Catherine Herridge recounts CBS seizing her Hunter Biden laptop investigation files in February, calling it politically motivated, while defending its forensic integrity against fabrication claims. She pushes for unedited Biden debate transcripts to expose cognitive decline, criticizing media’s edited clips as misleading, and ties Hunter’s pending FARA/tax trials to his father’s re-election timing. Her independent reporting on a vaccinated soldier’s ignored injuries contrasts with corporate media’s suppression, fueling her shift to platforms like X, where she warns the Press Act is vital to shield sources or risk crippling investigative journalism—now her legal battleground. The episode frames legacy media’s decline as a corporate betrayal, with Herridge’s border security probe and Carlson’s YouTube censorship claims underscoring the fight for transparency in an era where truth often thrives outside traditional gatekeepers. [Automatically generated summary]
One of our sons asked me, Mom, are you going to go to jail?
And I wanted to tell him that in this country where we say we value...
I get a little choked up when I think about it, but in this country where we say we value democracy and we value a vigorous press, that it was impossible.
Okay, so I just have to ask you, because you're...
I was in television a long time also, but you were in the news side of television preparing...
Interviews and packages and every day for decades.
And given your extensive knowledge of that, I'm just a little bit confused by how the media, people in our business, former business, could look at the last debate with Biden and Trump and say, I just can't believe that there's something wrong with him, that he's neurologically compromised or ill or senile or whatever, that he's not operating the way that he used to.
How could this be news to people who've interviewed him before?
Well, I think this is a real opportunity to gather more data and to take an investigative lens and look at this issue of President Biden and his decision to seek re-election.
We've got some data points already.
We have the debate that you've just referenced that people were so surprised at his demeanor.
And we now have this ABC interview and the full transcript.
I think it's a moment where other media organizations I think it makes sense because we'd have broader data points to assess, was this a one-off, as the White House says, or were there indications of decline earlier on?
Were they obvious and apparent, or were they subtle and missed?
And if they were obvious, why was it that they seemed to end up on the cutting room floor?
I think that having this broader data set for an independent review would really inform the public discussion about the president's decision to stay in the race.
I mean, I've known Biden, watched Biden, been around Biden a lot for over 30 years.
And I remember my reaction in 2019 when he decided to run once again for president for the fourth time, I think.
I thought, that's not the guy I... No, I mean, he's just completely different.
And then his sister told a friend of mine, actually, we're very upset because he's in cognitive decline, he's got some neurological illness, and we don't want him to run for president.
Do they show someone who is, you know, very consistent, very focused?
Do we have the transcripts?
I mean, it's not standard to release video outtakes from an interview, but you could release the transcript.
And I say that as someone who released a transcript of my interview with President Trump back in 2020. Releasing a transcript, I think...
It's about transparency, so you can have a broad overview of the interview.
I think it makes sense because there are other headlines.
In the interview that maybe your news organization is not going to look at, per se.
You know, just sort of separately, I think you have a tremendous responsibility when you sit down with the President of the United States, probably the ultimate newsmaker, to ask questions that are of interest to your news organization, but also to others, right?
And then finally, I think a transcript allows you to stand behind the edit that you either post online or that you broadcast, right?
Because then the public can see.
The sections of the interview that you, you know, condensed or you made edits for clarification.
So I know that in, I haven't thought about this enough, but I know that in 2015 or 2016, the New York Times editorial board sat down with Trump and they released a full, apparently unedited transcript, which was chaotic.
His speaking style tends to be a little discursive.
Again, you were in this business for so long, and me too, and at a time, you know, pre-internet, pre-streaming, where you have a very small chunk of time, three, five, six minutes for the long ones, and then you just can't use the rest.
But now, news organizations should just put the whole thing, I mean, that's what we do.
This interview is not edited in any way.
And if...
We'll just let viewers decide what they think of Katherine Harris or me or whatever.
So what would be the excuse that, say, NBC or CBS or ABC or Fox or anybody would have to not put the full thing online now?
I mean, I can't speak to what their rationale would be.
I just don't.
In my case, I felt it was important to release a transcript, to allow people to see the work, and to also...
I mean, it's hard to look at your own transcript because you look at it and you say, That question could have been more focused, or I should have followed up more, or I missed that little piece of news I should have drilled down a little further, or I interrupted there when I really shouldn't have.
I mean, it's really kind of warts-and-all process that you're looking at, but it's about sort of the raw integrity of the interview.
You know, when you make edits in an interview, you do it for clarity.
Sometimes you do it because you have to condense things, because you only have a certain amount of time on a broadcast.
But it's a real fine line and a balancing act.
And you don't want seeking clarity and brevity or condensing it to cross the line into a cleanup on aisle seven.
Well, I think the instinct when you sit down with the President of the United States is, this is your President, you want them to look their best.
I mean, I understand that.
But if there were indicators, and I don't know there were, but if there were indicators that he was in decline or he was really struggling to answer a series of questions, I mean, that's news, right?
Well, and the opposite of news is, of course, You know, censorship and deception.
So if you're hiding that, then you're committing, well, a moral crime, but you're also committing an offense against the profession that you chose, whose purpose is to inform the public of what reality is, right?
And you're hiding things rather than exposing them.
I mean, that's a pretty clear violation, isn't it?
I never agreed with him, but I'm a shallow person.
So is he.
So I always kind of liked him, because he's an Irish guy, throw his arm around you.
How you doing, buddy?
Rub your chest.
Maybe he sniffed me.
I don't care.
I like sniffing.
And that's just not the guy.
On TV at all.
Like, at all.
I mean, if I was a conspiracy nut, I would think he was a body double because it's that different.
So, anyway.
In your long and varied career working in a bunch of different big media, the biggest media outlets in the country, did you see people's political or social agendas shape news coverage a lot?
I think it's difficult for people to step back and do what I like to say I do, which is balls and strikes, right?
People have their own personal lens through which they see stories.
But I think you have to really park that at the front door when you go to work because I think that's when you have the most transparent, credible, authentic journalism.
Jennings had just left London by the time I had arrived.
I wanted to be a foreign correspondent.
You know, when you're that young, you have ideas.
It looks so exciting to me.
And some of the correspondents in the office really took me under their wing and taught me how to write a story by looking at the interviews, the strongest elements of the interview, the sound bites, and then they trained me to really sit down and look at the video and identify the strongest video, and then the natural sound, which really can be such an important...
Boy, you know, I used to say to people that, you know, technology was supposed to really improve our ability to do journalism, but I sometimes felt that the technology's never been better, but the reporting's never been worse.
You know, when you think back to major events, I was in New York on 9-11 and we were down near...
The World Trade Center in the days right afterwards.
And I saw someone who was collecting ash off the top of the cars.
And at that point, we'd realized that all of the abandoned cars in downtown Manhattan belonged to people who had been killed in the towers.
And I stopped this woman and I asked her what she was doing.
And she said, my sister was in the Windows on the World at the top of the World Trade Center.
She didn't survive, and I want to have something to bury for my family, so the ash is what I'm collecting.
And that was the moment that I realized that so much of the ash that was spread around the city was really people and the buildings, and that kind of tactile feel to the reporting is the kind of reporting that really impacts people and stays with them.
And I don't know whether it's the technology or whether it's sort of the immediacy of all these deadlines, but the ability to do that.
But there are beat reporters, people who've, you know, covering federal agencies, particularly in Washington, who become captive to those agencies, to their sources, you know, not in a literal sense.
They're not held in the basement in chains, but they're, I mean, they are sort of puppets of the people they cover.
Like, I really noticed that.
I'm thinking of one.
I'm not going to name, but I would just say a female national security reporter in Washington.
And I would watch these, you know, stories come out.
I'd be like, well, that's a lie.
You know it's a lie.
And you're doing it on behalf of the people who feed you these lies.
One thing I've always loved about you, I don't even know who you vote for, and I mean that, but I did notice that a lot of the flax didn't like you, so I always thought that was a good sign.
You want to have the ability to really operate outside the ring.
I used to say that...
One of the advantages to doing reporting, as long as I've done it, is that you start to build a network of contacts so that that's really where your stories are coming from.
And that the public affairs office and a major government entity is really the last stop for you.
That's where you're trying to get some response.
And I really believe in giving these offices ample time to respond.
I did a story recently where we engaged with the Department of the Army and the National Guard for two weeks.
I mean, we really gave them time because we wanted to understand their position and what had happened in a particular case.
But sometimes the danger is that people become too close.
That's why I think it makes sense in some cases to really rotate reporters so that you don't spend so long on a certain beat that you start to lose your contact sort of outside of that circle.
Listen, I've never been a manager, but it just seems to me when I worked overseas, I saw this with some of the British news organizations, that they would rotate people into the United States for a few years and then they would take them back to Britain.
So they would be there through an election cycle, let's say, they'd be there long enough to build contacts and then they would go back overseas and someone else would come in.
So you'd have a fresh set of eyes and ears.
And I think that that makes a lot of sense.
It can be a little frustrating for a reporter because on some beats it takes you a decade or more to really start to build the contacts and the reputation with individuals.
But I do think that you...
You have to check yourself.
You have to ask yourself, am I really checking it out to the degree that I need to be?
As Professor Blood would say, just because your mother says she loves you doesn't mean you should not check it out.
Any attention at all to what's going on in the world, you've probably asked yourself, what would I do, not just for myself, but for the people who love me and I'm responsible for, my family, what would I do if things really went south, either for a short period or a longer period?
If there was an emergency, how would I respond?
Of course, you need food and water.
You need security, some way to protect yourself and your loved ones.
You probably have taken care of all of that.
But one problem you may not have addressed is what do you do about medicine?
If there's a medical problem when there's not readily available medical care, what do you do for your family?
But what's so interesting is if you're General Motors and you have a sort of monopoly on your area, and all of a sudden some guy starts building cars in his garage and They're more popular than you.
You know, for example, you did some interviews that related to the Biden investigation, and these were, you know, 90 million views or sometimes higher, but these are big numbers.
And when you compare that to what an evening news broadcast is, you know, 4 million, 7 million, 6 million, I mean, you're just reaching a broader, larger global.
But it leaves that answer to the question, how did this happen?
How did, you know, penniless upstarts beat, you know, the entrenched monopolies?
And I just know in my own life, the only moments of growth that have ever occurred for me, the pivot points in my life have all been those moments where I'm like, wow, I really suck.
That was a very big deal for us because we have a son who's a transplant patient.
He's got chronic medical condition.
And then I had my record seized.
By my employer, which was a red line I thought should never have been crossed.
And then I was held in contempt of court.
So February was a very, very big month for me.
But I made a decision once I'd educated myself about the marketplace, which I would never have done if there hadn't been that forcing function, that for now I was going to go independent.
I'd had some opportunities, generous opportunities, to sort of go back to a large corporate media outlet.
But I decided that I would go independent and I would tell the stories that I couldn't tell before because I was at a point in my career where I had built up a network of contacts and I felt now is the time.
And I was locked out of my email and locked out of the office.
And a couple of days later, a courier came to the house with just a couple of boxes of clothing and some books and a few awards.
And I said, where are all my investigative files and my research and my reporting notes?
And she said, you're just going to have to talk to human resources about that.
And I got the union involved, SAG, AFTRA. I'm not going to go into all the details, but there was a very vigorous back and forth about returning the records.
You know, what I would say is that there were interview notes, research, reporter notes, contact information.
And when I had left other major organizations, ABC and Fox, it was completely different.
There was an understanding that you would go through your materials, you would take with you what was essentially your reporting materials, and you would leave what belonged to the company.
And I knew from people at CBS that what was happening to me was not standard.
One person in particular said that when their office was cleaned out, they put in dirty coffee cups and Post-it notes.
I think if the union hadn't gotten involved and there hadn't been a public outcry, I would never have...
Seeing those records again, the union really stood up for journalism.
And I testified that when the network of Walter Cronkite seizes your reporting information, including confidential source information, it's an attack on investigative journalism.
And I heard from contacts that I've worked with over the years who helped me to expose government wrongdoing and corruption that they were very concerned that they would be identified.
It was a very sad episode for me, just professionally and personally, because I thought that we had done some really tremendous work on not only the laptop, but also the IRS whistleblowers.
I mean, this was a major story for CBS News.
Did an interview along with one of my colleagues, and I think that really changed the public discussion of the Hunter Biden investigation and this question of whether there was a double standard applied in that case.
I would think about the Hunter Biden case as having two buckets.
The first was the gun charges, and then the second is this tax case.
I've always felt the tax case is a much more serious case and has the greatest legal jeopardy for himself and members of his family.
I'd encourage people just to look at the indictment, which is in California, and my memory is that it's on the first page or the second page.
They refer to him as a lobbyist.
And that, to me, is an indicator that the special counsel is exploring whether there are violations of FARA, which is the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
And that, in simple terms, means that if you're working on behalf of the interests of a foreign government, you need to be clear with the U.S. government.
And I guess what has my attention is that over the last couple of years, there has been such an effort by the White House to distance the president from his son, especially in terms of business affairs.
Most of us – well, actually all of us – go through our daily lives using all sorts of, quote, free technology.
Without paying attention to why it's, quote, free.
Who's paying for this and how?
Think about it for a minute.
Think about your free email account, the free messenger system used to chat with your friends, the free weather app or game app you open up and never think about.
It's all free.
But is it?
No, it's not free.
These companies aren't developing expensive products and just giving them to you because they love you.
They're doing it because their programs take all your information.
They hoover up your data, private, personal data, and sell it to data brokers and the government.
And all of those people who are not your friends are very interested in manipulating you and your personal, political, and financial decisions.
It's scary as hell.
And it's happening out in the open without anybody saying anything about it.
This is a huge problem.
And we've been talking about this problem to our friend Eric Prince for years.
Someone needs to fix this.
And he and his partners have.
And now we're partners with them.
And their company is called Unplugged.
It's not a software company.
It's a hardware company.
They actually make a phone.
The phone is called Unplugged.
And it's more than that.
The purpose of the phone is to protect you from having your life stolen.
Your data stolen.
It's designed from a privacy-first perspective.
It's got an operating system that they made.
It's called Messenger and other apps that help you take charge of your personal data and prevent it from getting passed around to data brokers and government agencies that will use it to manipulate you.
Unplug Skim is to its customers.
They will promise you, and they mean it, that your data are not being sold or monetized or shared with anyone.
From basics, like its custom Libertas operating system, which they wrote, Which is designed from the very first day to keep your personal data on your device.
It also has, believe it or not, a true on-off switch that shuts off the power.
It actually disconnects your battery and ensures that your microphone and your camera are turned off completely when you want them to be.
So they're not spying on you in, say, your bedroom, which your iPhone is.
I guess what I would say is that I felt very proud at CBS News of the investigative journalism that we did, whether it was with the whistleblowers or whether it was With a laptop, and I went to a lot of effort to get data from that laptop, which had a very clean chain of custody, that I learned through my reporting was mirrored what was given to the FBI, and I felt that was important to understand the integrity of the data.
And we went to a lot of effort to have it forensically analyzed by a very reputable group, and a group that was with sort of no political attachments, that was outside the Beltway, a group out west, and really a stand-up group, great group.
They did a terrific forensic scrub of it, and they concluded that nothing had been altered or changed of the copy of the data that we had.
Other journalists got their data through third parties, and I think that that probably contaminated the data in some way, but I felt extremely confident about our data.
We did that story in late 2022, and my reputation is for moving quickly and efficiently through complex investigations.
The idea that it took me two years to authenticate that data is just...
Well, I authenticated it day one because there was emails from me on there, and no one knew I knew Hunter Biden, so I knew it was real because no one would ever do, you know, no one would ever fake it.
People like to talk about the Hunter Biden reporting at CBS, but I was also the reporter who obtained the audio tape of President Trump apparently bragging about these Iran documents at Mar-a-Lago.
What I'm saying is that your supervisors, whoever they were, and you're being very polite, I would say, But they should have the same fair-minded attitude and, you know, allow reporters to tell the truth, period, no matter who it's about, I think.
On X, and we looked at the Defense Department, specifically the Army and the National Guard's failure to look after a soldier who had a debilitating heart condition that they blamed on the COVID vaccine.
This was someone who had no heart issues before they entered the military, and we did an independent review of their medical records, and the symptoms appeared almost immediately after being vaccinated, and they're really amplified after they had that second dose.
And she was on active duty orders when she was diagnosed with this debilitating heart condition called POTS, which is postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome.
And what it means is that there's kind of a disconnect between the way your heart is working and your blood pressure.
And we sat down with her just days before she got a pacemaker at 24. And this story appealed to me for months because she had paperwork we learned from the Army.
Or rather, there was Army paperwork that showed that they...
It conceded over time that her heart condition was in the line of duty.
And it was especially important.
And when we launched that investigation, I felt along with the team that X was probably the only platform that we could have such an authentic and candid and open conversation about the failure of the U.S. military to take care of its people.
I didn't really fully appreciate this until I started working independently, but...
We felt that X was the platform where we could really have an open, candid conversation and we could put out the records so people could analyze them, in fact, check them for themselves to understand the issue and make up their own minds as to whether the Army and the National Guard had really let this soldier down, right?
We just put it all out there for scrutiny.
And I say this because what I heard anecdotally from...
From colleagues is that other platforms, that story, even though it was a story about a failure to take care of soldiers, could be de-amplified on other platforms or labeled something that was not.
It was a story about accountability, a failure of the government to look out for its own people.
And then in her particular case, it took her 19 months to get the acknowledgement that this heart condition was in the line of duty.
And what that means is that she's eligible for different benefits and medical care.
But because there was such a delay...
To get medical care.
Because there was such a delay to get mental health care, she told us at one point she considered suicide.
24. And anyway, we heard from other people who believe that they have similar circumstances, and I say this with some humility, that's what good journalism does.
I mean, either you're carrying water for people who are paying you to do that, Which is just the definition of dishonesty.
Or you're doing what you're supposed to do.
The reason we have First Amendment protections in the first place, which is tell the public what their government is doing, what the powerful people who control their lives are doing.
Never going to be in the military, but an American citizen.
And if my government hurts me, I think it's just obvious that they should apologize and try to make it better.
But they don't.
So you're saying, well, we've had such a similar experience.
You're in this little world, which you think is a much bigger world than it actually is.
I'll speak for myself.
And then you get ejected from that world and you're like shocked, but then you thank God for it because, wow, there's fresh air and sunlight.
And then you look around and you realize that all these smaller organizations or individuals are having like a huge effect and you didn't even know that.
It's amazing.
But one, and I just love the whole thing, but one of the problems is it's pretty easy, it's pretty hard to take down like a big news organization because they have like a well-staffed legal department.
Pretty easy to take down an individual with lawfare.
Yeah, one of the things I'd like to talk about is the Press Act.
The Press Act is a piece of legislation that's in the Senate right now.
It passed unanimously in the House.
And the Press Act is a federal shield law for reporters.
It would allow them to protect confidential sources.
Very few exceptions, what I would call common sense exceptions for imminent violence or threats to critical infrastructure.
And I've said that I think the protection of confidential sources is the hill to die on.
Because if you don't have that ability, a credible assurance that you're going to protect your source, as an investigative reporter, your toolbox is empty.
I mean, you really have nothing to offer.
And you know in others, I can't say a lot about it, but I'm in the middle of a major case where I was asked to disclose confidential source information.
They're suing government agencies, including the FBI. And they want to understand the source of sources for my reporting, a series of stories, national security stories in 2017. This is all public, so just remind me, who's suing?
A Chinese-American scientist, and she's suing the FBI, the Justice Department, Defense Department, I believe Homeland Security as well.
They're like four or five different agencies.
And the plaintiff wants to understand how I got information.
I was not named in the suit, but a judge said I had to divulge.
So they're trying to violate, among other things, your privacy, but also they're trying to violate the protection that we all assumed was real that confidential sources had.
The question, it's in the appellate court right now in Washington, and the question is when the need for that information overrides the First Amendment.
The reporter's privilege.
I haven't lost a night's sleep over my decision to protect confidential sources.
But that doesn't mean I don't feel a tremendous burden and responsibility with this case.
Yeah, and the public, and for the next generation.
And that's why, you know, the Press Act is an opportunity to really strengthen press freedom and press protections at a time, as you mentioned, that there's this explosion of smaller and independent outlets, and they can't...
You know, they can't withstand the legal and financial pressure.
And if you believe, as I do, that an informed electorate and an engaged reporting corps is fundamental to democracy, you're going to want to see this I
testified to Congress about this earlier in the year.
I just feel like we're at an inflection point.
There's just this incredible shift in the media landscape.
There's this sort of exciting, diverse group of new voices doing some really tremendous journalism.
So this is the moment to me where you want to offer these kinds of protections for confidential source protection at the federal level so that it's consistent with what exists in almost every state in this country.
And I think it's an acknowledgement of the role that journalism should play and can play in the democratic process.
Well, one of our kids, as we were really wrestling with the subpoena and how that was all going to unfold, and there's a certain amount of, you know, you can't keep your kids off their phones, right?
And one of our sons asked me, Mom, are you going to go to jail?
Are we going to lose the house?
Are we going to lose everything that you've worked for?
And I wanted to tell him that in this country where we say we value...
I get a little choked up when I think about it, but in this country where we say we value democracy and we value a vigorous press, that it was impossible.
But I couldn't offer him that assurance.
And the best part of the story is how he ended it.
He said, Mom, do what it takes.
I've got your back.
And I thought, if a teenager understands the importance of this pledge of confidentiality and understands the importance that journalism plays in a democracy, then certainly Congress can get this legislation passed.
Right now it's in the Senate.
Chuck Schumer has said he would like to get it to the president's desk this year, and I hope there'll be movement before the August recess.
They're the main way we communicate with each other.
They're where politics happen in this country.
But one of the problems with social media is that the rules change.
The people in charge don't want you to say something.
They don't tell you that.
And the next thing you know, you're without a platform.
Well, now you have an option.
Parler.
It's back.
The original free speech app, taken off the internet by the censors, has come back in full force.
Parler was...
The first big app to be pulled off because it was the first big app to make free speech a top priority.
Now, other platforms may be relaxing their policies and they change a lot, but Parler will not change.
Its distinct approach is here to stay.
By paving the way for other apps to protect users' free speech, Parler has set the standard in the industry.
It is now launched on a hyperscale private cloud called Parler Cloud, and that means your data are secure.
Your words cannot be controlled by third-party companies.
It's uncancellable.
Again, Parler has been cancelled.
They don't plan to be cancelled again, and they've taken extensive and very expensive steps to make sure it's not going to happen.
Parler is not at the mercy of other companies that don't believe in free speech.
And here's the best part.
It's ad-free.
You are not the product on Parler.
Parler is committed to providing a space where you can share and engage without interference of ads or invasive targeting.
So it's more than just a platform.
It is effectively a movement, and its goal is to keep the free flow of information open globally, where everybody can talk without fear of suppression.
So it's upholding the values this country was founded on, free expression, open dialogue.
Also, innovation, by the way.
We're on Parler, at Tucker Carlson, and you can go there and find us and stay informed about what's happening in the world.
So join a place that embraces your right to say what you actually think and that fosters connections between people.
Without free speech, you can't connect with other people.
We're all just lying to each other.
But Parler offers you that, a seamless social media experience tailored to your needs.
You can get Parler from the App Store, Google Play, or visit Parler.com.
At Parler, you are valued, you can say what you think, and you're awarded for doing so.
I mean, I think the important thing to understand is that this is legislation that would do so much to protect these smaller independent outlets where you have this diversity of voices.
Period.
On both sides of the aisle, left and on the right.
And it's a moment when we can codify those protections.
And it's a moment when we can say, you know, we talk about the importance of the First Amendment, we talk about the importance of press freedom, and now we can actually really do something concrete to protect it.
I mean, I just have to cross that bridge when we get to that.
In the meantime...
I've been so encouraged by how many media outlets have really filed briefs in support of our position, that they understand that it's a case that's going to impact everyone who's working today.
Well, in a letter to Congress, they argued that they had not seized the materials.
I think the language they used was that they had tried to secure and protect them, which left me a little speechless because it was diminishing reporter materials to work product.
And to say that what had happened was an effort to seize or protect my materials was...
I mean, it just showed that some executives had a very difficult relationship with the facts.
If these town halls go ahead on X, I think it's the partnership with News Nation, I think that the numbers on those town halls are going to be just mind-blowing in the true sense of the word.
And it's going to be global.
I forget, I think Elon Musk or Linda Iaccarino posted on X what the numbers were with the presidential debate.
I mean, when you looked at how many people watched it on traditional outlets versus the kind of volume and engagement on that platform, I mean, it was many, multiple times larger.
From my own experience, when I had an investigation that I thought was a sensitive topic, I felt very confident that I could put it on X and there could be a really engaging, candid, authentic discussion about it.
And I thought that was important because it seemed to be an undercover issue.
This is the soldier's story.
And I was really grateful for that.
And I would commend Elon Musk in that way.
I kind of understood it.
And then when I actually went to do it, I had a different and larger appreciation for it.
That people could have that conversation.
And the comments that we received were, you know, this happened to me or can you look into this?
Someone who thinks she sincerely believes she's been injured because she followed an order has nothing to be ashamed of.
And she does have a right to tell her story in public.
I mean, the whole thing is so nuts that anyone would prevent a 24-year-old girl who thinks she's been injured by following an order from talking in public is just like, you're not on the right side if you're preventing that.
I was in touch recently with, there was sort of a little core group of us that were starting out at that time between the news desk and what they call the production control room.
And there were maybe 12 of us, between maybe 22, 23, and 27. We look back on that period as kind of like a golden window in television news, the quality of the correspondence.
Many had come out of Vietnam or had come out of Washington and then got a foreign assignment.
The crews were incredibly experienced.
You know, if you had a cameraman take your stand up, you know, he probably had been in Beirut during the barracks bombing.
I, you know, I hear what you're saying, and you're going to accuse me of being so sort of deferential, but I just have always tried to stay focused on my own work.
What are the stories that Our next project is going to look at the issue of immigration and the borders.
And I don't want to give it all away, but we've got a lot of good data about how Homeland Security is in violation of federal law and regulations on a daily basis and creating, I think, a significant security risk for many American citizens.
And I think that that really deserves.
Yeah.
And it's a story that I can really tell now that might have been hard to tell before.
I've had many people ask me this over the years, but, you know, one channel will do a story or one newspaper will do a story and then every other outlet will do exactly the same story And sometimes it's like a really boutique story.
You know, it's a story of limited, obvious importance.
I'm not sure how comfortable I am really commenting on the whole profession that way.
I just sort of come back to my own work.
I wrote something recently for the Free Press, which is really an amazing operation.
Barry Weiss has really built it into this sort of engaging, driving thing.
It's like a great source for information.
I wrote something on the Press Act.
And, you know, the protection of sources is the hill to die on.
And it was such a great experience to work with them and to see the reach of that story and to take an issue that I felt needed to kind of, you know, poke up through the noise and get some attention.
Because all of our...
Our futures, our careers, rest on that basic principle.
So to me, that's an example of, you know, an independent media outlet, which is really has a lot of impact and made a difference.
So it turns out that YouTube is suppressing our show.
I know.
Shocking that in an election year, with everything at stake, Google would be putting its thumb on the scale and preventing you from hearing anything that the people in charge don't want you to hear.
But it turns out it's happening.
So what can you do about it?
Well, we could whine about it, but that's a waste of time.
We're not in charge of Google.
Or we could find a way around it, a way that you could actually get information that's true.
It's not intentionally deceptive.
And the way to do that on YouTube, we think, is to subscribe to our channel.
Subscribe!
And you'll have a much higher chance of hearing what we say.