Episode 3 Beyond the Headlines American Journalism at a Crossroads

Afternoon, everyone. Richard Schreiber here with Tom Martin, and this is True Journalism. In 1945, the government blocked a single company from owning many radio stations because they called it a monopoly on the mind. Today, the ink is drying on a deal that puts CBS and CNN The two pillars of American broadcast history under the control of a private group with direct loyalty to the White House and what this means from a news perspective. You won't see a government agent sitting in the newsroom, but you don't need one when the owner has the president's cell number on speed dial. This isn't a merger. It's an acquisition of the truth itself. Tom, over to you.

Um, yeah, no, I'm definitely interested in discussing this. I've worked at both CBS News and CNN, and not to sound like an old-timer or whatever, I, I appreciate it when some old friends of mine talk about the Edward R. Murrow days or Cronkite or even Dan Rather for that matter. So it's, there are changes underway. It's concerning.

And it's interesting, Tom, that for 40 years, uh, we were taught, even beginning back in journalism school, which was, ooh, I don't want to go there, but a few years back, we were taught that news was like a loss leader to television stations and networks. It was something that networks ran for prestige and as a public service. Exactly. And even though they ended up being loss leaders, they didn't make money. But those days, of course, are gone because what we're now seeing is the state media model where newsrooms aren't just businesses anymore. Of course, we know in the 1990s, many of the news outlets were acquired by major corporations and then sponsors and editorial control was under siege because newsrooms were now held kind of accountable for the sponsors. And the famous instances where 60 Minutes was denied running a story that was critical of one of their big sponsors. And I'm sure there are other instances.

Well, I apologize for interrupting, but I just want to say I think it's important to remember that we can chart the alarm on a spectrum. I belong to a number of these groups on Facebook and LinkedIn about CBS alumni and all of that kind of thing. And I came across one post the other day, maybe it was even yesterday, a guy who was a member of the Atlanta bureau of CBS News. And it's logical to think that a major national news organization should have offices in New York, LA, Chicago, Atlanta, you know, the big markets, all that. And he said, when Larry Tisch came in again, I was there during those days. This was the mid-1980s. I was caught in two different, like, lay off 200 people, lay off 300 people. Hey, I'm doing, I think, a great job, young assistant producer or whatever. And I just couldn't resist posting there. It's like he was the original Larry Tisch, owner of Loews Hotels, was the original MyPillow guy. And so there's always been that commercial interest, that factor. And so whether the people in charge and who lead the board of directors, the investors are willing to accept, like you just said, that it's a civic responsibility or just say, no guys, it's the bottom line. But that kind of debate has always been part of it for decades now, really.

Yeah. The bottom line aspect I can understand. There was a, there was an old saying that a business deal that loses money is a bad business deal. And regardless, you should try to avoid that. So it's not surprising that at some point in a capitalist society that people started to, and Larry Tisch being one of the forerunners, started to realize that news has to make money like any other part of the business. But I think what we're seeing today is that news organizations are now becoming political assets. They're no longer just moneymakers. And we know that they obviously generate a lot of revenue. We know that Fox and MSNBC, MSNBC now are very profitable. And it's a ratings game. It's a battle over viewership. And we know how that's affected the journalism tone in these stations. But now we've taken it one step further, whereas we always knew Fox News was particularly aligned with a conservative voice, MSNBC on the other side. But now they've gone one step further. And I think this happened over the last election process where many people accused Fox News as essentially being a propaganda engine for Donald Trump. And of course, they paid that landmark $800 million fine or settlement to that foreign country that, or foreign company rather, that built all the voting machines that they persistently attacked as being part of it. Dominion voting machines, which was totally disproven. And, uh, because Fox News chose to parrot the Trump line hook and sinker, what is it? Hook and sinker. In particular, one of their news anchors who ultimately lost his job over that, who's now an interesting character running his own podcast, getting lots of eyes, and that's Tucker Carlson, who's actually become a bit of a thorn, ironically. In the Trump MAGA administration being very critical of Israel and the Epstein files. More recently, ironically, don't know if he got a conscience or if it just makes good sense from viewership standpoint to, uh, I think—

I believe her, actually, but excuse me.

Yeah.

No, I don't know. And with our president currently upset with 2 of the 3 justices who he installed on the Supreme Court. In recent days, I wouldn't be surprised the way Fox News is the audition ground for different cabinet secretaries and what have you. I wouldn't be surprised to see Jeanine Pirro there on the Supreme Court.

We laugh over that, but it's not unfortunately a funny time. And as journalists, again, we both went through the Nixon era. We know that the Justice Department, the, even though they were complicit, I think in some of the coverup. But the three houses of government, the three, the three pillars of government managed to hold up during those times. And in fact, were instrumental in effectively forcing Nixon out. This time, of course, we know that's not the case. And we also know on top of that, there's no Washington Post or what's left of it after a third of the employees got laid off recently by Jeff Bezos.

Exactly. A crime. And again, I don't know if our audience will be interested in this. I thought it was significant. But I often look at the, the homepage of the New York Times at the end of the night or whatever, and came across an article that they ran a day or two ago that said that the book section of the Washington Post has been killed as part of that massive layoffs by Jeff Bezos. I lived in Washington, D.C. for many years, got my start there in the news business there in Washington and so on, went to college there, and I grew up in a family that really appreciates appreciated books. I still appreciate books, but just to continue the dumbing down of the population. Some people say, oh, that's an elitist lecture here. Okay. But it's sad to see developments like that.

I see. So reading a book is an elitist proposition. Meanwhile, our declining academic scores, where has that led us? We're what, 36th in the world now in academic standards? Which is ludicrous and which is largely the reason why a lot of Americans— people joke about the average American can't name the 50 states or can't name the 3 branches of government and things like that. That's not a joke. That's a reality. And to characterize people who do know the answer to that as elitist, no, we're just, we just paid attention in school. We just got a good education.

The most of the people who know the answers to those questions are now being evicted from our nation.

The irony of that is, Tom, as you probably know, is the immigrant part of our nation, those who have gotten their immigration status or their citizenship, know more about America and its mechanisms than our own citizens. That's a cautionary tale when just being informed is labeled as being elitist. Because that's a, that's another part of this dumbing down that you talk about. And it's no matter what your political leanings are, and we're not here to talk about them, being informed and making an informed decision is your inalienable right. Don't give that up by falling victim to demagoguery and soundbites on any media, left or right.

Absolutely.

Hey, we're here to tell you that make an informed decision. That is your duty as an American citizen, just like jury duty and other things, right? If you show up for jury duty, you're supposed to make it, make an informed decision based on the facts and ask questions. That's how you should be approaching your news consumption in the same way you do jury duty. Yeah. Enough of my soapbox for today. But what were some of the feelings going? 'Cause I know you're an avid CNN watcher and as have I been, who hasn't? We talked about the fact that they were the first cable news network invited to actually appear at a war. George H.W. Bush invited CNN to basically film the entire original Gulf War, the first Gulf War, which is an example of where the government and the news, in this case, the CNN, were on this, were basically working in collaboration.

Yeah. I remember back in the early 1980s, again, I was producing, I was just getting started then. Actually, when I wrote about this, I wrote about that. Maybe I just posted on Facebook. I should write a Substack essay about this. But when I was like my first year getting started in the TV news business, I was working there in the Washington bureau and bringing people to sit in the chair, connect with the New York broadcast center to be interviewed for a middle of the night show called Nightwatch, which— oh yes, I tell you all this is because that was the early days when programming was beginning to expand and CNN again, that night, early 1980s. And one night the security guard at the front desk called upstairs and said, there's a guy here. He says he's here for an interview. Don't think we have anyone on the schedule tonight. I went down and it was Jesse Jackson. And of course, no one tells Jesse— told Jesse Jackson no. He wanted to be interviewed. I'm here to be interviewed. And we damn well interviewed him. It was a fun experience meeting that great man. I do remember when CNN was starting up, and it's interesting, a few minutes ago, you and I were talking about commercial pressures and they're understandable and so on. Let's remember, let's think back. CNN was born from the vision of Ted Turner, who had a billboard business based in Atlanta. So there was a commercial business and he felt the calling to do something bigger for the people. And if you remember way back when, it was very internationally oriented and they had like global peace initiatives and maybe some people like, who the hell are you to do things like this? But you have to give Ted Turner credit for—

Absolutely.

The commercial dollars and cents bottom line to have create something like that. It's interesting.

Yeah. Ted Turner was a visionary, as we all know. And in addition, he founded obviously TBS, TNT, and the Superstation in Atlanta, which became the springboard for CNN. And yeah, he really made the transition from local news. Of course, we had network news. But to 24/7 cable news. And it all started from his studio in Atlanta. TBS. Yeah. WTBS in Atlanta, Georgia.

But what do you think, Mark? Well, I guess I just wanted to throw in again to 99% of me is inclined not to like the new leader of CBS News who was brought in by the Ellison family and fired a lot of people and wants to bring in some opinion pundits and so on. But when she had led an all-staff meeting recently, she said, we need to evolve with the times. And I know you and I have been writing for Substack. She came out in that Substack world. And so it's true that the world of media and information and technology obviously is evolving. So part of me understands that. I don't like the thoughts and the positions and all of that and the baggage that goes along with it, but You know, perhaps it was inevitable that a station that started with, or a network that started with William Paley from this cigar company, or 190 years later, is going to have some changes. I don't know.

I hate to see things change too much, but the more things change, the more they stay the same. In the news business, there are certain guidelines and protocols that have traditionally been followed, and I'm not sure what bringing up the modern-day aspect of news is. I think that's just another word game around positioning the editorial content of the network, unfortunately, to be more consistent with the political element.

Right. Alternate truth. Which truth do you want?

And even though Kellyanne Conway said there are alternate facts, we know that's not quite the case. And But yeah, I mean, there were— truth is a consequence of our beliefs and our bias. There are many truths. So if she had said there are alternate truths, that would be a correct statement, but not alternate facts. And in fact, yeah, in fact, I did an analysis of the, of President Trump's speech, State of the Nation speech, purely from a data point standpoint. And there were 28 specific data points, statistics that he cited in his presentation, anything from the number of immigrants to the price of goods, the impact on tariffs, et cetera. Out of 28 data points, all but 2 were either untrue or exaggerated. The only 2 that he got right was the price of eggs. And the fact that Charlie Kirk was assassinated. Everything else was an exaggeration or dead-on untrue. Even, even things like inflation. Inflation under Joe Biden hit 9.1% at its highest. Yes, that's awful, but it was 14% under Ronald Reagan. Okay. And by the time Trump took office, it was 3.1%. So Joe Biden's administration had already cycled through inflation by the time he handed it off to Donald Trump. It's, again, these are, you could check the facts. Don't believe me. These are the facts, babe. Don't believe me. You can look it up yourself, as I think there was a famous journalist who said that. But I wanted to circle back to CNN because I know you've had a lot of, I know that you didn't work there necessarily, but knew many of the journalists, producers.

Yes, I worked there for a couple of years. Well, start of the internet movement. That's like '98 through 2001. CNN Financial News, actually.

Ah, then I stand corrected. Were you with Lou Dobbs? Was he there at that time?

I actually moved into his office when he moved somewhere else. They had an office there near Grand Central Station. Near Hudson Yards or something like that.

But CNN, because they were the first and because they were created by Ted Turner,, and the idea was to be a 24/7 public service for America. You can argue whether or not it was overkill or whatnot, but they set the early standard for reporting.

Um, and there's also, and just in speaking of the Fairness Doctrine and equal time, there is an aspect of CNN. I still watch CNN quite extensively. I guess you could probably not, but there's one aspect of it. Every once in a while does drive me crazy. Back in the '80s, I think late '80s, I spent a year working for CNN just down the hall from Larry King in Washington, DC for a show. I don't remember the show called Crossfire.

The dead—

yeah, I've written this book about this man. Yeah. And so that was like the first show where you have people yelling at one another. I also got to know William F. Buckley because I, for some reason, was very intrigued with him. And I brought him in to be interviewed by Charlie Rose quite a lot. I worked for that Crossfire show at CNN for a year. And so these days when I hear people yelling, when there's, I can't even hear what's going on, or no, CNN feels somewhat obligated to bring on an extreme right winger here.

It's like, so I don't know. Yeah. But that's a great point because, and then I remembered another show that I used to watch religiously in the '80s and '90s and even 2000s. That was run by David Brinkley and it was called, it was on Sunday morning and it had Sam Donaldson, who obviously was a famous reporter who had the nerve to stand up Ronald Reagan with questions. He was, Cokie Roberts, I think, ultimately succeeded David Brinkley. David Brinkley, the longtime anchor for Channel 4 back in the days, even of Huntley Report, which I remember as a kid. But they also had a conservative voice on there named George Will, who I happened to, I happened to like a lot because he was, he was very grounded, very eloquent, obviously incredible writer, still is. But I also found most of what he said was fact-based. And even though I didn't necessarily agree with him, I found it very difficult to not appreciate the fact that on balance, he was fair-minded. And as time went along, he was critical of the Bush administration, the second Bush administration, because they did not espouse true conservative values. They called them out on it. And of course, he has plenty to talk about with the current regime because they're anything but conservative. But it was good to see that there was this balance and the exchanges that he had with Sam Donaldson and on the show at times got a little rancorous, but they were always respectful. And in the end, one side or the other kind of agreed or were able to part as friends kind of thing.

Yeah, that's a great point. And if I remember correctly, and if he's still around, I saw something he was interviewed recently or something like that, George Will. But if I remember correctly, he always— and he would come into CBS News there in Washington every once in a while to be—

yeah.

But if I remember correctly, he, like Doris Kearns Goodwin or somebody like that, he grounded his— and she's more of a pure historian— but George Will would ground his points in history.

Yes.

Like a lot of quote-unquote commentators and analysts, like, just him just throwing that out the window now, like we're totally unwell from any reference to that. So it's terrible. And then you used the R-word, respect, and I was just offended by the recent Attorney General Pam Bondi hearing. It was— I'm a social media addict, I must admit. So I found a couple of people doing parodies of that. If you went on a blind date with the woman who said, excuse me, you're viewers. So what kind of hearing was that? That was just—

it was a spectacle for sure. And I know my wife and I like to follow on social media. There are doctors who monitor these, those proceedings and actually can interpret the body language, the facial expressions. And I told my wife, I almost feel sorry for Pam Bondi. My wife, who is a Republican who voted for George Bush twice and is a woman, a feisty woman, says, don't you dare feel sorry for her. She made the bed that she's in and slept in. And even though you could tell from, she's, she was ready to just scream like a primal scream in that meeting. She took a lot of heavy hits on both sides. There, it wasn't just partisan Democrat stuff. Obviously there were a few Democrats that were really vociferous. One, one from California, I know, and Jasmine Crockett spent her 5 minutes reading basically a laundry list of all of Pam Bondi's misgivings, and every single one was factual. But I, but again, I felt sorry for the fact that our institution has gone so far that, or so far in the wrong direction that this kind of spectacle would happen. First of all, yeah, the many things that happened that Pam Bondi did not address. There's an old saying, you reap what you sow. It's, it really was very disheartening as an American and certainly an American respects journalism. And respects the governmental— government process to see something like that. And I think that's a consequence of a lot of players in this current administration. Kash Patel has been caught out on the crop— on the carpet for his misgivings lately with downing a jet that could have been used to possibly stave off a school massacre, showing up in the locker room of the men's hockey team while taxpayers paid for his trip there. Of course, lying under oath in front of a congressional, uh, that same congressional hearing, which, under normal circumstances, would have resulted in his immediate impeachment. Clearly, and these, this is not meant to be a political statement. This is a total breakdown in who we are as Americans being played out right in front of us on the press. And it, this kind of fodder I know is just, it's not good for the nation. It's great for eyeballs. It's great. Same thing with this persistent Jeffrey Epstein story. I hope and pray someday we do get to resolution on that. And I'll just say that it doesn't matter who is ultimately tried and convicted on whatever those crimes are. And one of the, one of the analogies that I drew a little while ago is people in the government, people who did these kinds of things. Should remember the Nuremberg trials and remember how "I was only following orders" was punishable even by death back in 1947, thanks to the Nuremberg trials. And there will be a day where people who have done what they've done will be held accountable. And, you know, that— I believe that's God's will. And I just— what concerns me is what the media will do with that. And I'm sure they're licking their chops on both sides. It's that reality would be the media event of a lifetime. And unfortunately, that kind of takes away from what the purpose should be, which is accountability, not the media getting an incredible windfall from TV ratings.

I was, I was enjoying this. You probably might not like this comment, but I always enjoyed the comedy of George Carlin and like, I met him in a computer shop. And so we had a little conversation, which was fun, but he had lines like, we should take one of those square states like Kansas and fence it in and just put all the people there. Friday night executions. Like you're referring to this. You offend my sensibilities, but it's just, I know what you mean. There, there are. People out there salivating for, won't that be great media?

If and when it does happen, and again, if we are a nation that treasures our democracy, the rule of law and those kinds of things, it will happen. It's unfortunate that it happened being of German descent. I remember the Nuremberg trials, studied it. I wouldn't give, I wouldn't give my people any slack. I was only following orders. No, you had a moral obligation. You could have said no. And same thing with all of those powerful people that were on Jeffrey Epstein's island. The interesting part of that, and the last statement I'll say about that, is as we see more and more unravel with that, it's not just, it's almost like the pedophilia was the education, that was the entertainment. The real things that were going on there were the power broking, you know, between, well, they said that between nations, between current, formerly known as Prince Andrew, who was revealing pivotal secrets about trade secrets. Exactly. And back and forth with certainly other people across the aisle. It's, it's unfortunate that in a nutshell, The media benefits from these kinds of catastrophic events that tear at the very fiber and heart and soul of America. And that, dialing back again to if this were CNN 30 years ago, I don't get the feeling that's how it would be reported because it should be reported with, with some soberness and, and not of course how we know that it will be. How would you acknowledge the tone? Being at CNN years ago has changed and modified with CNN over the years?

It did take a more— I'm not even sure what adjectives to use, but a more statesmanlike demeanor where there's a sense of responsibility. Again, think back to Bernie Shaw and then Edward R. Ness and people like that. It's like they were— there was Edward R. Murrow, I think. Yeah. Still, I still think that Christiane Amanpour has some of those qualities. I'm not going to go into the gutter. And the others are not terrible, but things have changed. And actually I remember a slight pivot that I remember. I like Anderson Cooper very much, but I remember vividly when, and half my family comes from New Orleans on my mother's side. And so I remember when her, when, when Anderson Cooper went down there to cover Hurricane Katrina and he was saying the government needs to be more involved, blah, blah, blah. And I'm thinking, wow, here's a news anchor who's like taking a stand and he's telling us his thoughts. So it's like things are 50— it was perhaps very appropriate and it wasn't really pushing a political agenda too much, but it was like, wow, that's so unusual to be hearing that. And that's why maybe it was a little before your time and my time. I think we were kids at the time, but when they said Walter Cronkite suggested that America has lost the Vietnam War, that's when things began to change. We better get out of Vietnam. The fact that you would have like a garbage statement going out a little bit on a limb.

Now it's like, right. But as you recall, and you mentioned this in the past, it was Edward R. Murrow that was, that had a big hand in, in getting Joseph McCarthy, essentially that whole, that whole part of our history to move on.

I thought that play, and I think that was before our time. We're old enough now that I think that was before. 50s, but I thought I did see the telecast of George Clooney's Good Night and Good Luck in Brockton. And I find that a very interesting dynamic where, I don't know if it was William Paley, but he was saying, we really need to keep doing this story. And he wasn't saying this will really screw us with advertising or something, but there was that kind of discussion. It wasn't just a no-brainer.

So it's— Oh yeah. Even back then, even I remember in the '60s and '70s, The editorial position of news statements and news stations and networks, when they crossed the line, still there was, there were rebuttals from the government, maybe not so much from advertisers until, see, until 60 Minutes started going after the tobacco industry and all a lot of institutions and bad agents. Then CBS started to feel pressure from advertisers. But they always seem to be above that up until, I don't know, just recently. It's for sure.

Yeah.

And you mentioned the Fairness Doctrine. It was interesting. I went back and reviewed what that was and it was originally produced. It was originally passed in 1949 and by the FCC, and it required broadcast license holders to present controversial issues of public importance in a balanced manner, and it was rooted in the scarcity rationale, which you and I both know from our dabbling in the personal development space. The idea is because back then broadcast frequencies were a limited public resource, and those granted a license had to really serve the people and meet certain public interest standards rather than their own private viewpoints. Yeah. But in the '80s, when things started to open up, the Reagan administration said, no, we, it's no longer really a scarcity mindset. We've got more media outlets, more newspapers, television, radio stations. There are more people that are able to espouse all the different opinions and whatnot. We no longer should be throttling back or inhibiting stations to the sense that they can only represent this one view or this one viewpoint, or that they're not able to opinionate and do these other things. So in 1987, the Fairness Doctrine was abolished by the Congress, attempted to reinstate it, but President Reagan vetoed the legislation. And that's really been widely seen, as we've talked before, as the turning point in the American media and spawned a whole host of ideological opinion-driven radio stations. Obviously Rush Limbaugh, probably the most. And a lot of those came from the conservative side because most of the media outlets up until the '80s were predominantly owned by liberal, certain liberal-leaning newspeople and people in that sense.

So you might call it the Goodfellas FCC era or something like that.

Yeah. It's hard to say there at this point, whatever the FCC used to be, they're not fulfilling that role anymore, clearly. So yeah, so that the fair— the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine spawned all the talk radio and all of the opinion-making and all of the demagoguery that's now pretty, pretty evident on all really news media, not just one of the only—

Would you agree that quashing that Stephen Colbert interview with that Texas candidate really, I think it backfired a little?

No, it did, because he ended up getting what, 5 or 6 million views on YouTube when he did do the interview. I don't know if that's the same as his late night audience, probably not. But, yeah, he was, he, he was able to still have the interview done. And most of us who saw it thought it was effective and also thought it was a total misuse. Ironically, what they were trying to do, the other side, was use elements of the Fairness Doctrine, equal time, which are no longer a factor. How can you insist on equal time when you have all these podcasters and all these people all over the place where none of that is tracked, none of that is reported on? It was a disingenuous kind of application of a law that had already been repealed. And quite shocking that people on a certain side of the fence actually used that wording against CBS. That's another thing that we're seeing today, I think, in aspects of journalism is there's a lot of spin and there's a lot of positioning that goes on and the lines between news reporting And opinion have been blurred, as we know, for so long that, that it's difficult. And then on top of that, you know, we've always talked about how the truth and the fact-based elements that the news used to represent are pretty much under siege. It's true.

It's true. It's an interesting time. I appreciate that we get to share conversations like this because hopefully for our audience who may not have heard about some of the aspects that we're covering here, but they might dig into it a little bit deeper and notice that these things are going on. It's like you mentioned how we're both interested in the personal development movement. That's how we met years ago. And, and I've heard so many coaches and speakers and seminar leaders say, don't listen to the news. It's so depressing. It'll— your anxiety will skyrocket. And I can't imagine not listening to the news. That seems irresponsible. So more, far better to put it in perspective and be like a critical consumer, an educated consumer.

An educated consumer. Yeah. A note to Sy Sims, rest his soul. But no, you're right about that. I think there's a tremendous responsibility to look at the news with a fact-based, unbiased, and even-handed point of view. And it's difficult. We all have our own beliefs. We all have our own value system. We all have our own bias and in particular unconscious bias. No matter what we try to do, we're still looking at the news from within our own filters. But if you just look at it from the standpoint of, geez, there is another side to this, right? And there's nothing wrong with me trying to understand that. Because that will give me more clarity perhaps on my side of the equation. It's like the one thing in society, last point on this, that's really, we can't have debates anymore, right? Remember back in high school, you put your hand in a hat, pick out a little strip of paper that said you're supposed to have a debate on this, and you take one side, the other person takes another side.

What led, I was very involved in one of these narrative high school debaters in Miami in the '70s, and that led me to Georgetown University. That was number— the number one collegiate debate program in America. I think the head of that program, like, moderated— I'm not— maybe not moderated, but helped organize the first Kennedy-Nixon debate, which was so legendary. But again, as you said, you'd have 4 rounds at a debate tournament every day, maybe 3 days in a row at Yale or Harvard or something. Okay, you're the affirmative. This year's proposition is such and such a topic, put forth a plan. And they're like, oh shit, what are we going to say? I mean, it was very good. I never, I guess it was great preparation for government. If you can just pick a side and just go to town with being here, arguments. I think my son would be great at that.

But to be a great debater, you have the paradoxes. You have to be a great listener because you have to listen to the other side's viewpoint and listen for the access points. And we're aware in what they say that give you the opportunity to run counterpoint. If all you're doing is demagoguery and just forcing your own opinion on somebody, that's not debating. That's right. And it's not even effective. And that's to your point, what we hear predominantly on the airwaves today.

So I totally agree.

Yes, sir. But hopefully we will get beyond that. I guess we'll wrap up. Here as good as any point. I'm Richard Schreiber, and by the way, law firm AI expert behind me. I'm an AI strategist and consultant helping law firms and small businesses to automate and use solutions to give them back their time and better their bottom lines. And it's been a pleasure and my honor and privilege this week. And Tom, who are you?

Thank you. Yeah, thanks, Richard. Yeah, no, I'm active in the public relations feel these days. Again, I spent my first 20 years as a media guy with these different television networks and so on, and then pivoted into PR. And I really, you know, after all, after listening to what we just discussed, you might feel, oh my gosh, this is a terrible time to express my opinion. And I, maybe I should just lie low. But the fact is, I really believe this is a great time to get your opinions out there because there's a lot of change and the conversational marketplace is rich with opportunity right now. And I help people get their books out and their voices out. That's what I love to do.

I know you pick projects for people who are informed and not likely going to participate in harmful propaganda.

So I've had people say you should become a political—

that's, that's the easy way out.

It's more, more challenging and difficult to do what we do, and that's to try to understand things from a more fair-minded, you know, people that want to make a difference and their hearts are in the right place so they can really help others with their lives. I love being around people like that. I know you're, I know you're all about that as well.

Indeed. And I know you have an upcoming coaching series and, and class coming up on PR. So we'll drop that information in our thing, in our notes here. And as well, I have a class that I'm teaching to help small to medium-sized lawyers to identify some of the areas in their business that are bogging them down time-wise and we can help them out with the better solutions. So until next time, have a wonderful afternoon, evening, or whatever it may be. And I'll throw it to Tom to close us out with Ed Murrow.

Exactly. As Ed always said, good night and good luck.

Yes, indeed. Goodbye, everybody.