

And so that was interesting to me that it would that it was actually Trump that called Murdoch, even though he's he does apparently hate him and thinks he has more power than him. So it's kind of I think Trump is sort of split. Like, I think he'll always sort of see Murdoch in one way as, you know, this media baron, which he is and the kind of guy that he would always want to be on his shows and whose shows he frankly used to create political platform. Right. During the birther conspiracies and an onward. But, you know, I guess there's always sort of a.

an allure of Rupert Murdoch and he can't really help it. Even when he won, he was like, Murdoch, what do you say, Rupi, we won or something like that back in 2016. And then, yeah, so I think that dynamic's interesting. And then I also thought, how could he really care that much about what Tucker Carlson thinks? And obviously he gave Tucker an interview during the GOP primary debates and this was when Tucker was on Twitter and he needed his, you know, big outing coming out moment. But after he was fired from Fox, but it's just like,

He was trashing Trump, saying, I hate him passionately in his text messages. And I'm like, how does he end up really taking his opinion that seriously? But like...

and Tucker's pushing J.D. Vance. And I was told, well, it's because Tucker's a high wasp. And that, in fact, the way that Trump thinks it's like he craves his approval even more when he hears how much he hates him. Yeah, that part of it totally makes sense. I mean, you know, there's a phrase out here in Hollywood or saying, which is, you know, they're real friends and they're deal friends. And I think that these guys are all willing to set

You know, set their emotions aside when they hear that the other one has been calling them an idiot, either on truth, social or in closed door meetings. Set that aside for the sake of getting ahead or at least having having some sort of say.

In in the matter, and at the end of the day, the truth is, is that Trump might feel like he's bigger than Murdoch, but Rupert Murdoch holds a considerable amount of power and influence in this space, and he'd rather have him on the line and have his.

And he might elect to do nothing with that input. He might hang up the phone and say that guy was worthless or he might take it to heart. But at the end of the day, like these guys keep the lines of communication open. It's in all of their interest to do so. And I think, you know, again, what you're reporting shows is I think Trump is in a uniquely.

advantageous position here with these guys. Everyone is going to take his call. And I think these guys are willing to probably, you know, bury the occasional slight in the interest of getting ahead, be it from a business perspective or in Trump's case, politically. Yeah, on the Murdoch point,

He's for Doug Burgum right now. There was a New York Post editorial that said, Doug Burgum is the best choice, right? And then the second is Marco Rubio. And then he called J.D. Vance like Ann Coulter, compared him to Ann Coulter, erratic, and sort of suggested he was too young. And I'd heard that Murdoch is basically just wants to make sure it's anyone but J.D. Vance.

Meanwhile, you know, you've got Tucker pushing for J.D. Vance and Charlie Kirk saying, you know, he's the mantle bearer of the MAGA movement and the future of the Republican Party. And you've got Hannity, who's kind of like Trump, like this outer borough guy who they've been friends forever. And Hannity is pushing for Marco Rubio. But Hannity has sort of lost some weight with Trump after he encouraged him to endorse Dr. Oz. And it's just like.

That was the Dr. Oz endorsement was back in 2022. The Republicans lost the Pennsylvania seat to John Fetterman. And, you know, Trump still blames Hannity for that. I think he had bad political instincts. But just to go back to all of this, imagine if another network like CNN, that their talent was seen as like advising the president, like what would happen?

Yeah, well, I mean, that right. That is that is arguably the bigger issue here, which is I recall. So I've been covering media and used to do a lot more politics and media for over 10 years now. And there was definitely a time, you know, when let's call it around 2015, when Hannity went out and stood on stage at a Trump rally and.

And there was sort of this panic at because all the you know, then every political reporter and media reporters calling Fox News and saying, like, is this what are you going to do about this? Will there be consequences for Hannity? And it was actually like a thing. Right. And you had to if you were Fox, you would at least had to give the appearance of saying that this was not something you were going to tolerate.

In 2024, it is a total... I mean, no one... We've long since given up any pretense that we're going to pretend like this isn't happening or that there's some semblance of journalistic integrity on the behalf of Sean Hannity. I think that went out the window a very, very long time ago. It probably went out the window about eight years ago. And so...

It's just you have to think about in a different light. You know, the CNN part of the CNN value proposition is that it would never do anything like that because it is committed to capital J journalism. I think even at MSNBC, which is avowedly liberal and is avowedly pushing for Biden's reelection, you still would have a much more complicated scenario if you were to have like a Rachel Maddow campaign.

sort of being in the ear of Biden and that were decided, you know, and I imagine there are ways sort of informally in which that is the case, but that would be a much bigger controversy. We don't know that she's in the ear of Biden, but like she has enough intermediaries if she wanted to get something over to him, right? This is right. And surely there are conversations like this happening between

operatives in Biden world and influential pundits at MSNBC all the time. But this sort of thing where we've just on the Fox side where it's like, yeah, you know, I mean, these guys are stopping by Mar-a-Lago and Hannity and Trump are on the phone or anything like that. I mean, that's just the world we live in. And you can sort of, you know, it's interesting from my little corner of the world covering the media beat.

When I go out and people sort of protest that, you know, it's like, well, that world, that sort of, you know, world of where there were where there was like hard lines about what you were were not allowed to do at a place like Fox News. Again, that that world died a very long time ago. And that's now just, I think, the world that we live in. And I think that's why, despite that,

You know, whatever Bret Baier does for half an hour, for an hour every night. You know, I think Fox News is pretty comfortable having that sort of open revolving door between itself and Trump world. And I think, you know, I wouldn't be surprised to see MSNBC get increasingly comfortable on the Democratic side as well. Yeah, I mean, they have hired a lot of former White House officials and given them shows, you know.

So it's kind of a similar vein. It's hard to tell. People can't always tell the difference between a commentator and analyst just came out of the White House or from the Trump campaign or White House and a journalist. Like they just can't tell the difference. And so everyone kind of gets melded together. And I think that's why there's a lot of distrust in the media. Right. Sure. But I don't know. You know, it's it's in a way it's this it's become this weird thing where you used to, you know, Hannity used to have to hide it. And now it's almost a point of pride. Right.

Right. I mean, if you if you make the assumption that the average person watching Hannity or in fact, almost everybody watching Hannity is rooting for Trump and rooting against Biden's reelection in a way, it infuses him with sort of additional status by virtue of being a guy who does have an ear in tomorrow or sorry, does have a line in tomorrow. And it does have that relationship. And there is this sort of breaking down of barriers between.

In a way where like the closer Hannity is to Trump, the more that burnishes his his credibility with that audience, which is a real reversal on the past, of course. Exactly. And that's why you would want someone like Marco Rubio in the White House as well. Just adds even more, you know, access and influence on an administration from the outside. Yeah, that's right. Do you get a sense when you're in your reporting on how Rubio specifically is viewed as.

in the sort of broader MAGA electorate. Yeah, I mean, Rubio is just thought of as like another Nikki Haley. They think he's a neocon. And Murdoch, he likes Burgum more because Burgum's like businessman. But Marco and Hannity go back to like, I think 2013 when Hannity believed that in his amnesty bill. And then in 2016, Hannity had him on his show a lot early on in the GOP primaries.

He just was a supporter of his. And, you know, you build these relationships. And I guess for these media, these these journal, it's like I don't even know the word to use it. They're like they're like right wing influencers almost. Right. Yeah, that's right. Yeah. They want pundits, but they have shows. So it's like.

talk show hosts. They want their people in there as well. But it's not always as clear. Like if you're putting Hannity on your show, if you're putting Marco Rubio on your show every night, like it's not always that clear to the audience exactly what you're doing, right? That you're giving him a moment to audition. But yeah, I think it's not just to...

MAGA sees him as a neocon, but then like the donor world, like Steve Schwarzman and others, they think Marco's a safe bet. He's, you know, been on the foreign affairs committee. He's just seen as someone who has more experience than JD Vance, right? Doug Burgum, there's not a lot that's known about him. He governed over a state of like 700,000 people, 800,000 people, a lot more could come out. Whereas Rubio has been heavily vetted already.

And I think there's a feeling that he softens up Trump. He could add to the Hispanic votes or at least some of the gains that Trump has made. He might be able to sustain them with Hispanics. That's unclear. But yeah, there's definitely more donor enthusiasm around Marco Rubio. And Doug Burgum is a rich guy who has friends who he can tap into. He's already done that to help raise money for Trump. I just thought it was interesting that Murdoch took a liking to a guy that really nobody knew anything about.

until he, and who really didn't get much support from the media when he was trying to run in the primary, right? He wasn't on TV that much. Now he's on all the time. Poor Rupert Murdoch, his success rate with trying to get candidates nominated or get VP picks has been pretty slim in the Trump era, I guess. But one thing I'm sort of wondering, I mean, the conversations here, whatever the relationships are between candidates

Trump, Tucker, Trump, Rupert, Trump, Hannity. Fundamentally, the question that needs to be answered is who who who is going to help me win? And and so it's it seems to me like my guess is that my assumption is that a lot of these conversations are these folks trying to persuade Trump to

Here's the here's this here's the rationale for going with a establishment donor approved type like Rubio versus going with somebody who's just sort of like red meat for the base in advance. And and Vance also helps with the Rust Belt, if you think about it. OK, again, Pennsylvania, Ohio. He's also there. I mean, he's a little younger. Yeah.

If you subscribe to the conventional wisdom, as Jenna O'Malley Dillon put it to our colleague John Heilman, like that there are going to be six states, maybe seven, where this whole thing, it's going to come down to like,

10%, you know, 10, 5%, 10% voters in these six swing states. The calculation I'm guessing is that a Tucker or a Murdoch or whoever is in his ear saying, here's why this makes sense from a strategic point of view. And they might have their own thinking for how that, what that means over the course of the next four years should Trump win. But I'm, I'm assuming, tell me if you think I'm right or wrong, but like the North star here is victory.

Right. Like, how do I get across the finish line? No, I think you're totally right. That should be the North Star. And if that was the North Star, honestly, you probably should pick Nikki Haley to get those voters back. Seriously. But ego is a whole other wrinkle that you have. And I think it's bigger than a wrinkle, actually, that you have to consider when dealing with Trump. He also doesn't like to be upstage, which is partially probably why Doug Burgum is doing so well, because what is Doug Burgum really add to the ticket? Right.

Right. I mean, he doesn't take anything away, but he certainly doesn't add a lot. But he's like, but he's a guy that Trump likes. He also doesn't upstage him. I wonder, like part of me thinks that Trump doesn't really like the whole idea of sharing the ticket with someone who there might be some buzz and excitement around, like a historical, you know,

first African-American vice president or woman. You know what I mean? Like there's something about he might not really like, and he doesn't believe that the vice president helps or hurts really. I mean, yeah. Yeah. It's interesting to think like, what would, you know, how would Trump respond to like a McCain Palin 2008 moment where not politically, but just in terms of sheer wattage, right? Like the star power, uh,

Of a truly game changing VP pick. You're right. Just knowing what we know about Trump's personality and his love for being the center of attention, it seems like that idea would be anathema to him. Yeah, no, it's definitely not ideal. And I think that's why, again, and deference.

That's the other concern about Rubio I've heard. It's like and J.D. Vance is like they're young, they're ambitious, they could carry the mantle forward and they might not go along with everything that Trump does, seeing it as a political liability for their futures in the same way that ultimately like Pence did. You know, Pence refused to not certify the election. He chose to certify it. And in Trump's mind, that was disloyal and that he was thinking about his own political future.

So they want someone who's even more loyal than Pence. And like, what do we really think that Doug Burgum has a future if he's the vice president of all the people that are on the shortlist? He's like 67 years old. He doesn't really feel like the leading character. Right.

Right. You don't if you don't. And I guess if you're Trump, that's that's the hard dance. You want someone who is exciting and potentially helps. But at the same time, you don't want someone who is going to come along and seem like Trump 2.0 and outshine you. Or be. Yeah. Yeah. You don't I don't even think you want them to be exciting. Really? Yeah. Yeah. That's funny. Well, then I think the I guess the other question I would have for you is.

Is there a calculation on the side of these potential VP picks to sort of bide their time? Like, you know, I was sort of looking over the shortlist, the longer version of the shortlist that I think the Times put out recently. And down below Vance and Burgum and Rubio, you've also got folks like Tom Cotton. Seems to me like, you know, a Cotton would...

would actually want to bide his time and wait four more years and not be on the ticket with Trump. And that you probably have other Republican hopefuls who are thinking about this a little differently and thinking about a world in which maybe Biden does get reelected and maybe it's more advantageous for their own political careers to be on their own four years down the line. I kind of disagree with that one because I think

You are my way of being Trump's vice president or running mate. If you don't make it to the White House, but you're still as running mate, you've been identified as a leader in the party. And we're not going back to the Mitt Romney Republican Party. It's just not happening. Like so it's a good it's a good platform to have, whether it works out or not. So, yeah, I think Tom Cotton would happily be vice president. I just again, like.

Like he's very he could be like a wild card. I heard like, you know, him or Bill Hagerty at the same time, like he would be useful in the cabinet as well. People he's talked about often as being a potential cabinet member. Yeah, right. So we'll see. But I've been told, you know, from sources close to Trump that he has narrowed it down.

He's telling people he already has his pick. Well, there you go. You know, a nice thing for him to do would be to just drop that during the debate, you know, kind of like Taylor Swift getting a Grammy and announcing her new album. Yeah. Well, it depends on how badly it goes. So let's let's transition to the debate.

This episode is brought to you by Vitamin Water. So much of what the world is obsessed with starts out in New York City. It's a place full of style and character that has something for everyone. With a range of flavors to meet any kind of taste, it's no wonder Vitamin Water was born there. Colorful, flavorful, anything but boring, Vitamin Water injects a daily dose of vibrancy into a watered-down life. Grab a Vitamin Water today. Vitamin Water is a registered trademark of Glasso.

This episode is brought to you by Vitamin Water. Food, entertainment, sports, and more.

sports teams. New York City is one of those places that oozes choice. It's got something for every taste. So it's fitting that vitamin water was born there. It's a product of its environment. Colorful, flavorful, anything but boring. Vitamin water injects a daily dose of vibrancy into a watered-down life. So grab some vitamin water today, NYC style. Vitamin water is a registered trademark of Glasso.

Hi there. I'm a PBM. I'm also an insurance company. We middlemen are often owned by the same company. So, hard to tell apart.

We control what medicines you get and what you pay at the pharmacy. That's why today, more than half of every dollar spent on medicines goes to middlemen like us. Middlemen are driving medicine costs, and you don't know the half of it. Get the whole story at prma.org slash middlemen. Paid for by Pharma. What are some of your thoughts, pre-debate thoughts, Dylan? Oh, you know, I...

I mean, look, I think I always think about the debate, any debate through the lens of the media and leave the questions for Biden and Trump to folks like you and the other political experts. But I think the number my number one thing is just heading into the debate.

is the degree to which both sides, especially the Trump side, which is to be expected, but even Biden world are trying to work the refs, which is not at all, again, not at all surprising. But you do have this thing where it's like, OK, you can you can prep Biden as much as you possibly can. Trump can prep or not prep as much as he wants. The only thing you can really do in these final days outside of practice is

And, you know, perhaps like getting enough sleep is you can basically try to work the refs to make things look better for you. And for for Trump, that is going out and attacking CNN and attacking Tapper and Dana Bash and saying these it's basically going to be three on one and sort of creating the idea that Trump is.

is going to start at a disadvantage so that anything he any way success will look greater and failure will look preordained because the deck was always stacked against him. I think for the Biden camp, you know, there was a piece in The Times where David Chalyon at CNN, you know, has tried to make clear that

It is not Jake Tapper and Dana Bash's job to fact check the candidates in real time. That this is that's Biden's job if he wants to do it. And that has allowed the Biden camp to come in and effectively say, you know, it's CNN's job to fact check their news organization. They should fact check and basically make it appear as though.

Trump is going to have an advantage because the moderators aren't going to fact check him. This is all very like, I get it. It's strategic. It's also tiresome and seems to suggest to me that like everyone's really panicked and has nothing better to do. I think, I think by and large, like the debate's going to happen.

Biden will probably be very well-behaved. Trump, of course, is always a wild card. We will wait and see. And I actually think the moderators are going to do just fine. I think they're going to do a fine job. I don't think they're going to insert themselves too much into the debate. At the same time, I don't think they're going to let Trump getting away with saying, I won the 2020 election. And then I think the whole network will have this massive fact-checking apparatus that goes into effect the moment the debate ends.

and everyone turns off their television. So that'll be fine. But I guess it is, you know, we're so used to this. We see this all the time. There's just this

hours and hours and days and days of who's going to do what and what is the moderator's responsibility and all this. And then the debate happens and we're in an entirely different world and none of it matters. And for CNN specifically, they will have this incredible night with huge ratings and their logo plastered across every other rival television network. And then everything will sort of go back to normal for them. Oh, you think that they won't pick up ratings after that? Yeah.

No, I don't. I don't think I think that they'll get, you know, 25 million, 30 million viewers. You know, it's hard to tell because, again, other networks are going to you're going to I guess you're going to add up all of the networks for the debate and it'll be this massive audience. But I don't fundamentally think that the half a million, you know, that right now they average, you know, half a million or less than half a million viewers on any given evening.

I don't think that is fundamentally going to change because they're the hosts of the debate. I don't that's not how television works. You know, I mean, unless they unless they do something that convinces tens of millions of people that they just need to watch Jake Tapper every night, that that's not going to happen because that's not the moderator's role. So, no, this is one of those things where it's like great for CNN for exactly one night and maybe for the next day. And then everything comes crashing back down to earth.

What do you think about the fact that like there's so much in the air because they're not using the commission on presidential debates? It's in a studio. Mike is going to get turned off. Is there pressure on CNN to like make this all happen in a new format? And they kind of got slimed for that talk, the town hall that they did with Trump early on. And there's going to be commercial breaks. There's never been commercial breaks before. Like, is the audience going to get annoyed? You know, I don't.

I think that this is something that we are going to spend a lot of time talking about and most people aren't going to care about. And I think there'll be a lot of people, including probably the two candidates, who will be grateful for the opportunity to use the restroom during the debate. I think that there is pressure on CNN because by doing away with the Commission on Presidential Debates, everything that happens...

is their responsibility. So yes, if something goes wrong, you can't pin that on the CPD. That will be CNN's fault. But that's sort of the price of getting the debate. And they got the debate, which is really great for them. And we should mention, despite all of the chaos and tumult at CNN over the course of the last few years, they remain a network that has this sort of

institutional knowledge and infrastructure to do a debate like this. And I think they are better positioned to do this kind of a debate than any of their rivals, including the broadcast networks. So

Again, I think it's probably going to go fine. Just because they have the... Yeah, they've got people who've been doing these sorts of... Doing debates like this for decades. They've got... And I mean from the people who program these things all the way down to the guys who run the court across the stage. They know what they're doing and they're very good at it. Now, the one thing they... The one sort of wild card here and one of the reasons that the town hall...

with Donald Trump and Caitlin Collins went as terribly as it did is the leadership void, right? And so Chris did not position Caitlin Collins for success nor the network for success in that moment. Mark Thompson is...

a we don't know yet. You know, we know we know he's good at running the BBC and we know he's good at running The New York Times. But is he is he going to be a good leader in this moment under this sort of pressure? And we'll see. But again, this is one of those moments where the vast majority of people who are tuning in don't really care about

the cable network or the people who work there or even the moderators, they care about Biden and Trump. And to the degree that for 90 minutes, Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, who are both professionals, can just facilitate that conversation, they'll be fine and the network will be fine. And they'll get, you know, you will get criticized by both sides for on Twitter for 24 hours and then it'll go away and they'll go back to the business of running a cable network.

What are you looking for in terms of Mark Thompson's leadership coming through during this debate? Well, look, I think it's going to show in subtle ways. I mean, I was just actually before you and I got on, I was talking to a media executive at another network who reminded me, you know, you only ever hear about the umpire in baseball if they make a bad call. So in many ways, what we're looking for is for nothing to happen. And part of doing that will be, you know,

Were the were the did you ask did the moderators ask the right questions? Did you were they professional enough and modest enough to not insert themselves into the debate, no matter how tempting that might be? And it really is like if Trump gets up there and lies, which is, I would say, the high probability that will happen. It's like people are looking to Biden as the guy who to step up and challenge him on that. Right. Jake Tapper is not running for president.

Right. Not yet. Yeah. But but so, you know, I there is there is it's funny because there is so much pressure and it's going where it's going to be all we talk about up until the debate. But the pressure is on them to not to basically not do anything wrong. Right. And if they don't do anything wrong, that is that is what success looks like. Hmm.

Okay. It feels like everything's going smoothly. Is there a debate that you've seen? I mean, I rewatched the first debate this weekend between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, and it was with...

Chris Wallace. Chris Wallace. Yeah, it was pretty rough. It was pretty rough. And this is this is where I think the I mean, this is where you asked earlier about the rules of, you know, or being able to like turn off the microphones, for instance. I think that's going to help. But like you and I both know, everyone knows Trump like Trump might keep talking even if his microphone is on. I do think the absence of an audience is going to help a lot.

These guys are these guys, you know, it's not one of the one of the major problems with that Trump town hall was that you had people in the audience who were cheering for cheering on Trump and effectively booing the moderator, which turned it into like a circus like atmosphere. And you're not going to have that here. And it's going to be really interesting to see how someone like Trump, who feeds off of the audience,

and is going to be able to sort of, you know, break rules or conventions if he's just sitting there with two moderators and Biden. That would be really interesting to see. And, you know, in terms of how like their prep is, I think everyone at CNN who I've talked to right now, especially the folks who are in Atlanta, is just feeling like they're in a pressure cooker. But I also think they feel confident in their ability to meet the moment.

Hmm. It's good to know. Yeah. Guess we shall see how it all goes. I didn't really think about it. You know, even this morning, the spokesperson for the Trump campaign, Caroline Levitt went on Casey Hunt's show and, and attacked Dana and Jake. And I thought Casey did the right thing by being like, okay, it's time for you to leave the show now. And, and,

And they basically cut her off. And that was it. And I feel like she did the right thing. Don't you think? Yeah. Yeah, she did. No, she she did the right thing. On the other hand, there there is this one thing I've heard from a lot of the folks I've been talking to ahead of this debate is the last thing that CNN wants to do again has become a part of this story.

And I don't know if there's any better way Casey could have handled that, but you don't, the last thing you want is there to be like, this is going to be a news desert until the debate happens. And you don't want to fill that desert with stories about,

Is CNN bias? Should they have cut off the Trump spokesperson? You know, CNN has issued a statement again this week, which is similar to a statement or the same statement they issued last week, talking about how Jake and Dana are professionals and they're great at what they do and they're not biased. And like, that's true, but we don't need to have that should not be filling this vacuum right now. Yeah. CNN should just be quiet, produce the debate.

prepare for the debate, do a good job at the debate, and don't spend a lot of time being in the headlines trying to defend themselves or issuing statements. It's just not what it should be about. And you can go back and you can ask any moderator, going back to Jim Lehrer, no one wants to be the story. And you ask, do I remember a specific moment from a debate? There was a debate in 2012, I think an Obama-Romney debate, where Candy Crowley

injected herself into the debate at the end and I think sought to basically help Obama in correcting Mitt Romney on something. She was totally right. Whatever she said, it was totally right. She shouldn't have done it because then it was like, it was this story about Candy Crowley and everyone in 2012 who suspected the media of a left-wing pro-Obama bias, you know, pointed to that. I mean, it's just not, it's very, very different

to be the moderator with like eight candidates on stage in a primary and you have to wrangle everyone. That's one thing. But when it's just two candidates on a stage running for president,

Let them take care of each other and just just facilitate the questions as best you can. I have to agree with you. I do think like even if you think about just like debate in general, it's up to the other person to correct. Right. Like it's really not supposed to be up to the moderators. And I understand like the idea of like a civil service as a journalist to fact check. But really, like if Trump is saying something that is not correct, it's up to Biden essentially to correct it. Right.

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, that that is what people want to see. And then the notion that that would to show that he knows well enough that what the facts are and that he's able and in command. Yeah, well, not to put too fine a point on it or be too obvious, but like these guys are running for what is arguably the most powerful job in the world. If they can't. Yeah. If they need if they need a, you know, someone who like puts makeup on to go on television and read a teleprompter to like come to their aid.

against their candidate, against their opponent, that they should be able to do that by themselves. Is there an example, though, besides Candy, like in the last election, I guess there were only two debates. How do you think Chris Wallace did? Was he fact checking in real time? I can't even, even when I watched it, I didn't. Yeah, I think, again, I just think it was, I'd have to go back and look, but my recollection of that moment is he just sort of

He was doing he was trying to do the best he could, but he just ended up getting steamrolled because, you know, Trump was barking the entire time. And again, this is we've spent eight years in the media trying to figure out how to adequately cover, interview, moderate Trump. And there are no easy answers to that question.

And you can count on maybe two hands the amount of people who have done that well. I think it's like Jonathan Swan and Savannah Guthrie. So it's not as though this it's not as though there's an obvious playbook for what you're supposed to do here. I'm not to take away from Jonathan. His was taped. You don't know what the outtakes. So let's call it let's call it one and a half. I just think there's no obvious playbook for how you do this.

I think CNN is setting themselves up for the best possible terms of engagement. No audience, cut the mics when it's not their time to speak. The plan, based off of the folks I've talked to at the network, don't fact check in real time because that's not your job, but do have the sort of fact checking in place to happen right after the

the debate and don't be so stringent about or, you know, don't don't take don't fact check in real time as a signal that Tapper can't say, well, no, you know, no, Trump, you did not win the election in 2020. I think it's OK to say that. But you don't need to nitpick everything. Right. I think what the American people want to see is these two candidates take care, like face each other. Why can't Biden say that?

You didn't. Biden can. Biden can. No, no. Sure. Biden can. Exactly. There are a ton of conservatives that if the second they hear Jake Tapper say you didn't win the election, they'll discount him. Yes. So why not just let Biden say it? Yeah. No, I would agree. I would agree. I don't think that I don't think the Biden people would agree. I think the Biden people are looking for a little help from the media, which is maybe counterintuitive. Yeah. But again,

Again, you know, I don't know. It's one of these things where it's like how many of the people tuning in, how many of these tens of millions of people tuning in haven't already made up their mind. I mean, we're really going to see, which is part of the reason this debate is exciting in the media world, in the news media world. People don't really there's not really that much appointment viewing left in television and certainly in the news business. And this is like the event. This is the event of the year, the event of the decade. So I think it'd be fascinating.

Well, we will all be tuning in. Thanks so much, Dylan. Always love getting your perspective. It's a treat to have you on. No, it's a treat for me. And I'll definitely have you on soon. I want to thank my producers, Troy Farkas and Connor Nevins. If you like the show, please subscribe, rate it, share it with your friends. If you like my reporting, please go to puck.news slash Tara Palmieri and sign up for my newsletter, The Best and the Brightest.

You can use a discount code Tara20. I'll be back on Thursday with a special pre-debate podcast where I'll talk to my former colleague, Mark Caputo, now at the Bulwark about what to expect when you are expecting a presidential debate. See you then.