Subscribe right here: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube
On this week’s episode of The David Frum Present, The Atlantic’s David Frum opens together with his ideas on the upcoming 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. He examines the numerous actions President Donald Trump has taken that run counter to the beliefs articulated in 1776, and considers how the Founders’ constitutional genius could finally be what frustrates Trump’s try and consolidate energy.
David is then joined by his Atlantic colleague Charlie Warzel, a workers author and the host of the Galaxy Mind podcast, to debate the temptations that include launching a brand new podcast and the problem of serving an viewers that usually rewards excessive content material. Collectively, they speak concerning the duty that comes with internet hosting a podcast in a media atmosphere that prizes clicks over reality. In addition they discover how conspiracy theorists have come to perform as an alternate actuality of “mainstream media,” and why the struggle for reality could not but be misplaced.
Lastly, David closes with a dialogue of Edward Berenson’s The Trial of Madame Caillaux and what it reveals about how future generations could come to view our personal beliefs.
The next is a transcript of the episode:
David Frum: Hiya, and welcome to The David Frum Present. I’m David Frum, a workers author at The Atlantic. My visitor this week shall be my Atlantic colleague, Charlie Warzel, the host of the Galaxy Mind podcast, and we’ll be speaking about our experiences as new podcast hosts. We each launched podcasts this yr. A number of the temptations, a few of the risks, and a few of the classes that we have now discovered from this yr in podcasting. My e book this week shall be a 1992 historical past e book, The Trial of Madame Caillaux, a research of a sensational intercourse and homicide trial in pre–World Battle I France. However earlier than attending to both of these issues, I wish to open with some end-of-year ideas as we conclude 2025 and transfer into 2026. 2026, in fact, is the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, in 1776, and is a robust anniversary image within the American thoughts. As we transfer into this yr, there are such a lot of issues which might be going to be memorable and essential and great to have fun. There are additionally some issues occurring which might be actually bizarre. One of many weirdest of them is a press launch by the U.S. Mint just some weeks in the past. They’re contemplating honoring the 250th anniversary of American independence with a set of commemorative, or greenback cash, that includes the picture of President Donald Trump.
Now, it’’s not actually unprecedented for the US to place dwelling individuals on the coinage. It’s not even completely unprecedented for them to place dwelling politicians on the coinage. The primary greenback invoice had the face of Salman Chase, Secretary of the Treasury in Lincoln’’s Cupboard, on the greenback invoice. Salman Chase was a well-known egomaniac. Considered one of his up to date colleagues within the Republican Get together mentioned, He’s a wonderful man. I believe that’s the quote. He’s a wonderful man, however he’s acquired the delusion that the Christian Trinity has 4 individuals in it as a substitute of three, the fourth being Salman Chase himself. So it’’s not unprecedented. There could also be different examples as nicely, however it’s unusual and surprising at any time for a dwelling particular person, and particularly a dwelling president, to suggest to place himself on the coinage of the cash of the US. And if a Founding Father noticed that, I believe they might be form of startled. They’d be extra startled, nevertheless, at some extra severe issues which might be occurring.
Some issues that truly, not like the greenback coin, which is only a mission, have already occurred within the yr 2025. We’ve seen the president of the US impose taxes at his sole volition. The Trump Treasury Division issued a launch just a few days in the past that boasted that they’d collected $200 billion in tariffs over the yr 2025. That’s $200 billion of taxes not licensed by Congress and a flagrant violation of the concepts and literal language of Article 1 of the Structure, which places each taxes and tariffs within the arms of Congress. The president and his staff are proposing to spend that $200 billion. They’ve had many concepts about how you can spend it. Perhaps they need to give the cash to the farmers. Perhaps there ought to be a tax rebate. Perhaps they need to do one thing else. However all of these concepts for spending or tax rebates, once more, all of these are congressional authority that the president is arrogating to himself—one thing else that might have startled the founders of the nation all these 250 years in the past.
We’ve seen the expansion of an infinite federal police pressure, ICE, which has recruited and appears to take orders not from any form of establishment of legislation however from, once more, a small staff across the president, an virtually private police pressure of a form that the US has not seen earlier than, definitely not on such a scale. And finishing up actions that, once more, would have appeared unimaginable solely a short while in the past. Mass roundups with none form of due course of; mass deportations. Deportation, in fact, is a complete presidential authority, however often there’s some form of listening to. And, in fact, till now, you virtually all the time—the deported particular person is shipped again to the place the deported particular person got here from, to not a 3rd nation to which they’d no contact, and never underneath circumstances which might be tantamount to torture or no less than severe human-rights abuse. You’d ship them dwelling. It’s not against the law to be illegally current in the US. It’s a violation of the legislation, nevertheless it’s not one thing that you ought to be tortured for. You have to be placed on a airplane, given a scorching meal, and warned, Don’t come again, you’re breaking the principles. We’ve seen the rise of presidential retaliation towards media establishments utilizing the regulatory equipment of the state, regulatory equipment that belongs to all people, not simply to him. After which utilizing those self same grants of threats, grants of regulatory favors or threats of the withholding of regulatory favors, to rearrange or redirect current media firms to be extra favorable to him, generally efficiently, generally much less so, however all the time with a form of intent that might have appeared very sinister from the viewpoint of the founders of the American Republic. And we have now seen, possibly most annoying of all, the usage of presidential battle powers with none involvement of any form of authorized authority, any form of congressional authority. We’re on the cusp, apparently, of some form of navy motion towards Venezuela—possibly airstrikes, possibly clandestine strikes of commandos, possibly one thing extra. There’s no pretense that there’s any congressional authorization of that. And over the Christmas vacation, the president fired missiles into Nigeria, intervening in Nigerian civil strife, once more, with no pretense of any form of authorization by anybody aside from the president at his personal whim. So the large query for the yr 2026 is: How far has the nation drifted from these beliefs of 1776 as formalized within the Structure of 1787 and all of the amendments afterwards? And the way does the US transfer again to the nation it meant to be initially, that Individuals believed it to be till very lately, and that I believe most Individuals nonetheless need it to be.
Now, right here’s some excellent news. It does appear to be over the course of 2025, that these lawless actions have misplaced a few of their impression and energy. The dangerous guys appear to be shedding just a little political altitude as we transfer into 2026. I don’t wish to be overconfident about that. I don’t wish to problem false guarantees. But it surely does appear to be the ebb and stream of political energy just isn’t favoring those that wish to use arbitrary energy in the way in which they’ve used it. Some examples: There does appear to be, on this second Trump time period, an actual lack of focus, an incapacity to maintain the principle factor the principle factor. The battle over renaming the Kennedy Heart the Trump Kennedy Heart: That looks as if an ideal instance of one thing that any severe authoritarian president wouldn’t waste power over. What does he care? He’s staffed it together with his cronies. They’re going to do the exhibits that he likes; he’s gonna have the ability to blackball the individuals he doesn’t like. Does he actually need to place his identify on it? Does he must host the Kennedy Honors on prime-time tv? Is that actually one thing that he wants to take a position power in? And even the greenback cash, that simply makes enemies. Why are you doing that? What’s the petty, pathetic want that makes you commerce the substance of political energy for these infantile exhibits? However that want is there and it’s a political reality, and it’s an costly political reality—and due to this fact for individuals who oppose the authoritarian mission, a hopeful political reality.
However extra considerably, two different issues are occurring which might be actually altering the political calculus as we transfer into the yr 2026. One is the weakening of the American financial system. One of many issues that any profitable authoritarian is aware of is it’s important to get the financial system proper. Folks will put up with so much in the event that they’re feeling affluent. As they enter 2026, fewer and fewer Individuals are feeling affluent. Costs are rising; job creation is stalling. The middle of power within the American financial system is the artificial-intelligence-investment growth. Which will proceed, it could not, however by the remainder of the financial system, it’s bother. In every single place there’s indicators of bother: rising company bankruptcies, defaults on car loans. Individuals are usually not feeling like Trump is considering of them as he thinks of himself. Trump 1, the idea gave the impression to be that the general public would forgive Trump’s actions if he supplied financial prosperity. Trump 2, the president is definitely actively attacking prosperity by his taxes and tariffs, by his immigration coverage, shrinking the American inhabitants, shrinking the American workforce. And it looks as if that’s his agenda. So what do you get for placing up with it? Nothing, only a kick within the head.
However the very last thing, and Michael Waldman and I mentioned this earlier this yr in an essential podcast dialogue: Trump has misplaced a lot of his wager to centralize the administration of elections in his personal arms. Not all the wager. He’s nonetheless acquired tips up his sleeve. There are various issues he’s attempting to do. However by the genius of American federalism, which is a part of the genius of 1776 and 1787, election administration is left within the arms of the state, of the a number of states.
And whereas it’s not unimaginable for a president to squeeze and coax and coerce and rig these elections, there are limits to his skill to do it. In the long run, it’s a state energy ruled by the actions of the states and administered by officers of the states. And there’s a restrict to how a lot the president can efficiently intervene to deprave or distort that course of. Now, if the election is shut, these interventions and distortions could also be sufficient.
However when you’ve got, by dangerous financial coverage, you’ve stoked a lot discontent as this administration has, you might have moved the entire political temperature—the entire political stability of political forces—past the margin of profitable manipulation. And that implies that the corrective response, that the genius of the system all the time anticipated as the final word reply to abuses, that corrective response could also be coming, and 2026 stands out as the yr that we really feel it.
And now, my dialogue with Charlie Warzel.
[Music]
Frum: So The Atlantic is, at this time, presenting one thing just a little completely different. I’ll interview at this time my colleague Charlie Warzel, who has launched his personal new podcast on the Atlantic channel, Galaxy Mind. We’ll be speaking backwards and forwards. Because the Galaxy Mind podcast is kind of new, I’m going to learn just a little introduction for these of you who don’t know Charlie.
He joined The Atlantic in 2021 and have become a workers author in 2022. This yr, he launched his new podcast, Galaxy Mind. Charlie is a graduate of Hamilton School and he’s the creator of the 2021 e book Out of Workplace: Unlocking the Energy and Potential of Hybrid Work. And we’re gonna discuss a few of the experiences, challenges, temptations of doing a podcast at the moment, particularly for The Atlantic.
And I’m joyful to welcome Charlie. Charlie, congratulations on the brand new podcast.
Charlie Warzel: Thanks. Thanks for having me. That is nice.
Frum: All proper, so we’re each form of newbies. I’m like a grizzled veteran with like a 3 or 4 month head begin forward of you, in order that makes me a frontline soldier.
However we’re each accustomed to being visitors on podcasts, however new to internet hosting.
Warzel: Sure. And it’s very completely different. Proper? It’s a complete completely different, no less than I’ve discovered, it’s a very completely different animal being on the opposite facet.
Frum: If I’d identified how arduous it was, I might’ve been nicer to my hosts.
Warzel: Precisely. Precisely. Sure. It’s very troublesome to assemble a dialog and have a stream and find yourself in the suitable place and comply with the tributaries of a visitor’s meandering thoughts. It’s—positively, it’s fascinating.
Frum: Properly, so right here’s this factor. So as to keep away from meandering, right here’s how I suggest to channel the dialog in order that we obtain one thing that’s I hope helpful and fascinating for our listeners and viewers, and possibly one thing we each ourselves will be taught from. As a result of one of many issues we’ve needed to confront as we enter that is: Not like old school e book writing, or textual content primarily based and even print journalism, the place you don’t know precisely what your readers need and what they learn, you already know so much concerning the podcast viewers, each video and audio.
And we even have the contrasting examples of different individuals within the area who exhibit what viewers and listeners need and don’t need. And one of many issues we’ve needed to confront is the great urge for food, or obvious urge for food, for excessive content material, which flies within the face of what The Atlantic is all the time attempting to offer, which is balanced content material.
How can we make sense of that? How can we reply to that? I imply, I believe you get a number of response to in case you do a present on Was Hitler good? Sure. However we’re not going to do the Was Hitler good? Sure present. However how do you address the huge incentives to do a present on Was Hitler good? Sure.
Warzel: I see this as a part of a much bigger wrestle, proper? I write so much about know-how, about media, media ecology, the ways in which social media has warped or modified or reworked society. It’s a number of what the podcast is about. And so there’s all the time like a meta ingredient to every part that I’m each doing in my precise work and what I’m reporting on.
And, they have a tendency to feed one another, proper? So I have a look at this as. I have a look at podcasting, particularly video podcasting and the common, conventional podcasting as, in some ways, virtually the normal issues with web primarily based or digital media on steroids, proper? We are actually, due to the problems of discovery, due to, you already know, the appearance of every part from generative AI to social networks, to declining readership as a result of a number of the social platforms have given up on information to some extent. We don’t get that very same bump from Google. We don’t get that very same bump from Fb, et cetera. It has pushed every part to be a lot extra algorithmically pushed. Proper. We attempt to make the very best journalistic merchandise that we are able to, probably the most accountable ones, however on the finish of the day, we’re additionally people who find themselves excited about having that have an effect on the planet, to succeed in as many individuals as attainable, and these algorithms are tailor-made an increasing number of and extra to be, to advertise, probably the most sensational factor. The factor that outrages, the factor that shocks, the factor that elicits the best response, and the best response of all of these emotional reactions is outrage, is worry, is shock, is anger. Proper? And so I have a look at what we’re doing proper now as having to chase one of these viewership.
We’re on this consideration financial system. We’re mainly compelled to, if we would like individuals to work together with the factor that we have now spent all this time laboring over. We’ve to discover a strategy to body it, proper? I believe a number of this is sort of a market. And each vendor is on the market needing to, you already know, get individuals and appeal to individuals.
And so that you’re continually reaching there. And it’s troublesome, as a result of it pushes individuals to be the worst variations of themselves. And we have now to protect towards that. We will’t, you already know, succumb to that, like, say, a random particular person on Twitter or X may.
Frum: Yeah. Now you’re blaming the algorithm so much right here, which is a non-sentient assortment of digits. And that’s handy as a result of it has no emotions. Perhaps the person, the listener, the reader is just a little bit accountable?
Warzel: Properly, so there’s a really fascinating problem that I’ve all the time seen, proper? I hate accountable the reader, as a result of the reader can also be in some sense—
Frum: the shopper, and nobody ever acquired wherever by disrespecting the shopper, no less than not in public. However let’s faux we’re in non-public for a minute.
Warzel: Completely. I believe that this can be a drawback. Folks’s precise desire and their acknowledged desire is all the time very completely different, in all consumerism however particularly with the information. You see lots of people each on-line and in reader surveys of all types of various locations the place I’ve labored, and so they say that they wish to learn extra concerning the greens, proper, like eat-your-vegetables-type stuff. They wish to examine local weather change extra. Anybody who has labored in digital media, in any case, and has entry to the metrics, can see that tales about local weather change, very broadly talking, don’t carry out in addition to tales about, say, Donald Trump or any individual who is continually stoking outrage.
So there may be this actual reader desire: acknowledged versus precise, proper. Individuals are clicking on the outrageous issues, the thumbnails with individuals’s eyes which might be, you already know, bulging out and stuff like that, and never spending time with that actually nuanced headline that’s truly, quote unquote, you already know, boring, butinside is a really dietary and dense and sensible story.
Frum: Properly, this isn’t a brand new factor. This has been true so long as there may be media. I imply, I bear in mind a passage in Proust’s nice novel Remembrance of Issues Previous the place a personality says, who has a gorgeous library stuffed with hand-tooled volumes, which he by no means opens, and he thinks, What if each morning they have been delivered to my entrance door in sheet paper, a duplicate of Pascal’s Pensées. And in that leather-bound version up there, which I open as soon as each 10 years, there was an outline of the costume worn by the duchess of so-and-so on the occasion final night time. So media is all the time sensational, however right here’s to my thoughts, the distinction. In1975, there in all probability have been as many individuals in the US who wished to learn, or proportionally as many individuals, who wished to learn or devour Nazi-based content material as there have been at this time, or anti-Semitic content material as there are at this time.
However both silently and even explicitly, the heads of CBS, ABC, NBC, The New York Instances, The Wall Avenue Journal, The Washington Submit, Time, Newsweek, that was the media, mentioned, what? They need Nazi content material; they need anti-Semitic content material. They’re not going to get it. We’re not going to provide it to them.
And if we 10 individuals agree we’re not going to provide them Nazi content material, then they must get it from fairly obscure locations. However there was all the time that market. There was cash ready. There was a hundred-dollar invoice mendacity on the sidewalk and nobody picked it up. And we have now a extra aggressive market, and any individual picks it up.
Warzel: It is a little bit, although, why I blame the algorithms so absolutely, proper? As a result of the algorithms are additionally very highly effective when it comes to broadcasting and boosting the people who find themselves prepared to try this factor, proper? These individuals don’t simply come out of nowhere. , I believe very broadly of the ecosystem that you just and I are actually part of, which is YouTube. YouTube’s nice innovation, biggest success, the factor that has pushed it to be a spot the place persons are ingesting a whole lot of thousands and thousands of hours every day of video content material, is the advice algorithm—the “up subsequent” a part of YouTube, the place, on the suitable facet of your web page, it feeds you one other video after.
That advice algorithm, as my reporting and different individuals’s reporting has proven over time, brings individuals into—individuals name it the rabbit gap, proper? The place you watch one thing, let’s say it’s only a World Battle II clarification video, proper? A historical past podcast of World Battle II that’s not racist or anti-Semitic in any respect, however they’re speaking about Hitler so much. They’re speaking about troublesome topics, possibly the Holocaust, one thing like that. And you then get one other video, and that video is possibly simply one-tenth of 1 %, just a little extra excessive proper? Or somebody who’s coming from just a little bit extra of a far-right perspective.
Quick ahead, you may get individuals down into this funnel, and that’s an algorithmic increase, and that’s why I believe that is essential.
Frum: Okay, I generally do go down World Battle II rabbit holes. I’m within the topic like each Child Boomer. And I discover that as I preserve going, what the algorithm serves me is more and more technical content material. Properly, what was the distinction between a 16-inch and a 14-inch naval gun in World Battle II? Was the 16-inch gun, in reality, higher? It will get extra technical, extra particular, extra wonky. And I believe I’m telling the algorithm, you already know, that’s what I need.
So there may be the form of factor the place we are saying, Ah, we’re making it just a little extra Hitlery. Sure, that’s the algorithm, however that’s the algorithm understanding you, your actual self. And it was once that in, like in 1975, CBS would say, what? You need stuff that’s just a little extra Hitlery than we’re serving, however you’re not going to get it.
And now the patron is driving issues. Isn’t she or he? He. I believe in World Battle II, Hitler—
Warzel: I believe we’re protected to say he—watching the World Battle II movies. I agree with that, partially. However I believe that there are different parts right here. I used to be wanting just a little bit into—and we talked a bit about discussing—this new media ecosystem and the extremism that it may go in direction of.
And I’ve been following her profession considerably intently, however wanting just a little bit extra into Candace Owens and listening to a few standard issues that she has put out. She’s clearly a really excessive voice on the suitable, very conspiratorial. And there’s an amazing column, every week in the past in The New York Instances by Michelle Goldberg about Candace Owens and the way she has performed into the conspiracy idea that Charlie Kirk was not killed by the person who was arrested. And truly had a media summit with Charlie Kirk’s widow, Erica Kirk.
However one thing that Michelle notices in that piece, and I believe may be very apt, is that she, Candace Owens, attracts so much from the true-crime style, which is an especially standard style of podcast and media now, and performs just a little bit in direction of the digital sleuths on the web.
So these are people who find themselves, you already know, vigilante investigators, proper? They’re taking all the knowledge out there on the web, attempting to comply with the lead like they’re a detective pursuing a chilly case. And she or he does an excellent job at that, at bringing individuals alongside for the hunt of data and giving them these breadcrumbs and telling them, you already know, This story’s not proper. And I believe that that is part of why people who find themselves in search of that, who wish to play this function of detective, or who really feel that we don’t have the total story. there’s info on the market; I can piece it collectively as a result of I’ve the power. That’s the place I believe the algorithm can intersect with a creator who’s attempting to control. After which it may lead you right into a path that will get you into a spot that’s just a little extra, as you place it, Hitlery, as a result of I don’t suppose persons are essentially, broadly talking, simply saying, Yeah, that was good about World Battle II. I need some Hitler now. Proper? I believe what it’s, is that they consider there’s a conspiracy.
Frum: Clarify one thing that baffles me. So if I am going on the web, if I’m having bother getting the little disc battery into my key fob, my car-key fob, and I’m flummoxed and the written directions aren’t useful, and I am going on-line to discover a YouTube video—say, how do I get the disc battery into the important thing fob?
If there’s somebody there saying, Depart it on the doorstep and the leprechaun in a single day with just a little little bit of milk, and the leprechauns will come and repair the important thing fob for you—you already know what? I’m skipping that one. That doesn’t sound prefer it’s gonna work.
Warzel: Proper.
Frum: So why don’t individuals have that response?
Like, there’s a killing. The police have arrested any individual. There’s a suspect. It is probably not that particular person, however the concept that there’s some world conspiracy of leprechauns who did it as a substitute, that’s fairly unlikely. As it’s, they’ll save my key fob for me. Sure, I take the purpose concerning the digital-sleuth factor, however at some stage, individuals must have, like, a common sense meter, don’t they?
Warzel: However what if, as a substitute, proper, it was somebody who’s making a video who was saying, You’re getting screwed by your automotive firm. Your automotive firm nickels-and-dimes you on all the issues while you take it in for service. They overcharge you. They’re this huge company, you already know. They’re owned by no matter shadowy individuals, proper, who’ve their very own agendas in no matter, who’re utilizing your cash. And, you already know, they’re funding their indulgent existence, and who is aware of what they’re doing, proper,once they take their non-public planes, X, Y, and Z? A
And this battery factor, proper, is definitely a manifestation of this broader factor. There’s one thing greater about the truth that your battery dies too early, proper, in your key fob. And that’s the factor. As a result of it opens up this world to individuals the place they are saying, Okay, now, now I perceive.
The unlock in my mind for why conspiracy theories are so standard now in, in tradition—they’ve all the time been standard; clearly the paranoid thoughts is a fixture in all of historical past, however particularly American historical past. These theories, nevertheless unusual or silly or fully implausible they could be on a given topic: They provide individuals an understanding of why the world feels unfair or flawed or dangerous, proper?
And in a second the place there are lots of people who’re struggling, who’re very disenchanted, who really feel that there is no such thing as a predictable pathway to success or that the American dream is out of attain for them—even one thing as small because the key-fob conspiracy explains one small little bit of why they really feel like crap on a regular basis.
Frum: One of many issues I’ve taken from the previous, from this Trump period, the previous decade of dialogue, is—it’s a trope. It’s one thing we’re alleged to say, that issues are more and more troublesome for individuals. It’s comprehensible that there’s a number of resentment and anger.
I discover myself, possibly I’m simply changing into crankier, much less and fewer affected person with that. I imply, we reside, in case you’re an American within the yr 2026, you reside on the apex, the summit of civilization. By no means a lot materials prosperity, by no means a lot medical prosperity. And specifically the science of preserving life and well being has by no means been higher, by no means approached what you’ve got at this time.
So while you see individuals saying, My conspiracy idea is to reject the items of contemporary medical science and to topic my little one to measles. So you already know what? I don’t consider it, that you just’re having such a tricky time. All proper? Anyway, in case you are having such a tricky time, I believe that doesn’t excuse you.
And in case your response to having a tricky time is to disclaim your little one the measles vaccine, then your robust time could also be a results of your personal deficiencies, not one thing that society is doing. If you happen to’re gonna do one thing that callous, negligent, probably homicidal to your little one—you’re accountable. You’re the drawback.
It’s not the bankers; it’s not deindustrialization; it’s not the disaster of modernity. It’s you, dumb head. It’s you. Vaccinate your little one.
Warzel: Properly, first off, I absolutely agree that in case you are denying your little one vaccines or issues like that, that’s on you. I perceive that there’s this fatigue, proper, with attempting to rationalize the the reason why persons are falling down these rabbit holes or doing ridiculous issues. I form of maintain it in my thoughts barely in another way, which is that I’m not seeing everybody as simply these completely passive observers, however I do see individuals as being comparatively simply manipulated.
If you mix this concept of I’m annoyed; I really feel dangerous; I can’t see the progress of modernity on this method—while you mix that with actually savvy manipulators after which a tradition that types round all of that, a tribalism that types round this, that, okay, it’s not solely that I’m denying, I don’t consider in vaccines, I’m denying this; it turns into a bunch, a staff, a factor, a cohort, a way of belonging.
And that could be a very sturdy psychological bond. And so it’s not essentially that I’m saying these individuals don’t have any company, or that they will’t be blamed for, you already know, primarily endangering the lives of their youngsters or doing no matter terrible factor. However I see this as like all of those programs making it very arduous for individuals to interrupt out of that mould, to do the suitable factor, to go towards the grain of these individuals.
Frum: So whereas we’re speaking about company, what are we going to do? So right here we’re, we’re now co-manufacturers of this actuality in a really modest method, however there we’re. We’re a part of it. What can we do? How can we be forces for good and efficient forces for good somewhat than forces for sick or ineffective forces for good?
Warzel: I believe that’s actually troublesome. One thing that our boss, Adrienne LaFrance, who’s the chief editor of The Atlantic, mentioned on a podcast I did along with her lately, which was about—we have been masking the Epstein recordsdata, the primary dump of all this.
And on the very finish of the podcast, I requested, Properly, what the heck did we be taught right here? There’s all this info. And one factor that she mentioned about this, the sturdiness of the Epstein conspiracy idea is that individuals nonetheless need the reality, proper? That can also be on the coronary heart of all of this conspiratorial crap that we’re coping with.
There are lots of people who’ve this impulse, who need the reality, who consider they’re not getting the reality, and that leads them down these troublesome paths. However that’s truly our job, proper? We’re purveyors of, in a really perfect world, of that. We try to harness this; we try to try this.
So, you already know, I virtually suppose in some ways in which the, no matter you wish to name it, the mainstream media, you and me, no matter it’s—we have to take that again, I believe, extra strongly than we do. We is usually a little milquetoast about this. I believe we have to say that in case you’re on the hunt, in case you’re attempting to be a digital vigilante investigator, then you could be wanting right here for the reality, which is right here, and we’re the people who find themselves going to, you already know, try this job.
Frum: Considered one of my New Yr’s resolutions is I’m going to not solely chorus from utilizing, however truly actively object, to the phrase mainstream media. As a result of if many occasions extra individuals watched Candace Owens or Joe Rogan than CNN or the PBS NewsHour. If conspiracy media get a lot greater views than The Atlantic and even The New York Instances, they’re the mainstream.
The crackpots are the mainstream. And so one of many nice unlearnings we have now—there’s a form of tepidity, lukewarmness, that pervades what I might name the people who find themselves attempting to be sincere, and an amazing ardour that animates those that are, both consciously or unwittingly or gullibly, dishonest.
So one of many issues I believe we have to embrace, and that is what I’m attempting to do, is an thought—you already know, there’s one thing just a little countercultural about what we’re doing. We’re doing what in 1975 would’ve been thought of mainstream. We’re fact-checking. We’re working issues previous legal professionals.
If we make a mistake, we appropriate them. Two weeks in the past, I made a mistake on air. I mentioned one thing primarily based on the knowledge we had out there on the time concerning the Bondi Seashore killing, that there have been eyewitness stories that the police had been sluggish. And I quoted these, or referenced these.
And every week later, when that turned out to not have been appropriate, I corrected myself. However these habits—we have to perceive that these are usually not the mainstream. The mainstream is paranoia, conspiracy, deception, and it’s a countercultural act to face up for integrity and reality and self-correction.
Warzel: I really like this as a result of I absolutely do agree, and I believe that this posture of getting to apologize since you’re part of an establishment or one thing like that—I like the thought of reversing that, fairly a bit. I believe it’s very sturdy. I believe, too—one thing that I’ve observed that has been very, very irritating to me, and I’ve talked about this on a previous episode just a little bit, is this concept that so lots of the issues inside, let’s simply name them media establishments or professionalized media, proper, which might be there to be able to construct belief amongst readers and viewers or credibility, proper?The concept of fact-checking. The concepts of enhancing. These issues have been actually weaponized towards—one thing I’ve additionally discovered concerning the right-wing media because it’s constructed up within the Trump period that’s fascinating, is absolutely the lack of enhancing. , they’ll do livestreams which might be, you already know, three, 4 hours lengthy.
There’s Joe Rogan’s, not explicitly the right-wing media, however, like, his podcast as a template. , these episodes are sometimes three hours–plus lengthy. There’s this concept of no enhancing, of no fact-checking, of no polish in any sense. And the concept that behind it from them is we’re providing you with every part unvarnished.
Have a look at all these different people who find themselves enhancing issues. What are they hiding? The place truly that’s, you already know, that’s BS. That’s simply high quality management.
Frum: To not be pedantic, however this isn’t an issue only for right-wing media. There are left-wing variations of this.
And there shall be extra. The intense proper acquired a sure head begin. And I believe that won’t endure if that is the long run. , one of many issues, however you could elevate this level, and it makes me suppose—and that is one thing that once more, that The Atlantic can actually contribute.
So when fashionable buildings start to be constructed within the late nineteenth century, you begin with a metal body and you then placed on round all of it this limestone and woodwork, to hide the metal body. And the modernist structure—you already know, let’s take all that limestone off and present individuals the metal body.
We’ll have the metal body with the glass and so they can see the integrity and honesty of the constructing and understand why the constructing stands as much as all these many tales. I believe that’s just a little bit the way in which professionalized media, that’s a great time period, responded. The metal body was the construction of reporting and analysis and enhancing and fact-checking and authorized checking.
After which it was hidden behind the writing. That was the limestone. And possibly we have to take the limestone off and present individuals just a little bit extra how the constructing works and convey individuals into the method and the way we predict, why we select tales the way in which we do, why we select to not do sure tales, and the way we do our methodology.
Perhaps that’s one of many issues that we’re doing this very day, to speak just a little bit about—you already know, each time we invite any individual, we’re making a variety. Who can we select? Who can we not select? And within the podcast world, there are people who find themselves, you already know, that, nicely, such and such an individual when she or he appeared on such and such a present acquired so many hits. And this different one that I’m considering of inviting has by no means been on a present, or once they have been on a present, they acquired many fewer hits. Nonetheless, I’m going with particular person No. 2, and possibly I want to speak extra with my viewers about why I’ve chosen this one that is credible and educated, and whom I consider has one thing price saying and never the opposite.
Warzel: Yeah. That is all the time the strain right here, proper? And this can be a little bit, too, the place I convey the algorithms into play right here. I believe that the algorithms are optimized for this, like, illiberalism, this sensationalism. And I believe proper now that’s one thing that’s much more prevalent on the suitable.
These algorithms are serving to them in an outsized method. In order that’s why I don’t all the time know, while you say we’re gonna be seeing much more of one of these content material from, you already know, from the left. I believe that that’s true, that, that the left goes to attempt to construct out an ecosystem like this.
But it surely feels far much less prefer it has a really particular political valence and way more of a valence of a form of nihilism. And I, and that’s clearly, it may be, you already know, simply as harmful as something.
Frum: Properly, it’s not nihilism. It’s anti-institutional of a distinct type. And one of many issues that—while you and I talked upfront about what we have been going to do, and I’m displaying the cladding, we did speak upfront about what the present can be—a few of the classes we’ve discovered from doing this.
I’ve tried some issues that haven’t labored, and one of many issues I’ve discovered about this medium is it’s not tv. It appears to be like like tv, nevertheless it’s not. So the way in which tv interviews went or go, to the extent there may be nonetheless tv, is there can be any individual who’s essential, who had one thing they didn’t wish to say on tv, and there can be knowledgeable questioner whose job was to get the one that didn’t wish to say the factor to say that factor.
And in case you watch, like, the Sunday-morning exhibits, that is the sport in its most traditional kind.
And afterwards, the politician can congratulate himself as a result of he went on TV, took 11 minutes of all people’s time, and mentioned nothing of curiosity, and that’s a win for him. And I believed, what? That doesn’t work anymore. If you happen to don’t wish to say one thing fascinating, I don’t know why I’m asking individuals to spend 11 minutes, or in my case, 40 minutes with you.
I’m solely going to ask you if you’ll play the sport, in case you say, what? I’m right here to speak. So I’ve discovered, invite fewer politicians as a result of they’re nonetheless in that mode of the worth to them is what they don’t say. And I’ve additionally type of stumbled alongside, and I didn’t intend this, however I don’t know that—there’s a number of video that’s about producing the 92nd clip the place the individuals explode and yell at one another. And in case you watch the entire thing, it’s all like a ritualized efficiency of constructing up-to-the-minute of confrontation, and the confrontation produces the viral video.
And I noticed, what? I don’t discover that tremendously helpful both. What I’m more and more in search of is: Folks have one thing they wish to say; they agree with me that it ought to be mentioned. We’re not preventing one another about whether or not to say it. And we’re additionally not trying to have a confrontation.
We’re this as a form of cumulative, iterative constructing course of that leaves the person, possibly not shocked on the finish, however understanding one thing greater than the person did when the person began.
Warzel: That is why I’ve all the time, in my profession, I, not often—my model of that is not often eager to interview CEOs.
You might have them on the factor. They’ve every part to lose on this scenario. As you mentioned, they’re enjoying a stop, protection, they’re working out the clock, no matter you wanna name it, proper? Yeah. On the entire interview. I agree with that. One factor I’m interested by, since you’ve got extra expertise on this realm.
Frum: Weeks and weeks of it!
Warzel: Weeks, yeah. I do know. Hey, on the web, although, we’re speaking canine years right here, proper? Do you concentrate on the parasocial relationship? Like, are you eager about constructing a relationship with viewers members, people who find themselves excited about coming to your ideas, but additionally simply, like, investing in that relationship with them and bringing them into your world, into your thoughts, into the way you suppose? Do you have a look at it that method or do you say, Nope, at this time, like, that is the topic I need individuals to find out about—and I simply give it some thought on that, on that very granular, episodic foundation?
Frum: Very a lot the previous, very a lot the previous. As a result of once I consider this as being countercultural, I’m saying, It is a particular person you in all probability have by no means heard of I’m going to speak to at this time. However I believe they’re essential; I believe extra essential, they’re a good-faith actor.
So even when we find yourself having some disagreements, I don’t suppose they’re going to misinform you. If I did, they wouldn’t be right here, and I’m not right here to struggle with them. Folks I struggle with, I don’t need. That is my precise workplace. That is the place I write. These are my precise books. These are my precise private souvenirs.
If I weren’t doing a present, the souvenirs can be organized just a little in another way within the workplace than they’re now. I wouldn’t have all of them behind my head the place I can’t have a look at them. I might have them in entrance of me the place I can have a look at them. Yeah. However they’d nonetheless, they’d be in a distinct location on this precise room.
These are my precise work on the partitions, and the books behind me are usually not chosen as a result of I’m attempting to—they’re not my books or one thing I’m attempting to endorse. My books are organized by alphabetical order and also you’re getting, you already know, the ms ’trigger we’re in the midst of this.
So, and I do attempt to be fairly expressive. I discuss what I believe; I speak concerning the books I’m studying. As a result of what I’ve to simply accept is that the times of Walter Cronkite are gone. The people who find themselves imitating Walter Cronkite don’t have his ethic. The people who find themselves being watched are people who find themselves constructing relationships.
And I believe a few of these relationships could leap the sure. I imply, I’ve many relationships that aren’t—that started as parasocial that are actually actual. Folks I could not see fairly often, however whom I correspond with in a candid method. And I simply suppose that’s the way in which it’s going to must be, as a result of we are able to’t depart probably the most highly effective instruments in fashionable media solely within the arms of the satan’s servants.
Warzel: I absolutely agree. I imply, these are my associates there. I imply, it’s a window. It’s a window into this. What I’ve discovered as a problem, although, is attempting to play the sport just a little bit with the platforms whereas additionally attempting to do what you’re speaking about, proper?
As a result of the sport—not solely does it reward the sensationalism, all this completely different stuff; it rewards having individuals on who’ve good YouTube channels already. Proper? I imply, in case you convey on—I introduced on my first episode this YouTuber Hank Inexperienced, proper? And now YouTube means that you can have just a little collaboration factor so that you guys can share your audiences with one another.
And it incentivizes that sport of—as a substitute of bringing on the one that nobody’s ever heard of, who’s truly method smarter than everybody else right here and may provide the dialog that’s way more enriching, it’s important to type of attempt to play this sport. And equally, attempting to have a dialog about one thing that individuals won’t suppose is that fascinating—it’s not essentially going to do in addition to, Maintain on, allow us to soar on the Epstein information proper after. That’s, you already know, my most profitable episode is chasing the information, is chasing the factor that YouTube’s algorithm already is aware of is sticky. And I’ve watched—I might like to know in case you’ve seen this, as a result of I cowl these items. I’m actually within the dynamic, what I name platform dynamics, how the completely different content material spreads round.
And I’ve watched us add a few of these movies to YouTube, and I’ve watched them begin to transfer in a extremely fascinating, like, up into the suitable path on the graph after which stall instantly. And it’s, you’re watching an algorithmic—not suppression, as a result of that’s form of ridiculous to say, however you’re watching one thing occur, proper?
It’s shifting after which it form of stops. Both it’s reached the viewers of folks that care in that sense, or—I discover that actually arduous as a result of after we’re speaking about attempting to do the work that we wish to do on this good-faith method, in a method that’s hopefully giving individuals some accountable instruments to really be taught concerning the world in a method that we really feel is credible and true, I believe it makes me very annoyed to must work towards these highly effective different forces which might be goading you into being the worst model of your self.
Frum: Properly, I share that feeling. It’s true, in fact, however you continue to must lean towards the wind. And one of many issues I believe so much about, I don’t wish to make this a too-partisan political level, however I’m sorry, I’m going to invoke Trump to not make some extent particularly right here about him—however I believe lots of people have a look at the politics of the previous decade and say, you already know, Above all, it was a large waste of time. So in 2015, the US had a sequence of very severe enduring issues: local weather change, we talked about; public debt; the academic efficiency of youngsters from the least advantaged backgrounds; the issue of bringing China peacefully into the world of commerce and applauding that they’re elevating so many individuals out of poverty, not letting them push the remainder of the world round, but additionally attempting to remain out of a battle with them, too; many, many extra.
And 10 years later, we’ve made zero progress on any of them. It’s simply been a large waste of time. We’re preventing about whether or not or not one egomaniac truly put his identify on the entrance of the nation’s main live performance corridor. What a silly method for the world’s biggest energy to spend a decade.
So I believe that. However what I additionally suppose is that this: For these of us who’ve been by this expertise, we’ve made no progress over the previous 10 years on these essential, enduring probability questions. However we’ve additionally discovered one thing about defending issues which might be essential. And it’s made many individuals higher individuals.
Many individuals develop into higher variations of themselves. Many individuals have found issues that have been essential that they didn’t know. And a number of us have had the expertise of claiming, you already know—I do know for myself, I’ll communicate very personally. I used to be on my method out. Out of politics. I had reached a sure age; I’d had sure private reverses.
I wished out, and it pulled me again. And I’m not completely joyful to be again in that world. However I do have this sense of, to some, and with out being a megalomaniac with this, as a result of it’s very small, nevertheless it’s true. If all people in every of our small diploma—we’re wanted; we’re doing one thing that’s wanted.
And in pushing again towards the algorithmic machine on this platform, we’re additionally doing one thing that’s wanted. And that’s a really invaluable human expertise. And even when it fails, it’s nonetheless invaluable.
Warzel: I’m simply, I’m caught on the thought of the non-apologetic, countercultural, we-are-the-underdog, in some sense, mentality that you just’ve famous right here.
And simply very candidly, it’s very empowering. As a result of I believe that there was a lot apologizing or attempting to stay overly deferential to people who find themselves attempting to tear the world down as a result of it’s our job to be the rational, cool heads within the room.
And I believe that coming from the angle of—these different locations are outperforming. They’ve the larger audiences—and never attempting to take the worst from them, however attempting to take that form of scrappiness, that mantle of being an rebel, attempting to be an rebel pressure.
And I believe that’s actually highly effective. I might love for extra stewards of, let’s name it, once more, skilled or institutional media to have a look at it that method, as a result of I believe it’s way more hardheaded. It’s way more combative, it’s way more—it feels prefer it provides a goal, proper?
I really feel like within the second Trump administration—within the first Trump administration, the media appeared to have a reasonably express goal. Let’s shine a lightweight on this factor. Hopefully it is going to restore the pillars of democracy, or gird everybody, in that method.
And I believe that there’s been for probably the most half, broadly, a form of lost-at-sea nature. Okay, this man received a second time. What’s our perform? What can we do? Does what we do have any impact? And I believe there’s been this greedy, looking for the aim. And I believe that that’s one thing of a goal that individuals can use, proper?
Frum: There have been so many human beings in so many historic conditions, a few of them a lot extra horrible and harmful than something we face—troopers and seemingly misplaced causes and metaphorical troopers and metaphorically seemingly misplaced causes—who simply stored going with one thought: I’m not gonna let the bastards win. And generally that’s all you want.
Warzel: I believe that ought to be, that ought to be the brand new motto, proper? Do away with “Democracy dies in darkness.” “I’m not gonna let the bastards win.”
Frum: I. I. Emphasize on the I. And anybody who’s watching, you’re the I.
Yeah. One of many issues I typically level out, in case you have certainly one of these [David holds up his smartphone], and all of us do, you’ve got extra communication energy in your hand than Walter Cronkite ever commanded. So all of us have to make use of it properly. Take into consideration what you share, take into consideration what you belief, take into consideration whom you consider, and encourage others to do the identical.
And that’s why we’re additionally gonna encourage you to share what you do consider, which is that this program, and Charlie’s, and to affix us in being co-publisher as a result of that’s what all of us are. We’re all co-publishers.
Warzel: And I believe, one, I’ve to say, when that is invoked—you’ve got all that communication energy, and the most effective issues you are able to do each for your self but additionally for others is to know when to not use it. Sure. To know when to step away from it, you already know?
Frum: Sure, very true.
Warzel: ’Trigger that could be a enormous drawback.
Frum: Charlie, thanks a lot for making the time for me at this time and congratulations on the brand new present.
We’re co-publishing this. That is an fascinating experiment, and should it flourish. Thanks.
Warzel: Completely. Thanks.
[Music]
Frum:
Thanks a lot to my Atlantic colleague Charlie Warzel for becoming a member of me this week. As I discussed initially of the present, my e book of this week is a historical past: The Trial of Madame Caillaux. Caillaux, by the way in which, is spelled C–A–I–L–L–A–U–X for these unfamiliar with the peculiarities of French pronunciation. The Trial of Madame Caillaux was printed in 1992. It’s written by the historian Edward Berenson. And it’s the story of probably the most sensational intercourse and homicide trial in pre–World Battle I France. So I’m going to only take you thru the fundamentals of the info earlier than getting on to why I believed this e book was fascinating and related now. Joseph Caillaux, the husband of Madame Caillaux, was an essential politician in pre–World Battle I France. He was related to the secular left within the extremely advanced politics of the Third Republic. At the moment, crucial newspaper of the suitable was a paper known as Figaro.
Proper, in France, means pro-Catholic, pro-militarist. Left means extra skeptical of militarism, extra secular. Joseph Caillaux, Madame Caillaux’s husband, had led a really checkered life, many affairs with many alternative girls. Though financially, he was fairly above board, sexually, he was very public in his flamboyant private life. Madame Caillaux was his second spouse. Each the ladies he married have been divorced girls.
Figaro went on a marketing campaign towards him due to his political opinions, however they used his private life. They usually acquired maintain of a cache, a bunch of private letters that made it clear that Joseph Caillaux and his second spouse, Henrietta Caillaux, had began their relationship whereas Joseph Caillaux was nonetheless married to his earlier spouse and whereas Henrietta Caillaux was nonetheless married to her earlier husband. In different phrases, they hadn’t divorced individuals after which married. That they had began an extramarital affair, then divorced, then remarried.
Now, this sort of factor did occur, nevertheless it was by no means to be spoken of, and if it have been introduced into the sunshine of day, it might be a tremendously shameful factor. And Henrietta Caillaux was certainly shamed. And so at some point in March of 1914, she goes to a gun store, buys a gun, tucks it into her muff, will get in her chauffeur-driven automotive, goes to the workplaces of the editor of Le Figaro, waits for him to emerge from his appointment, meets with him, shoots him lifeless, will get again right into a chauffeur-driven automotive, and drives to the police station. That’s March of 1914. In July, all of this goes on trial in a sensational, sensational case.
Now, it’s a case that includes many advanced and mysterious attitudes of the time. And because of this I believed it might be fascinating to speak about at this time. Madame Caillaux argues that what occurred to her was that she, a mere lady, unable to regulate her feelings, was so overcome by disgrace and rage over the publicity of her private life within the pages of Le Figaro, that as in a form of psychological out-of-control state, a state of complete uncontrollable ardour, she went to a gun retailer, purchased a gun, drove to the workplace of Le Figaro, waited for an hour, and shot the editor lifeless after which drove in the identical automotive to the police station. She simply couldn’t management herself. And the jury purchased it. The all-male jury purchased it.
An all-male trial—there was virtually no lady current within the courtroom. They purchased it, that she was so overcome by her feelings. And so the explanation this e book is fascinating is as a result of, the explanation that this trial was price resurfacing in 1992 was due to what it confirmed about this very completely different mentality of a really completely different time. The prosecution didn’t struggle the concept that if a girl have been so overcome by emotion, she can be justified in taking pictures a person lifeless.
As a substitute, they tried to argue that she had acted in chilly blood. So as to make the purpose that the Caillauxs weren’t behaving in a correct gendered male-female relationship, one of many issues they identified was what actually ought to have occurred right here, what actually ought to have occurred was Mr. Caillaux ought to have challenged the editor of Le Figaro to a duel and fought him as a substitute of letting his spouse do his soiled work for him. Someone ought to have—no drawback with killing any individual or no less than trying to kill them, nevertheless it ought to have been the person, not the lady, who did it.
However the lady, as a result of she did it, she was capable of fall again on this excuse that she was overcome by ardour. Now, as you learn this e book from this distance in time—and naturally, 1992 is now far in time as 1992 was from 1914 when all of those occasions occurred—you’re struck by the strangeness and alienness of the psychological environment that’s described on this trial of a world during which girls have been considered completely the playthings of their feelings, during which male honor required that this sort of non-public vengeance and that the sin right here was not that there was non-public vengeance, however that the spouse did it as a substitute of the husband. And a technique you possibly can react to that’s by studying the historical past of this bygone time and saying, Weren’t they silly? Aren’t we wiser?
However one other factor that may occur, and because of this I discovered the e book so fascinating to learn on the flip of the yr 2025, is that additionally wanting again at a time the place individuals believed issues that we might regard as fairly loopy, fairly irresponsible, fairly depraved, truly—it makes you just a little humble and suppose, What can we consider that’s going to look as loopy 100 years from now? Perhaps it’s not that they have been dumb and we’re smarter. Oh, that’s not unimaginable; possibly that’s true. However possibly it’s additionally true: That they had a set of delusions that we are able to see by, and we maintain a set of delusions that future generations will see by. Perhaps we must always have extra consciousness of the methods during which we could be flawed and perceive that it’s exactly these views of which we’re most sure—as a result of one factor that everyone within the trial agreed upon was that in case you have been gripped by overwhelming ardour you then have been entitled to kill any individual who had insulted you. All of them agreed on that. They simply disagreed about who ought to have achieved it, the husband or the spouse.
Perhaps the issues we’re most sure about are precisely the issues the place we’re almost certainly to be led astray. We talked just a little bit in our dialog at this time concerning the rabbit holes of World Battle II historical past. One of many causes to check historical past is to check issues aside from World Battle II. It’s not simply D-Day and Halfway on a regular basis. It’s coming into into the mentalities of a time that seemed fairly near our personal. Pre-1914 France, they’d the phone, they’d the motor automotive—form of clumsy variations of each, however they’d them. That they had revolvers, they’d the mass press, however additionally they had methods of considering that to us appeared fully unusual. And the way will we glance to our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren?
That’s it for this week’s and this yr’s version of The David Frum Present. Completely satisfied New Yr to all who’re observing the passage of time from 2025 to 2026. The present will put up on December thirty first, however a few of you could be watching it within the 250th anniversary yr of American independence. In order we mentioned on the opening of the present, no matter qualms and doubts and anxieties I expressed then, I hope this can be a deeply significant quarter-millennium occasion for all Individuals.
Thanks a lot for watching. Bear in mind, the easiest way to help the work of this podcast is to subscribe to The Atlantic. That method, you help all of my colleagues, together with Charlie as nicely. Comply with us on social-media platforms: X, @DavidFrum; Instagram, @DavidFrum. And please, in case you can, share and subscribe to this content material. It does do the work that we talked about at this time of bringing one thing that’s extra sincere to the eye of extra individuals.
That’s it for this week. That’s it for this yr. See you in 2026 on The David Frum Present.
[Music]
Frum: This episode of The David Frum Present was produced by Nathaniel Frum and edited by Andrea Valdez. It was engineered by Dave Grein. Our theme is by Andrew M. Edwards. Claudine Ebeid is the chief producer of Atlantic audio, and Andrea Valdez is our managing editor.
I’m David Frum. Thanks for listening.
