Connect with us
Barrett News Media Summit 2024

BNM Writers

Major Garrett Maintains A Tough But Fair Approach to Washington’s Largest Newsmakers

Avatar photo

Published

on

CBS News chief Washington correspondent Major Garrett has hosted a podcast for seven years. While The Takeout With Major Garrett is entertaining, potential guests would be wise if they didn’t approach their appearance on the podcast as some kind of cakewalk.

“Not everybody is willing to do 45 minutes with me,” Garrett said. “We go the full 45 minutes. If someone lives by their talking points, they’re not going to enjoy being my guest.”

If a guest stumbles, Garrett won’t clean it up. These aren’t lay-down conversations. Garrett said you can’t interrogate someone, but you can indeed press them. He’s had a large number of Trump cabinet officials on his show.

“I have a reputation for being tough but fair. That’s all I ever wanted to be. I’m not going to ask the same question four times. If their reaction is to spin their answers, so be it. I’ll pierce it as best as I can.”

As with most journalists, Garrett admits there have been times he became frustrated at his lack of follow-up on a question, or if he left a topic hanging. He asks plenty of hard-nosed questions during his podcasts. If a guest ventures into an area, they’d better be able to finish. They’re not going to get off easy. His show is too risky for some politicians who can’t think on their feet.

He welcomes guests who have something to say, but he’s not going to devolve into a question of what is fact versus fiction.

“I’m not going to question Marjorie Taylor Green about Jewish lasers,” Garrett said. “That’s a wasted experience. There’s no value in that. I don’t pander and there is no predictable outcome to my shows. That may hinder some of the success of the show. I tell guests all the time we have to listen to each other, even if we fundamentally disagree with each other. It’s just too bad. We run a show that tries to bring issues to the surface. I try to listen to as many perspectives as possible.”

When he started his podcast, Garrett wanted to create a different atmosphere where his podcast followers could relate to him. He did just that. Most of his shows are recorded in a restaurant.

“If I kept the podcast in a studio it would sound like a studio conversation,” Garrett said. “I wanted to take the alpha out of some of these Washington guests. Everyone in Washington is alpha or aspires to be. I wanted to deal with simple truths and a glass of wine or a meal together while we talk, helps bring all the tension down a notch.”

Before taping begins, Garrett said the meal is pre-ordered and later delivered during discussions. The streaming audience can see that happen.

“I can polish off a cheeseburger with the best of them,” Garrett admitted. “I do it with gusto for sure. Food is part of our process. When we did our shows on Ukraine, we decided we wouldn’t eat. I don’t think it’s appropriate to feast while people are being strafed with bombs. I did a show with Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) when Republicans were in the minority. He and I ate lunch at a place near Capitol Hill, and we jumped right into messy cheeseburgers.”

Garrett said the podcast is based on his career in Washington. Despite the turbulent nature of D.C., he said nobody comes to Washington D.C. with ill intent. No designs on destroying D.C. or the country.

“I built this show on the idea that all people would be equally heard, whether they were on the right, left, or center,” he said. “I never edit their words. Never. I make that promise to my guests and audience. If something is edited for time on the show, it’s something I said that’s edited, not something the guest said.”

There is an important component for anyone who is in a visible position on television, whether they’re an anchor or reporter. Viewers have questions in their minds when they watch; should I believe him? Should I trust her? One thing that comes across is whether you are the same person when you walk away from that camera.

“Viewers will make that determination if you’re relatively the same person or whether you’re a made-up person,” Garrett said. “They need to discover who are you under those lights. In front of the camera.”

Garrett said some broadcasters like Willie Geist deemphasize themselves and emphasize the mission. “That’s the intangible,” he said. “People will say they like somebody but don’t know exactly why. Maybe that anchor or reporter is capable of making you feel comfortable.”

Garrett said as an anchor, you’ve got to get out of your head. He said British broadcasters use a term some journalists could take as a slight.

“In Britain, the television ‘anchors’ are called presenters,” Garrett said. “It’s exactly the right term. It’s all about what you hold. You hold the news. You’re handing this over to your audience, presenting it to them. You’re offering everything your news division has compiled that day.”

Garrett said the way you hand it over is the secret sauce to success.

He doesn’t see a therapist. Garrett said his podcast is a form of therapy.

The Takeout is a reflection of my approach to journalism. We’re open, full spectrum, and we hand off the information to our audience. How popular we are notwithstanding, the podcast serves what I believe is at my core. For some, we may appear to be all over the map. That’s cool for me. As I said, it’s therapy.”

The podcast allows Garrett the opportunity to present information he’s gathered but never made it on the air on a newscast.

“I would work on a story and seven seconds of the story would end up on the air,” he said. “That’s a terrible ratio when you figure out how much you put into those pieces. I figured I’d take the material from these interviews that are on the cutting room floor and present them to the audience.”

Garrett said there are people smarter than him who have researched the components of hard-core conservatism. The skepticism toward the government is one of the components. Garrett said the Tea Party had been toying with the hardcore angry conservative part of the movement, making sure they could keep the hardcore activated and voting, but not running the party.

“Trump blew through all the guardrails,” Garrett said. “I’ve attended more than 100 Trump rallies through the years.” Something he wrote about in his book, Mr. Trump’s Wild Ride: The Thrills, Chills, Screams, and Occasional Blackouts of an Extraordinary Presidency.

Garrett said Trump appeals to the person who feels alienated by the world. Trump made them feel smarter about themselves.

“The man says to his wife, ‘Honey, haven’t I always said what President Trump is saying?’ There is a connection built there. There’s no greater gift than someone telling you you’re smart. The man may think, ‘My neighbors and family told me I was dumb, but I had it figured out. I’ve never felt better about myself.’”

Garrett said people who went to Barack Obama’s rallies felt they were held in a radiant display of American Democracy.

“I will tell you the feeling at Trump rallies is the exact same thing. Some may find Trump’s rallies repellant, but some people attach themselves to his feelings and beliefs.”

Garrett said he’s not sure we’ll be able to sift through and analyze the Trump era anytime soon. Historian Paul Johnson wrote how it took 50 years to synthesize Winston Churchill’s behavior and career.

“I predict there will be as many books written about Trump as there were on Abraham Lincoln. Everyone will try to pick apart a particular component of this larger matter.”

Garrett said the podcast had focused on the war in Ukraine for six weeks straight. What he calls the biggest story about our century. Certainly the story with the most serious consequences.

We’re just one wrong move from potential extinction. The war in Ukraine makes the entire world vulnerable. Garrett said the war in Ukraine can revive the psychological horrors of the Cold War.

“The stakes today are enormous,” Garrett said. “We don’t know what’s going to happen to this sovereign country which could be drained of its lifeblood by Russia. We’ll be talking about this brutality for the remainder of the century.”

Will we be forever changed by the events of this war?

“I don’t know how you could argue the counterposition. Our structures of the post-WWII era are in question. There are issues with international law and sovereignty. I know Putin writes a kind of corrupted Russian history about Ukraine, but Ukraine is fighting for its destiny on its terms. Someone has to capitulate. Sue for peace. Putin is biding time and assuming Ukraine will fatigue.”

Garrett said this is very serious stuff. In the last week, we’ve had three United States B52s flown along the corridor. Three times they’ve scrambled jets to intercept them.

“Nothing happened but the rhetoric gets edgier. Declarative. In regards to the drone that was shot down, maybe it was an accident, or maybe it wasn’t. Either way, these scrapes can spin out of control as history has shown us.”

Garrett has kept an eye on the potential indictment of Trump.

“I do think there was something tactical about his announcement on Saturday. To redirect attention to the district attorney. I’m not sure he panicked. There could be something very strategic to this practice. There could be some very damaging court rulings coming up Friday on the classified documents case. I’ve been around both candidate Trump and President Trump. I have some familiarity with this approach. If there is bad news in one place, he will generate a story at another pace. He’s going to stir the drink his own way.”

Subscribe To The BNM Rundown

The Top 8 News Media Stories of the Day, sent directly to your inbox every afternoon!

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

BNM Writers

News is the Only Thing Missing From Election Coverage

Coverage of the election is, as we’ve discussed, still very horse-race-centric, and there’s been, of course, coverage of the various Trump court cases, but where is the coverage of exactly what the candidates plan to do if elected?

Published

on

A photo featuring I voted stickers

The first thought I had when I heard NBC had hired Ronna McDaniel as a commentator for $300,000 a year was to wonder how many actual journalists they could have hired for that money. Then, I recalled that NBC had laid off dozens of news staffers just a few months ago. Then, I remembered that I had just recently written a column decrying news organizations throwing pretty much anybody on the air as a “pundit” and this….

This was worse. It’s one thing to grab some rando who happened to be a minor functionary for the Executive Branch. It’s another to hire someone whose job was to promote election denialism and pretend that her opinion is something valuable for viewers. And, yes, it’s just as ridiculous when news organizations hire former presidential press secretaries (that’s you, Jen Psaki and Sean Spicer), their very jobs were to spin everything in their bosses’ favor and now you’re going to pay them big salaries for, um, what? Because they “have a name” or you’re afraid someone else will snap them up? Why them?

The McDaniel deal lasted five days, one completely unilluminating interview, and one unexpected Chuck Todd spine-growing outburst, so it’ll all blow over soon enough. The problem is, though, the part about having fired several news staffers, and what it means in an election year on both the national and local levels. If you have the money to hire an alleged pundit – any alleged pundit – you have the money to hire reporters, and I don’t mean anchors or opinion show hosts.

Coverage of the election is, as we’ve discussed, still very horse-race-centric, and there’s been, of course, coverage of the various Trump court cases, but where is the coverage of exactly what the candidates plan to do if elected? Who’s probing Project 2025 and why isn’t it front-page, first-segment news? Who’s pressing the Biden administration on Gaza? Is anyone reporting on the candidates’ record on climate change?

Beyond prescription drug prices, is anyone digging into the broken healthcare system and demanding answers from the candidates about what they’ll do to fix it (and not letting Trump get away with “I’ll have a better plan, a beautiful plan” without a single specific detail, like they did in 2016)? Why didn’t anyone focus on, for example, the GOP candidate for governor of North Carolina and his incendiary past comments well before the primary?

Pundits are not going to do the legwork on the issues; they’ll just talk about swing states while John King and Steve Kornacki point at their touchscreen maps. We need reporting on the things that matter (and can affect that horse race, even if most people have made up their minds). It shouldn’t just be Pro Publica and scattered independent journalists doing the dirty work.

Honestly, I don’t want to hear the complaints about the quality of the candidates or how this is a rerun or any of that. (We’ll leave that to The New York Times.) We are a horribly underinformed electorate and we got the horse race we deserve. It might just be idealists like me who think that, just maybe, the news media can play a role in educating the public and bursting the bubbles and echo chambers. This country has survived and prospered for a few centuries with the press shining a light on injustice and corruption.

Now, when we need that most, they’re more concerned with what they think will bring them ratings and money (although someone will have to explain to me who thought having Ronna McDaniel as a paid commentator would draw a single viewer to NBC).

Here’s a thought: Don’t lay off reporters, especially in an election year.  Assign them to dig deep on issues that matter to the voters.

Let the pundits talk about that.

Subscribe To The BNM Rundown

The Top 8 News Media Stories of the Day, sent directly to your inbox every afternoon!

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Continue Reading

BNM Writers

8 Ways to Take Your Commercials From Drab to Fab

Our main source of income is derived from commercials. There are a lot of bad commercials.

Avatar photo

Published

on

A photo of a sign with the letters AD on it

Another reason to read this column, I often add an Easter egg. We are in the advertising business. Our main source of income is derived from commercials. There are a lot of bad commercials. Frequently, clients write these ads. You can excuse it if the spots suck. But when the commercials are written by Account Executives or the production department at the station, it is kind of unforgivable.

I am going to share the most meaningless phrases in commercials.

Locally Owned and Operated

Customers do not care. If customers cared about a business being locally owned and operated, Walmart would not exist. People want service, selection, and value. They do not want to get soaked. When you purchase something, are you willing to pay 20% for a local company? If you say yes, you are wrong. People want a deal.

The Phone Number

Doing 70 down the 405, John slammed on the brakes to write down the phone number for an amazing HVAC Company. That is not how it works people. HVAC companies rarely have or should have regular customers.

Normally, your AC is out. You call the HVAC Company that you are familiar with. Radio advertising allows people to have “TOMA”: Top of Mind Awareness. There are stats that show when a company is advertising on your radio station, their website shows an increase in traffic. When you needed a service for your home, you hit Google and choose the company that you’ve heard of. It’s that simple. I actually heard a commercial asking listeners to add a businesses phone number to their contact list. That is a moronic use of advertising real estate.

Street Addresses

“Tequilaberry’s Prime Rib is located at 106 East Governors Drive in Peoria.” 

The people listening cannot process that detail. You could say “Tequilaberry’s Prime Rib is on Governors Drive just off 10th in Peoria.” That is almost digestible. That creates a picture of where it is.

Trust me, people interested in prime rib will Google you and load the address in their navigation system. Spend that precious spot time selling the experience of the restaurant.

Always Using the Company Owner/Founder in Commercials

Sometimes, it is amazing when business owners are their spokesperson. They have passion and are natural salespeople. Some business owners are terrible at speaking about their product.

When you have a business owner who is a natural promoter, they can drag listeners into their business. I once worked with a family who owned a couple of hardware stores. They spoke about the benefits of visiting their stores. It was heartfelt and real. They promised that their employees can help solve any problem in your home. If you went to that store and had a simple or complex problem, the employees helped you out.

I once worked with a man who owned a really nice flooring company.  For whatever reason, he thought that he was funny. He had spots written by him, his wife, or a kid. The ads were dreadful. They were not funny at all. Account Executives need to talk these clients out of doing commercials like this. Nothing says wacky hijinks like flooring.

Overuse of Numbers

“We have grapes at 99 cents a pound, Chuck steak at $1.99, two-for-one zucchini.”

Trust me, no one driving in city traffic can keep track of that. “The 2025 Chevy Chevette is back with 45-mpg efficiency and amazing 18-inch tires. Prices start at $19,999…  The New Chevy Silverado starts at $32,999.”

It gets really confusing fast.

WWW.

Yes, I hear commercials saying check us on the internet at “W-W-W dot business name here dot com.”

WWW is assumed and not needed anymore unless you are running a Commadore-64 with the latest floppy disc technology.

Yellow Pages Ad

“Check out our new ad in the Yellow Pages!”

OMG, no one reads those damn things anymore. Most people born after 1960 just toss those suckers in the trash. There was a time when the Yellow Pages were the largest revenue generator in advertising. Yes, a book of ads. Like Facebook, without your buddy’s political, vacation, or food posts. It was just ads. Zero content.

I had stuffed salmon tonight that I engineered myself. I would make Sydney Sweeney quite the trophy husband. Set us up. Hey, I am single. It was not that long ago that you would hear a radio ad that promoted a coupon in the Sunday paper.

Well, that copy should be deader than a doornail.

Amateur Theater

A husband and wife discussing their lawn and how she heard about Telly’s Lawn Service from her friend Stacy. 

Those commercials are obviously contrived and not interesting at all. 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Open every commercial must have an attention-grabbing opener. “Totally Jammed…  The floor covered with the guest towels. Fearing the horrific consequences of another flush…  I did the right thing. I called ABC Plumbing. Quick service, a great price, and peace of mind.”

The next time that the plunger is failing to get the desired results, the listener of that commercial will identify with the very realist scenario.

We are in the advertising business. Use radio as it was meant.

Subscribe To The BNM Rundown

The Top 8 News Media Stories of the Day, sent directly to your inbox every afternoon!

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Continue Reading

BNM Writers

The Lost Art of Using Sound as a Springboard

Use sound it wherever you can. All you need is a loyal, capable and willing board operator, to go along with a conscientious host.

Published

on

A photo of Jon Stewart hosting The Daily Show
(Photo: Comedy Central)

Jon Stewart was the first guy to do it — take a politician’s words from the news of the day or week. Search his or her entire past and find a sound byte saying the exact opposite.

It became an art form – and a great way to keep people accountable.

Most radio operations don’t have the resources necessary to consistently do something like that, but truth be told, that kind of journalism isn’t really the point of this week’s column.

It’s an example of the simple power of sound. We need to use it more within our shows. Use sound it wherever you can. All you need is a loyal, capable, and willing board operator, to go along with a conscientious host.

Speaking from experience, not doing it is lazy.

Doing it takes minimal effort and helps conversations tremendously – especially when it’s in real-time. I know. I’ve been there – missing opportunity after opportunity because I didn’t think of it, ask for help or just do it myself.

Put simply, good sound is a better springboard to a question than just a question.

Just the other day, I realized how well it works and how little I’ve been doing it.

Here’s what happened.

We have one particularly heated congressional race in our state. The Republican candidate is running for a second time after narrowly losing in 2022 in an election where Connecticut’s gubernatorial candidate from the same party got smoked, and the Republican presidential candidate lost the state as well.

This time around, there’s a struggling Democratic President with real doubts about the economy and the country’s standing in the world.

Put simply, the Democratic congressional incumbent has a massive task ahead to get re-elected.

On my show, I try to be consistently independent and be a place for both parties to appear with the expectation that the conversations will be fair and honest.

The Republican candidate came on the show earlier this month, and we went through a number of issues. Connecticut is a relatively strong Democratic stronghold, where the party controls the legislature, the Governor’s Mansion, and the entire congressional delegation.

Having said that, the largest voting block is unaffiliated, so appealing to independents is crucial for either side to win. I asked the Republican candidate twice about whether he will support Donald Trump, and both times, he equivocated. I asked the follow-up, we were on the record, so I moved on.

The following week, his opponent, the Democratic incumbent, was scheduled to appear on the show. Before her arrival, I realized the Trump Q&A should probably be replayed for her. Duh.

My producer found it, clipped it, and had it at the ready. I felt that I should have realized it sooner and not put some added strain on my partner’s morning routine. He was fine, but it definitely added unnecessary work within the show.

Lesson learned.

The sound byte worked well. I played it. She responded. We moved the story forward, and it was compelling – as you might imagine, the topic of Trump vs. Biden is pretty compelling these days.

By no means did it create a “wow” moment. That would be a little much. But it did make the show better, using the opponent’s own voice as opposed to my paraphrasing something. That lends credibility, not only to the topic but also to the show. He gave this important answer on our show, and she gave her response … on our show.

My final thought on this is that we (I) need to look for more places to utilize sound as a springboard to conversations, as opposed to simply raising the topic and discussing it. Maybe you’re already good at it and do it all the time, but this past week, I realized I need to push myself to do it more.

Subscribe To The BNM Rundown

The Top 8 News Media Stories of the Day, sent directly to your inbox every afternoon!

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Advertisement
Advertisement

Upcoming Events

BNM Writers

Copyright © 2024 Barrett Media.