Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with NATO Former Deputy Secretary General Rose Gottemoeller; Interview with NPR Music Critic Ann Powers; Interview with PolitiFact Founder and "Beyond the Big Lie" Author Bill Adair. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired October 16, 2024 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): Ukrainians deserve a decent peace. The victory plan will pave the way for this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Zelenskyy unveils his path to victory, but can he convince the west of his plan to defeat Putin? I asked former NATO Deputy Secretary
General Rose Gottemoeller. And we have an exclusive report on Ukraine's long-range drones targeting deep inside Russia.
Then, "How Women Made Music." NPR music critic Ann Powers joins me to discuss what it means to center women in pop music.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL ADAIR, FOUNDER, POLITIFACT AND AUTHOR, "BEYOND THE BIG LIE": It really has been established that the Republican Party just accepts lying as
part of its culture.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: "Beyond the Big Lie," Michel Martin talks to PolitiFact Founder Bill Adair about his new book that explores the cost of political lies.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has unveiled his victory plan to Kyiv's parliament. He's urging his war weary country to stay united and
remain committed to justice.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): I want to be frank with you on certain behind closed door communication with Ukraine.
We hear the word talks from our allies much more often than the word justice. Ukraine is open to diplomacy, but to the fair one. That is why we
have the peace formula. It's a guarantee of negotiations without forcing Ukraine to injustice.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: At the top of his five-point plan is a call for Ukraine to receive a NATO membership invitation. While new NATO Chief Mark Rutte
called the plan a strong signal, he refused to support it entirely. Since it was initially presented to President Joe Biden as well as both U.S.
presidential candidates back in September, the plan has failed to garner any real support.
Well, now, with Ukraine well into its third year of war, fears over how it will end are growing. And with the U.S. presidential election right around
the corner, Mr. Zelenskyy may be running out of time to achieve his goals.
Meantime, on the battlefield, outmanned and outgunned, Ukraine must work creatively to make a dent in Russia's war machine. Long-range drones that
strike deep inside Russia are one of those innovations. Correspondent Fred Pleitgen was given exclusive access to one top secret drone unit. Here's
his report from the frontline.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice- over): Ukrainian drones attacking Southwestern Russia, sowing panic among local
residents. Russian air defenses frantically trying to take them down before they slam into their targets. This massive drone strike carried out in late
September by Ukraine's Defense Intelligence Agency, the GUR.
And they granted CNN unprecedented access to the entire mission. Their target, a Russian ammo depot, the Ukrainians say, is storing missiles
supplied to Moscow by Iran, even though Tehran vehemently denies giving Russia ballistic missiles.
PLEITGEN: All of these missions have to move extremely quickly. They have to be very precise because, obviously, if they get discovered by the
Russians, the Russians want nothing more than to kill everybody around here.
PLEITGEN (voice-over): When you're as badly outgunned as the Ukrainians, even strategic airstrikes become hit-and-run operations. The launch
location totally secret; the mission run in near complete darkness. We can only identify the unit commander by his call sign, 'Vector'.
PLEITGEN: How fast do you guys have to be able to do all this now?
VECTOR, LONG-RANGE UAV UNIT, UKRAINIAN DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE GUR: I hope it will be in 20, 40 minutes.
PLEITGEN: OK. Tell me how much the Russians want to kill you.
VECTOR: They want very much. Because we are the -- one of the major goals for them. Because these UAVs, which going up to 1,000 to 2,000 kilometers,
these UAVs move the war inside their country and they're afraid of that.
PLEITGEN (voice-over): After installing the warheads and punching in the flight path, they push the drones to the takeoff area. The pilots going
through final checks.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): We have been preparing the route for several days. The task was set in advance. We have calculated
everything and are confident that everything will work out.
PLEITGEN (voice-over): Then, they get the go.
PLEITGEN: The launch is always one of the most difficult and most sensitive parts of the mission. They have to follow the UAV very fast with
their cars to make sure it gets into the air all right.
[13:05:00]
PLEITGEN (voice-over): The drones disappear quickly into the night sky. The GUR has been behind hundreds of long-range missions into Russia, they
say, including this September attack on an ammo depot between Moscow and St. Petersburg, causing massive explosions visible for miles. The
Ukrainians believe they hit hundreds of missiles and explosives. And in July, they hit an oil refinery on Russia's Black Sea Coast, causing a major
fire there.
In total, the GUR says these drone units are responsible for about a third of the successful strikes deep into Russian territory.
It all starts with accurate planning. In a secret location, the team gets the mission brief from their boss, whom we can only identify as "Serge".
Serge tells me he has overseen more than 550 missions into Russian territory since Russia's full-on invasion in 2022. Vector takes the laptop
with the mission details and they're off. Staying on the move means staying alive.
PLEITGEN: Operational security is extremely important for this team. So, we're on our way to the next secret location right now.
They remain on the move almost all the time. Right now, we're going to a place where they're going to do the detailed planning for the flight paths
and where we'll see the actual drones.
PLEITGEN (voice-over): The weapons depot is about 400 miles from the Ukrainian border in the southwestern Russian village of Kotluban. A major
problem, a mesh of powerful Russian air defenses guarding the area.
PLEITGEN: How good are the Russian air defenses and how difficult is it to overwhelm them?
VECTOR: Unfortunately, especially last year, it's really good. It's really good. Not -- maybe not perfect, because we are successful guys and we find
the windows in this work, in these techniques.
PLEITGEN (voice-over): The drone pilots try to find even the smallest corridors to avoid Russian radars. They gave us permission to show a
simplified version of the flight path they calculated for this mission, with dozens of way points and changes of direction. But they'll also launch
dozens of decoy drones like these, which they want the Russians to detect and to shoot down. They even put tin foil on the wings to give them a
bigger radar signature.
PLEITGEN: So, you want the Russian radars to see this?
VECTOR: Yes.
PLEITGEN: And think that it's a bigger drone?
VECTOR: Of course, yes, very good.
PLEITGEN (voice-over): But these are the actual strike drones. The Ukrainian-made Antonov An-196 named 'Looty,' Ukrainian for fierceness or
rage. They carry up to 500-pound warheads and fly around 1,300 miles, and they fit into the back of these nondescript trailers for covert deployment.
The Ukrainians say they get good results with the Looty drones, but what they really need is permission from the U.S. and its allies to use Western-
supplied, longer-distance weapons.
PLEITGEN: Why do you need the permission for using Western weapons deep inside Russian territory?
VECTOR: We want to win. We want to finish this war as soon as we can. And we understand that if you have better equipment, better weapons, we can
finish it very quickly. I don't want my son or other children have war in the future, so I want to finish it in my life, so for protecting their life
from such disaster like we received from Russia.
PLEITGEN (voice-over): So far, the U.S. is not allowing Ukraine to fire American-supplied weapons deep into Russia, as Russia has escalated its own
aerial attacks against Ukrainian cities and infrastructure, using heavy guided glide bombs, cruise missiles designed to take out whole aircraft
carrier strike groups, and nuclear-capable strategic bombers. All the Ukrainians have are their little drones, launching them in swarms to even
have a chance to penetrate Russia's air defenses.
They blast the Ukrainian folk song, "Hey, Falcons," as the GUR's own birds take to the skies. Back at base, it's crunch time. Russian social media
starts exploding with reports of an attack on the Kotluban weapons depot.
PLEITGEN (voice-over): The GUR operatives sometimes chuckling as they listen in. While the Russians claim to have shot down the drones, a video
posted on social media shows what appear to be those drones impacting and major explosions in the area of the arms depot. And Ukrainian defense
intelligence showed CNN the unblurred version of this video, now heavily blurred for operational security reasons, and it shows 11 blasts coming
from the same place, they say, so large they're confident they hit their targets.
CNN was also able to independently verify through a source what seems to be a direct hit on the facility. We're not publishing the image to protect the
source's anonymity, but it showed an explosion at the facility and what seems to be wreckage scattered around. A Maxar image shared with CNN shows
the same heavily-damaged building with some debris still lying on the floor, signs that the Russian military may have cleaned up the site.
A small, but important victory in their ongoing covert war against a powerful enemy.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Fred Pleitgen reporting there. Well, President Zelenskyy will be in Brussels tomorrow where he'll present his five-point victory plan
again to European leaders.
Former NATO Deputy Secretary General Rose Gottemoeller has been following all these developments closely and joins us now. Thanks so much for taking
the time to join us. So, in a rare appearance, as we noted, before the Ukrainian parliament, President Zelenskyy presented what he has been
traveling the world presenting to western allies, and that is his five- point victory plan.
Kyiv wants an unconditional invitation to NATO. That is the basic headline that has remained constant leading up to the war and now two and a half
years later. We haven't yet to hear western allies, specifically the United States agree to that. Do you think at some point this is a provision that
President Zelenskyy is going to have to take out of any sort of deal he agrees to?
ROSE GOTTEMOELLER, FORMER DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL, NATO: Well, Zelensky's a very good negotiator, so he's not going to give ground on any of the
points in his victory plan until the negotiations are underway. And the first negotiations, of course, will be with the NATO allies. They have a
defense ministerial going on today and tomorrow. It is the NATO-Ukraine Council meeting tomorrow where Zelenskyy will present his plan to the
allied defense ministers. So, he's not going to give ground on this.
[13:10:00]
I will note that at the 75th anniversary summit meeting of NATO back in July of this year in Washington, that the allies said that Ukraine is on an
irreversible path toward NATO membership. So, they've inched along and they've come pretty far in this regard. I think what he would like to see
is an invitation to actually open up accession talks with NATO, which has not yet occurred.
GOLODRYGA: And do you think that will ultimately happen before any deal potentially is reached?
GOTTEMOELLER: I'd like to note lost in all this discussion about NATO is the fact that the European Union opened up its accession talks back in June
and they are quietly and steadily going along.
These accession processes themselves are very long both for NATO and for the European Union. The countries who are candidate members have to work
through a huge number of issues. So, I will say that an invitation to start accession talks with NATO would not mean that NATO membership is on the
doorstep, but it would mean, it would back up what NATO has already said, that Ukraine is on an irreversible path toward NATO membership.
GOLODRYGA: What do you make of Mark Rutte saying today that he can't support the whole plan on Ukraine's victory path? The whole plan on this
victory path that President Zelenskyy has presented. He says some issues are still difficult. Is that a disappointing reaction in your view or is
that more of an honest assessment of the situation as European allies see it?
GOTTEMOELLER: Yes, that's a statement of reality. The NATO alliance works on a consensus basis, and clearly not every NATO ally is now ready to say
that Ukraine should join in accession talks or receive some kind of unconditional invitation to join NATO even before the war ends. Many NATO
allies have said they'd like to see a conclusion of the war before NATO can embrace Ukraine in a membership process.
So, I know those are the key issues that Mark Rutte has to work through right now. He too is a very good negotiator. He's not going to give ground
on his issues as he has to work through them to gain NATO consensus.
GOLODRYGA: Let me ask you to react to what the Czech president had to say about this, and he said the Ukrainians will have to be realistic, as we've
just discussed. Then he went on to say that the most probable outcome of the war will be that part of Ukrainian territory will be under Russian
occupation temporarily.
Is that something that will be palatable to President Zelenskyy and to the Ukrainian parliament in general? And what does temporarily even mean, as
long as President Putin is in office?
GOTTEMOELLER: Right. Well, Zelenskyy is not going to give ground on this point either until pushed to do so in the course of negotiations. He's
staking out his negotiating position very, very clearly. And I do think that it is necessary to do so. So, I do not quarrel at all with Zelenskyy
and his government holding this position.
Petr Pavel was discussing, I would say, a future situation that many experts and government officials throughout the alliance have been
considering the reality of the situation. But nevertheless, I think that it's important for the Ukrainians to hold ground and make sure that their
position is well understood because the principle -- whatever happens, the principle of territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine must be
upheld, even if we end up with a division such as we ended up of Germany after World War II, the allies at that time and the West Germans never gave
up on the principle that, at some point, East Germany should be part of Germany once again. And indeed, that is what happened at the end of the
Cold War.
So, that principle of territorial integrity and sovereignty is all important, no matter what happens in this Ukraine case.
GOLODRYGA: And the Kremlin, no surprise, has already responded to this five-point plan, saying that Ukraine is pushing Russia into direct conflict
with NATO. This is a line that we've heard throughout the course of this war, the last two and a half years.
You have met with Vladimir Putin. You were the first woman to negotiate a nuclear arms deal with Russia. As we're anticipating a U.S. election here,
and the outcome of which could benefit one side or the other. Enormously, what do you think Vladimir Putin is thinking at this point as he's now also
suffering great losses on the battlefield and the war, thus far, hasn't been going to plan as he'd envisioned it either?
GOTTEMOELLER: Right. I need to be clear at the outset that I was the lowly negotiator of the arms control treaty, Putin's counterpart at the table. He
was not president. He was prime minister at that point. And so, President Obama was negotiating with, at that point, President Medvedev.
GOLODRYGA: Medvedev, yes.
GOTTEMOELLER: Right. So -- and I was the lowly negotiator. So, I was not doing the negotiating. But I will stress that I have been in the room with
Putin. I've observed him many times.
[13:15:00]
He keeps his heart cards close to his chest. He's not going to give ground on his basic position either, which is that essentially that the four
territories of Ukraine in the Eastern Donbass and also Crimea are now part of Russia, period. So, he's not going to give ground on that early either.
But you're quite right that he is in a dire situation economically. Economic experts in the west are pretty clear that 2025 is a key year for
Russia because inflation is spiraling. He's forced the economy into a defense status, but that means that everything is devoted to churning out
weapon systems very effectively, certainly. But at the same time, he is facing an economy that is starting to falter. So, 2025 could be an urgent
year for him too to get something done at the negotiating table.
GOLODRYGA: Michael Kofman at the Carnegie Endowment has a new paper out assessing Russian military adaptation in the last year, in 2023. And he
concludes this, quote, "Russian forces proved more flexible and effective in the conduct of defensive operations in 2023. Yet, incremental Russian
gains came at a high cost with Russian forces proving unable to attain operationally significant breakthroughs when possessing quantitative
advantages and manpower, material, and munitions."
Basically, suggesting what we've been hearing from military analysts here in the U.S. Russia continues to make incremental grains gains in the
Donbass, but it comes at a very high cost. As we're approaching now, sadly, the third year of this war what if anything can Ukraine do given its
disadvantages to counter the direction the battle is going on at this rate?
GOTTEMOELLER: The Ukrainians -- I'm really glad you ran that clip to begin with, your correspondent did a great job capturing the amount of
technological innovation that the Ukrainians have been able to push into their missile forces. They are great innovators in this regard. They're
experienced missileers anyway. They built the huge Soviet ICBMs, intercontinental ballistic missiles. They know about missiles.
So, they've really done a great job then taking that experience and extending it even down to these small drones that they're deploying now and
using in swarms, and they're taking every advantage of new developments, such as artificial intelligence to ensure that they are targeting those
swarms in an accurate and deadly manner, as the clips showed.
So, I do think that it's important to give them full credit for innovation in a wartime setting. That is also serving as a great, I would say,
learning ground for the NATO allies as they see what is happening with the advent of these major drone strikes. So, that's one point I'd like to
stress.
The other is that the Russians have no compunction about throwing young men, and I will stress young men. They don't have women serving in their
armed forces much. But they're throwing their young men at this war in the traditional Soviet way of cannon fodder and grinding up a lot of young
lives in that way.
So, they don't seem to have any problem with doing that. But it does show that despite some technological innovation on the Russian side as well,
they are far behind in thinking about how best to prosecute the war while preserving human life.
GOLODRYGA: And just so at a numbers game, Russia has an advantage, though this is an issue that they are going to be facing imminently as well. You
mentioned young men, they're running out of young men. They're not so young men also that are fighting this war at this point. And they too will have a
manpower issue, but Ukraine has been experiencing one much sooner.
As I noted, with President Zelenskyy making a rare appearance before parliament, this five-point plan wasn't very well received among those even
within Ukraine. They think it's too optimistic, relying too heavily on the west, and even the party opposition members are speaking out about it,
saying that this isn't something that's substantial enough at this point. You add to that the toll this has taken on the country economically. So
many people have left the country. Just the sheer manpower issue, as we noted.
I'd like to play for you sound from Ukrainians in response to what we heard from President Zelensky.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): I don't know the way out of it. The war is in stalemate. There is no end to it. There are no boys left.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): To be honest, I do not believe that this victory plan will get us closer to the victory anytime soon.
Everything depends on our soldiers that are crafting this victory and making titanic efforts to make the victory closer.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: What do you make of that? I mean, I guess it's no surprise so long into a war that has been so grueling for Ukrainians who have been
heroic, for lack of a better word, in terms of how they've handled this battle thus far. All wars come to an end. What do you make of what we're
hearing from some of these Ukrainians about how they'd like to see that sooner rather than later?
[13:20:00]
GOTTEMOELLER: Honestly, it's refreshing to hear from the Ukrainians. They well understand the situation on the ground. They understand the stalemate
problem for Ukraine. And that's very different from the Russian population that is not getting the right news, except as they hear it on Telegram and
other social media channels.
So, I think it's refreshing that the Ukrainians that were interviewed seem to understand exactly the situation their country is in. And that bespeaks
a realism in the population that will, I think, at the end of the day, be a good support for any peace process that goes forward.
But I don't hear in anything you played, at least among the two, that they're ready to give up. And I think that's the most important thing. It
is a burden on society. It's a worrying burden on Ukrainian society, but I think as far as I can tell from all the sources I read, they are staunchly
continuing to support President Zelenskyy and his government.
GOLODRYGA: All right. Rose Gottemoeller, thank you so much for taking the time to join us. We appreciate it.
GOTTEMOELLER: My pleasure.
GOLODRYGA: Now, to a lighter story, celebrating women in music. "Turning the Tables," launched by NPR Music back in 2017, started as a comprehensive
list celebrating the industry's greatest women and non-binary artists and their significant contribution to popular culture. Think Ella Fitzgerald
and Joni Mitchell, Dolly Parton and Beyonce.
Well, now, continuing that journey of recognition, NPR has published "How Women Made Music." An anthology of interviews and essays from their
archives. I'm joined now by Ann Powers, author, NPR music critic, and co- creator of "Turning the Tables" to discuss this -- the importance of this project.
Ann, welcome to the program. Congratulations on this project and what it's turned out to be. And let's start there, because this new book, "How Women
Made Music," as we know, it was inspired by "Turning the Tables." And that came about through a conversation you had with your editor 10 years ago.
Tell us about that conversation.
ANN POWERS, MUSIC CRITIC, NPR: Actually, it was a conversation I had with a couple of women friends in the parking lot after a show that we saw in
New Orleans. Typical conversation among women that turns into something really important, even though it felt like just chat at the time. You know
how that happens?
GOLODRYGA: Exactly. Do you remember the show?
POWERS: We had just -- yes, it was a guitarist named Barbara Lynn. She's now in her '80s. And she's a really important person in the history of
electric guitar, left-handed guitarist, great virtuoso, had some hits in the early '60s. And we were discussing how, in those lists that you see,
of, you know, greatest guitar players, you never see her name. And that ballooned into a conversation about our other favorite women artists and
how they often either didn't make the best list or they were, you know, designated to number 28, or maybe if they were really great, like Aretha
Franklin, they'd inch up to number seven or something like that.
And we wondered what it would take for the world to see popular music really through the experience of women. And finally, we concluded we just
needed to focus on women entirely. Just put the guys out in the yard for a little bit and just talk about the women, you know.
GOLODRYGA: Exactly. And so, one of the first thing you did in "Turning the Tables" is post an online list of the top 150 greatest albums made by
women. It's been viral in 2017. The top five albums include Joni Mitchell at number one with her album "Blue." Lauryn Hill. I have to just say right
now, that is my favorite album of all time, "The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill." Nina Simone, "I put a spell on you." Aretha Franklin, "I Never Loved
a Man the Way I Love You." Missy Elliott, "Supa Dupa Fly," and that was 1997. And Beyonce's "Lemonade" was number six. These artists appear to be
all household names. Did anything surprise you in terms of the order of the list here?
POWERS: What surprised and delighted us about the top five in the list was their -- the intergenerational nature of it. You know, the fact that we had
greats from the classic era of rock and soul. And then, we also had, you know, your '90s heroes. We had Lauryn Hill, we had Missy Elliott. And also,
that it was, you know, a pretty equal mix of black and white artists, artists, you know, across genres. We were very happy about that. But most
of all, it was that intergenerational conversation we really wanted to start.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and the diversity of the list also stands out as well. And as you noted, the generational differences and the fact that -- let's go
back to number one, and Joni Mitchell and Harlem "Blue" was the top of the list. Look at that smile on your face.
[13:25:00]
You wrote, after nearly 50 years, "Blue" remains the clearest, most animated musical map to the new world that women trace, sometimes invisibly
within their daily lives in the aftermath of the utopian dream crushing 1960s.
You've also recently published a biography of Joni Mitchell called "Traveling." Talk to us a bit about her influence on music, the genre and
you.
POWERS: Well, it's -- Joni Mitchell's influence on music cannot be underestimated. She's probably -- I'm going to say she's the greatest
lyricist that the 20th century produced. Sorry, Bob Dylan. You're great too but I think she's the greatest.
I also think Joni's music, you know, it became a mirror for so many different kinds of people, not just women, men too, but the way she made
the self-inquiry, the inquiry into her own experiences and her own psychological processes into a larger inquiry that feels universal is so
important. Her story is kind of the story of women's mobility and mobility in general of the quest for freedom at the same time that you're seeking
love.
Also, musically, she's so adventurous. "Blue" is stripped down kind of folk-ish album. People consider it folk, but I think it's much more based
in Miles Davis. She's a huge jazz fan. And later on, she would go on to make jazz fusion records that are quite incredible, including "Hejira,"
which is one of the greatest albums of the '70s. So, I was happy to have Joni at the top of the list.
GOLODRYGA: You actually think "Hejira" is better than "Blue"?
POWERS: Well, OK. I'm sure you have this with your favorite artists. My favorite album changes all the time with Joni. I do think "Hejira" is such
an achievement. It's her leading a band. It's her really capturing what the inside of her mind sounds like. And it created new styles of making music
in a way that "Blue" -- "Blue" did too. But "Blue" has more stylistic peers, whereas "Hejira" doesn't have very many stylistic peers.
GOLODRYGA: You mentioned Bob Dylan. Let's play a clip of Joni Mitchell from "Hejira" singing "Coyote."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: That was from the Netflix film "Rolling Thunder Revue". How often do you listen to Joni Mitchell?
POWERS: Oh, wow. I probably a little bit every day, you know, it comes up. It come -- I have to turn it on for a few minutes. Certainly, when I was
writing the book traveling on the path of Joni Mitchell, I was immersed in her music.
Also, I'm just going to say, I hear so many echoes of Joni Mitchell in artists who are, you know, featured in "How Women Made Music" as well. So,
I feel like I'm always listening to her even when I'm not listening to her.
GOLODRYGA: What was it like going through the archives as you were working on this book? Because it's a collection of more than 50 years of essays and
interviews from NPR.
POWERS: Yes, well, the essays are all from our series, "Turning the Table." So, those are more recent. But the interviews with artists, those
are from 50 plus years of NPR. And I have to give credit to the book's editor, Alison Fensterstock, who was one of those three women I mentioned,
who was at that show where we first thought of the idea of "Turning the Tables."
And she would go deeply into the archives and then bring things back to me. And I was just -- I was so delighted with what she was finding, because
what we were finding is that interviews with people like Aretha Franklin or Nina Simone or Bonnie Raitt or Tammy Wynette, they were as relevant today
as they were when they were done, even when they were done back in the '70s, say, you know, or the '80s.
And really, so much has changed, but then every -- so much stays the same. That's just the nature of culture and the nature of women's experience as
well.
GOLODRYGA: Do you notice a bit of that and that theme continuing in some of the newer artists today? I'll ask you about Chappell Roan.
POWERS: Oh, yes. Well, I love Chappell Roan. And I'm so excited to see her having this huge breakthrough. And I think the reason for the breakthrough
is, it's the same thing that, you know, people loved about Madonna when she broke through. There's a sense of self-determination, of defiance, but also
of joy. So, much joy and so much pleasure in her music.
She's speaking for queer people, for young people, but she also speaks this kind of delight and excitement and high emotion that I think any of us can
relate to at any age.
[13:30:00]
GOLODRYGA: Something you said in a recent interview really stood out to me, you mentioned Madonna and the shock value of "Like a Prayer," right?
And the music video and her performance at the time that today would just be sort of mainstream. And you said, the disruptor in the moment is the
standard bearer in the future. Talk to us about that.
POWERS: Absolutely true. And I think that's true in terms of performance. As you said, when Madonna donned a wedding gown and writhed around on the
floor at the MTV Video Music Awards, it was shocking to people. And now, her choreography feel -- often feels kind of like the foundation that so
much else is built on.
But I want to say this is also true sonically. You know, think about hip hop and how hip hop has evolved and how -- when hip hop first emerged as a
form, it was such a challenge to kind of the ears of people who are used to rock and soul and R&B that, you know, some people didn't even think it was
music. Those people were completely wrong, obviously.
And now, hip hop is the foundation. Hip hop has really replaced rock as the foundational soundbed of music. It's everywhere now. And that's just how
things -- again, you know, how things revolve -- evolve as music, as new technology brings music into the future.
GOLODRYGA: When you put these lists together, I mean, it's -- it really is just all subjective, right? I'm just wondering, at least from the top five
list, are you surprised? Maybe I was a bit surprised to not see Tracy Chapman as one of the top five women.
POWERS: It's very interesting that you bring up her in particular. So, I think this is a lot about how legacies get built, how they grow. There are
moments when artists who are so important, who maybe were so revolutionary in their moment, but maybe receded a bit in the cultural conversation.
There are moments when they return. And Tracy Chapman's moment was not long ago partly because the country artist Luke Combs had a huge hit with his
cover of her song "Fast Car."
And I have to credit Luke Combs because he said from the beginning, he was a great fan of hers, and then when he performed with her on the Grammys,
and she was there, there was just this excitement of her return, and this kind of -- we realized there was a Tracy Chapman sized hole in our hearts
and in our culture, and we needed her to come back and fill it.
But those moments happen, not when you least expect them, but you can't necessarily predict when they happen. So, Tracy Chapman is so foundational,
and we recognize that now, but even five years ago, I think -- of course, she is on our list. And there's a beautiful essay, by the way, by Francesca
Royster about how Tracy Chapman's music helped her understand her own self, you know, as a young, queer, black woman. So, her importance was always
there. But now, we're feeling it again.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, it's -- I have to say, I'm so happy that we all are and that a new generation is to listen to her powerful, powerful voice and
appreciate her subtlety as well and her performance. Ann Powers, this is so fun. Thank you so much for joining the program. Really appreciate it.
POWERS: Well, thanks so much. And I hope people really delve into this book. It's a treasure trove.
GOLODRYGA: I really hope they do as well. Well, now, as Americans gear up for the election, our next guest warns of an epidemic of lying in U.S.
politics, particularly within the Republican Party. Bill Adair joins Michel Martin to discuss his new book, "Beyond the Big Lie." As founder of fact
checking website PolitiFact, he is well placed to account for where disinformation comes from, how it spreads, and the danger that it poses to
democracy.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Bianna. Bill Adair, thank you so much for talking with us.
BILL ADAIR, FOUNDER, POLITIFACT AND AUTHOR, "BEYOND THE BIG LIE": Thank you for having me.
MARTIN: People who follow politics may know you, because you've been around since two -- well, you've been around for a while. You were in
newspapers before, but you founded PolitiFact in 2007. Just -- if you would just tell the story of why you decided to start this. Like, how did the
whole thing start?
ADAIR: So, I started PolitiFact in 2007 when I was The Washington Bureau Chief for the St. Petersburg Times, the biggest newspaper in Florida, and
now the Tampa Bay Times. But the roots of it really go back farther to when I was covering the White House and Congress. And PolitiFact sort of grew
out of my own guilt, because I felt like, as a Washington reporter and as a political reporter, I was not doing much fact checking and I felt like we
needed to do that.
So, if you think about that time period, 2003, 2004, 2005, there were -- the Internet was just kind of getting going as a source of information and
misinformation. And there was -- there were a lot of things that people were wondering, is that true?
[13:35:00]
And so, I went to my editors and said, hey, for the 2008 election, let's start a fact checking website. And so, they agreed to that. What was
different with PolitiFact is that there had been other good fact checking efforts, most notably factcheck.org from the University of Pennsylvania.
What we did differently is we created a rating system on our Truth-O-Meter from true to false with our lowest rating, pants on fire.
And we also kept score by person, so we could tell you how many true, half true, false ratings any particular person had. So, that was the innovation.
MARTIN: We're going to get to the question of why these matters. But for now, there are a couple of, sort of, key findings that you point out in the
book, and you can explain all of these. The first is, you say, that it's an epidemic. Why do you say that?
ADAIR: What's different now is that everyone can join the line. It used to be harder to get a mass audience. You had to stand at a microphone. You
know, you had to go on television. You had to go on the radio. And now, anyone can get a mass audience with a quirky message, a viral video. And so
that can make lies spread so fast. So, that really has made it an epidemic.
MARTIN: The other thing you say in the book, and this is something that obviously we're seeing play out right now in the current election season,
you say Republicans do it more. Why is that?
ADAIR: So, that has been apparent to me really since before I started PolitiFact. When I was covering Congress, I remember thinking, you know,
there's just a lot more, at the time, stretching the truth and lying coming from Republicans. I covered the Capitol, and whatever the issue was, I
would just find that Republicans took more liberties. And then, when I became editor of PolitiFact, and we started PolitiFact in 2007, we really
saw it firsthand.
And if you think about the 2008 presidential campaign, that was Sarah Palin, it was Joe the Plumber, then came Obamacare and all the lies about
Obamacare. And so, for those first few years that we were doing this, it was really clear that there was more lying from the right.
Now, for the book, to back up my observations and my interviews, we also did some statistical analysis of fact checks from PolitiFact and The
Washington Post fact checker. And to be doubly sure, we removed the biggest liar, Donald Trump, and there were still far more lies from Republicans
than Democrats. So, I don't think there's any question that pattern was true and is particularly true now.
MARTIN: So, you've told us the what, but what about the why? Like, why would it be that Republicans/conservatives tell more political lies?
ADAIR: So, I asked that question to many former Republicans, some current Republicans, political operatives, elected officials, and I got some common
answers. So, first one was historical. A lot of them put the turning point in the early 1990s when Newt Gingrich took over the House Republicans. That
change the culture of the Republican Party, they say, because it established a culture that says anything goes. If you want to win, you can
-- you know, you can throw some elbows, you can lie. What matters is winning.
Along those lines, Denver Riggleman, a Republican congressman from Virginia who served one term, put it to me this way. He said that many Republicans
see their work as part of this epic battle. And in that, it is such an important cause to them that they really believe that lying is justified in
that epic battle.
And then, the other thing you need to add into it is a media ecosystem in - - on the right. Fox News talk radio that not only doesn't question the lies from Republicans, but echoes them and even profits from them. So, put all
those things together, and it really has been established that the Republican Party just accept lying as part of its culture.
[13:40:00]
MARTIN: I'm thinking about this -- something that has in the news at the moment where the Republican nominee, Donald Trump, former president, said
that Haitian migrants to a certain town were eating people's pets. And this all came from some kind of post on social media. And then, the original
person who posted this said she didn't -- she acknowledged later, she didn't -- she had no basis for this, or she'd heard something, she
regretted having said it because she didn't expect all this to ensue, but they keep saying it, even though it's been repeatedly debunked.
I mean, this is the kind of thing that people get fired from jobs for. You can get arrested for lying in certain contexts.
ADAIR: I think when we look back at the history of this campaign, we'll say that that lie about the dogs and cats was, in many ways, typical of the
kind of lying that we saw throughout the 2024 presidential campaign.
And what's striking about it is, on one hand, it was thoroughly debunked. The fact checkers did an excellent job of telling you that it was not true.
Reporters not only made calls about it, they visited Springfield, they talked to people, they tracked down the origin of it, and they proved it
wasn't true.
Did that matter? Unfortunately, not. Donald Trump doubled down on that in the debate, and when David Muir questioned him about it and said that there
was no evidence of it, Donald Trump said, well, he had seen it on TV. And so, that, to me, was, in a nutshell, what's wrong with lying these days is
that politicians just do it without any care at all about being called out on lies. And I think that's what we need to think about as we go forward
from this, is how can we change this system to get people to care about lying and to get politicians to care about lying.
MARTIN: January 6th is something that everybody saw, if they were paying attention. You know, hundreds of people have been through the court system
at this point, and while some of them still adhere to these lies and insist that, you know, they're patriots and so forth and it's all this, but a lot
of them said that they were radicalized, basically, by what they heard, and they thought that they were being called to do something about it. And they
say that, you know, with hindsight, they recognized they were wrong.
But what do you think it is that kind of pushed people to that point? Why do you think it is that those particular lies pushed people in this kind of
violent and dangerous direction?
ADAIR: So, unusual answer, the Facebook algorithm. So, in the book, "I Do Vote," a chapter to a city council member from Parkersburg, West Virginia,
who is one of the people who storms the Capitol on January 6th. And the reason that I chose to focus on him, his name is Eric Barber, is that he
was interviewed by the January 6th Committee, along with about two dozen other people who stormed the Capitol.
So, I read all of those transcripts, and I noticed one common word kept popping up. When the investigators asked each of them how they connected
with people, how they got information about the Stop the Steal rally that took them to Washington, one after another, they kept saying Facebook.
And so, if you ask, you know, Barber about sort of what radicalized him, he's pretty blunt in saying it was Facebook. Facebook offered him this
tasty feed of clips from Fox and love for being Trumpy, in the things that he posted. And so, it really got him be an extreme supporter of Donald
Trump.
In fact, he went to Washington, not so much to attend the rally, although that was -- I mean, he went to attend the rally, but he also went to create
content for his Facebook followers. So, I was really struck that -- at the role that Facebook played with all of these people that the investigators
interviewed and I found that's something that really didn't get discussed as much in all of the coverage of the people who stormed the Capitol.
[13:45:00]
MARTIN: Do you have a theory about why it is that Americans seem to be so indifferent to this at the moment, at least some Americans, at least enough
Americans are indifferent to it that it persists, because if it didn't work, they'd stop doing it?
ADAIR: I think it's because Americans feel overwhelmed with information. That life seems so complicated and they just don't want to have to tease
out what's true and what's not. They don't want to have to sit there with one website, figuring out if every candidate that they hear something from,
is that true? You know, they don't want to have to do homework to listen to a political speech.
Things are -- the information age was supposed to simplify our lives in many ways and to the contrary, it has made things more complicated because
we often feel overwhelmed by this avalanche of information and things that we have to deal with. And I think, along those lines, people are like,
they're lying, there they go again. And I think they just sort of shrug and say, well, politicians have always lied. And I don't think they discern the
fact that it really is different now.
In -- you know, in the old days the lying, sometimes had consequences. There were definitely points like LBJ's lies about the Vietnam War, but
today, lies about climate, lies about COVID had serious consequences for our world, for our lives. And people should care about these things.
MARTIN: Say a little bit more if you would. I kind of jumped ahead a little bit, about why it matters so much.
ADAIR: People lose faith in the system. They don't trust the political system. They don't trust institutions. They don't trust government. They
don't trust the news media. If you look at polls, polls just show declining trust in all sorts of institutions over the years. And so, lying just
contributes to that because people are like, well, what can I believe?
And, of course, you know, out in the horizon, we have the potential for a huge storm of artificial deep fakes and other sorts of fake content that is
going to make this problem even worse. But the result is a lack of trust in our institution. So, that's serious.
The other big thing is we can't have a serious conversation about important issues if we can't agree on the same facts. If you have one party that
denies that the climate is changing, we can't have a conversation about climate. If that party continues to put out false claims about climate, as
the Republicans do, we can't have the important conversation that we need to have about policies that might address climate change.
MARTIN: Look, if lying is an effective political strategy, why don't Democrats do it more?
ADAIR: The Democrats are stopped from lying by two things. One, I don't think they believe it's as effective as the Republicans do. They also don't
have the media ecosystem that would egg them on the way that the conservative ecosystem does. And they also feel shame in ways that I'm
afraid too many politicians on the right do not.
One senior White House official put it to me this way, saying when a Democrat gets a pants on fire from PolitiFact, they get a call from their
big donor that says, hey, what happened here? This is not good. Whereas on the right, the call probably is, hey, good for you, man. You stuck it to
the media, you know? So, there's a different culture in the Democratic Party that they just don't believe that lying pays off the way that the
Republicans do.
MARTIN: So, what's the way out of this, Bill?
ADAIR: So, what I tried to do was think about, well, what do politicians care about? What do they need? And then, how could we develop a policy that
could adjust the availability of those things based on their record for lying? And so, one thing that my students came up with is advertising.
[13:50:00]
So, politicians need advertising. They need to be able to reach their constituents and other supporters through advertising, particularly on the
web, particularly on social media platforms. And so, how about charging more to politicians who have worse records for lying and charging lower
rates for politicians that have better records.
And, you know, that's something that really hits them where they need it. If you could get the ad networks and social media platforms to do that, you
could put a dent in the problem. I don't think it would solve it by any stretch, but I think you could have an impact.
Another idea, same sort of concept is to take something that's very successful with Republicans, a pledge against tax increases and apply that
same approach to lying. Grover Norquist work -- who's the head of the Americans for Tax Reform, really one of the more powerful people in
Washington. He started a pledge where politicians pledged that they won't raise taxes.
What if you do the same thing about lying? If they pledged not to lie, and that the signing of that pledge became a thing, where they would be
challenged if they didn't do that.
MARTIN: Bill Adair, thank you so much for talking with us.
ADAIR: Thank you for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, it is the film Donald Trump does not want you to see. "The Apprentice" portrays a young Trump as he makes his ascent in
1970s New York. After the film was shown at the Cannes Film Festival in May, Trump's lawyers sent the filmmakers a cease-and-desist letter in an
attempt to block the release.
Here's what director Ali Abbasi said told Christiane when they sat down together in London.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: The reason it's called "The Apprentice" is because he is apprenticed to this very prominent
lawyer by the name of Roy Cohn.
ALI ABBASI, DIRECTOR, "THE APPRENTICE": That's right.
AMANPOUR: A Manhattanite who had become very famous during the Nixon administration, before that the McCarthy hearings. And he was really very,
very extreme, very good lawyer, very, very right-wing, who professed always that his major client was America.
But I want to play this clip because it is essentially what the writer Gabriel Sherman says is where Trump learnt what we now know as Trumpism.
ABBASI: That's right.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I didn't always win. There's rules.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The first rule is attack, attack, attack.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's going to be the finest building in the city. Maybe the country. In the world.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Rule two, admit nothing, deny everything.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's never been anything like this, of this magnitude, this quality. Cheese balls over here.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What are you doing?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You want one?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, it looks totally disgusting.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Cheese balls.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Rule three, no matter what happens, you claim victory and never admit defeat.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You have to be willing to do anything to anyone to win.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: I mean, it is actually extraordinary. Now, that's a trailer, so the three rules are all broken up with scenes and music.
ABBASI: That's right.
AMANPOUR: But the three rules are deny, deny, deny, attack, attack, attack, and never, ever admit defeat. And you can take that as a straight
line from there to January 6th.
ABBASI: Yes, you know, basically, it's about, like, if, you know, the reality works for you, manipulate it. If it doesn't work for you, just
manufacture the reality you need.
AMANPOUR: Gabriel Sherman, who wrote the screenplay, basically said, of course, that he had heard Roger Stone, a very close Trump ally, back in the
2016 campaign, say that Trump was winning because he was implementing the lessons Roy Cohn taught him. These three lessons.
ABBASI: Right. And, you know, obviously, we -- for dramatic reasons, we try to simplify that. You know, and -- you know, Mr. Trump is -- he's like
a sponge like character and an ideology or way of looking at the world, which is basically comes down to if you win, whatever you win, however you
win, you won. And then, you can sort of worry about the principles and worry about the aftermath, worry about the narrative afterwards. And, you
know, it's been very successful in that, you know.
AMANPOUR: And even if you lose, you win, because you say that you won.
ABBASI: That's right, because, you know, the winning happens sort of in the world of media. And the winning happens on the newspaper page. And if
you win there, then the reality would somehow follow, you know.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[13:55:00]
GOLODRYGA: And you can watch that full interview on the show later this week, where Christiane and director Ali Abbasi will talk about how Trump
became the man we know him to be today, with his unique brand of rhetoric. "The Apprentice" is out now in theaters across the U.S.
And that is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always
catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media.
Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
