Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

Source: False AI-Assisted U.S. Intel Report "Almost Started A War"; Trump Calls Fears Of An AI Takeover A "Hoax"; Trump Announces White House Ban On CNN, MS Now, And Politico; The Boston Globe Names The Clancy Holdout Juror; Free Press: "Robert Kraft Made Macklemore A Martyr." Aired 9-10a ET

Aired September 19, 2026 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:00:18]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: AI almost caused conflict with China. I'm Michael Smerconish in the Philly burbs.

A false intelligence report nearly sent U.S. forces onto a Chinese ship, and the air came from artificial intelligence. According to exclusive CNN reporting this spring, during the war with Iran, a U.S. military intelligence report claimed that a Chinese ship in the Middle East was carrying components of a nuclear weapons program. The military prepared to intercept the ship. Sources tell CNN that armed U.S. service members were preparing to board it and military planes were already in the air. Only just before the operation did officials take a closer look.

They discovered that an analyst had used AI to help produce the report and that the chatbot had misidentified the ship's cargo. One source called the report entirely false and said it "almost started a war." Not because I had turned against us, but because people nearly acted on false information that AI helped produce.

We spent the past week asking whether artificial intelligence could someday kill us, I think we may be focused on the wrong part of the threat, not because the warnings are imaginary, but because AI does not need to turn against humanity to cause catastrophic harm. Human beings can trust false information generated by AI and people with bad intent can already use it against one another.

Let me break it down. Last week, Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon quit. He warned that the people building AI believed it could wipe out humanity. Last Saturday, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei said the industry must slow the development of more powerful models. Then on Monday, President Trump called fears of AI and a takeover by AI a hoax.

Wednesday, OpenAI disclosed six incidents in which its systems hid errors, invented data, used a programming key without permission, or move files onto the Internet. The company said most occurred during development and testing and that many involved models that were never released. Thursday, New York's attorney general invited AI employees to report safety concerns through a whistleblower portal. And yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Google's Gemini models gained unauthorized access to three real companies during cybersecurity testing in May. The outside company conducting the tests had inadvertently given the models access to the Internet.

Google says the models stopped the attacks after recognizing that they had entered real companies systems and that they caused no harm. All of that centers on whether AI could escape human control. But Anthropic has documented another danger. People already using AI against other people. On September 10, Anthropic released a report covering eight months of activity on its systems.

It describes cyber-attacks, government surveillance fraud, weapons development, biological research, and attempts to copy American AI technology. These aren't predictions. These are cases Anthropic says it detected and disrupted.

In Mali, a consultant working with the country's intelligence service used AI to help build a surveillance system covering all three cell phone networks in that country and roughly 25 million numbers. Anthropic shut this account down, but the system had already been completed and moved onto the government's computers. In northern Yemen, an actor used multiple AI agents to help develop a guided rocket, a long range ballistic missile, and a hypersonic missile. In China, operators used AI to build files on religious leaders, track dissidents, and gather information about protests overseas. And five cases involved biological research that could have legitimate scientific purposes or dangerous applications.

Anthropic says these were exceptional cases, not typical use, that it banned the accounts and that in some instances it safeguards limited what the users could do. But we have no way to independently verify that, and that may be the most important point. No law required Anthropic to disclose any of this. Other AI companies do not have to disclose comparable incidents.

David Sacks, the chair of the President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology, calls the AI apocalypse narrative fear mongering. He says existing liability laws can address many safety concerns, although he supports audits and greater transparency.

But this is not just a theoretical argument about machines turning on us. A false AI assisted report almost led the United States to intercept a Chinese ship. And China, Russia, Iran, and other actors are already using American AI systems. The race against our adversaries has already moved inside the products we are racing to build. So if the companies are policing themselves and voluntarily deciding what the public gets to know, who's watching the people using their technology and who's watching those companies?

[09:05:12]

Joining me now is professor of marketing at NYU Stern School of Business, Scott Galloway. He of course is the host of the "Prof. G" podcast and co-host of "Prof. G Markets" podcast.

Scott, welcome back. Which worries you more, what AI can do to us on its own or what AI can do in the hands of a bad actor?

SCOTT GALLOWAY, PROFESSOR OF MARKETING, NYU STERN SCHOOL OF BUSINESS: Good to see you, Michael. Yes, we shouldn't be scared of AI. We should be scared of reckless people with mal intent who use AI.

In 2001, a woman named Sharon (ph) Whipple was mauled by two dogs. And ultimately the owners of the dogs were put in -- put in prison. We're now prosecuting the parents of kids who find unsecure or AR15s and use those to kill others.

I think it's the incentive. There's always a wizard behind the curtain here, and I think we have to create incentives, specifically disincentives, and make it clear that, OK, while these bots are in fact coordinating and they show incredible resourcefulness and high IQ, somebody program the incentives here. So, moving to solution, I think part of it is you have to have incentives, specifically disincentives that say you, the company, and maybe individually are responsible for the bad outcomes here.

I just get this sense if you tell these companies their IPOs might be threatened or they risk criminal prosecution, they're going to figure this out. We figured out a way to control atomic weapons. I don't see any reason why we should be able to control this. And the notion that they're sentenced and it's out of my control is an attempt to absolve themselves of the guilt and the responsibility that they should bear here.

SMERCONISH: You heard me make reference to Mali getting a surveillance system on track for 25 million phones, somebody in Yemen working on a hypersonic missile, Anthropic then, you know, they say, well, we banned each. Do you interpret that as a safety story or a confession on their part?

GALLOWAY: I think it's both. And while they might be calling for a pause, I just don't think that's -- I just don't think that's realistic. A, how do you -- how do you monitor it? And B, the incentives are to keep going.

This is pretty simple. There needs to be some regulation. We've never had an industry this big that is self-regulating. Imagine if in 1946 Oppenheimer raised money from Andreessen Horowitz and started Oppenheimer Inc. and said, I'm going to sell nuclear bombs into PNG in the UAE. That's effectively what we have here.

There is absolutely no regulation. Think about the CDC, the Center for Disease Control. The greatest threat to the control of disease right now is a super virus being manufactured or created in a frontier lab. And yet the CDC doesn't seem to have any involvement or any oversight. So we absolutely need government regulation here and we need incentives.

But this is what Anthropic and in and ChatGPT are doing is, in my opinion sort of saying, OK, we need a pause. I don't think that's going to happen. We need regulation and we need incentives. This is -- this is -- there's -- like I said, there's always a wizard behind the curtain. SMERCONISH: I'm going to show the audience and I hope you'll be able to see a headline from the New York Times. The New York Times is reporting that President Trump's position on AI regulation, the hoax and so forth, is rooted actually in concerns over the potential of an AI market crash. In other words, he doesn't want to tame or intercept the trajectory of the so called Magnificent Seven. You have warned of an AI market correction. So speak to that issue, please.

GALLOWAY: Well, sure. The -- this -- the lone bright spot of the Trump administration right now is that the markets are up and actually our GDP growth is relatively strong. And what is driving that? Capex from the hyperscalers responsible for 72 percent earnings growth, responsible for 90 percent of GDP growth. So he doesn't want to do anything to slow this down.

But imagine -- just think about how strange this is. Imagine Moderna -- a scientist in Moderna had been there four months and they quit saying that the COVID vaccine, he thinks there's a 10 percent chance it could go rogue and aggressive and infectious and kill all of humanity. And then the CEO of Moderna, on learning about this, came out and said, well, he might have a point. And then the president said, I know more about biology and epidemiology and I need you to keep on shipping those vaccines for the market. This -- I'm not sure if we had a Roosevelt or a Truman right now in the office that we wouldn't have already nationalized AI.

So the fact that there's absolutely no adult supervision or someone who seems totally focused on the markets continues. The most dangerous thing here is the following. This is another example of a small group of people totally focused on capturing economic value and upside, including the president, while outsourcing and socializing all of the existential risk here. So it's capture the gains for a small group of people and companies and outsource all of the risk, all of the pain. We did this with opiates, we did this with social media, and now we are doing it on steroids with AI.

[09:10:24]

But the notion that we have absolutely no adults in the room, no regulation, it takes a drug 10 years to get through the FDA. I can't post an ad or a video on YouTube without an approval process. Yet AI has absolutely no regulation. And the notion that we're going to fall behind China is such a false flag. China regulates the hell out of their AI and as a result, 75 percent of Chinese citizens actually trust AI.

Good regulation helps these CEOs understand the rules by which they can play and helps businesses and consumers understand that when they get on a Boeing plane and FAA has tested the thing and it's highly unlikely not to crash. Regulation is a feature, not a bug, of capitalism. In this notion that we shouldn't have regulation, we should let our horses run. We have never had an industry this big that is this fragile right now. More of the incidences like the ones you outlined in your intro, and literally you could have an industry lose 90 percent of its value overnight. Regulation is not only needed for preventing a tragedy the commons here, it's needed to continue the economic growth. Regulation is a feature of capitalism and there is none here. And it indicates a total lack of understanding of economic growth in markets by the administration.

SMERCONISH: I have only 60 seconds left with Scott Galloway. I wish I had more. This is a complicated subject area, but you just raised China. Here comes President Xi. They're going to sit down.

Do you believe that the interests of Trump and Xi are more aligned or dissimilar on the subject of AI?

GALLOWAY: This is the silver lining. This is an opportunity for multilateral cooperation. We cooperate with Russia on nuclear arms. We absolutely have a mutual vested interest and not mutual destruction. The Chinese don't want their kids killing themselves.

The Chinese don't want a middle power. They don't want 158 nations with the ability to make a bioweapon. They absolutely don't want this to compromise the security of their companies.

We have huge overlap in terms of mutual coordination. And the leadership we need right now is incentives and regulation domestically. And then the next step is to meet with the world's largest powers, specifically China initially and say there are areas we compete on, but there are absolutely areas we should cooperate on.

The reason we have had so much prosperity over the last 80 years and what we learned from World War II is that cooperation is the key to progress. Treaties, navigation, similar dollars, similar laws. We can -- if we can get along with our enemies and adversaries around other technology, there is absolutely no reason we can't coordinate around this -- around this technology. Cooperation is the key here.

SMERCONISH: OK. Your glass is half full. Thank you, Scott, as always.

What are your thoughts at home? Hit me up on social media. I'll read some responses throughout the course of the program. From Facebook, neither. What worries me is people like Smerconish creating hysteria.

Are you blanking me? I'm creating hysteria. I just -- Nancy, I just related to you. I couldn't wait to come on air today because I said to my producer, Catherine, all week long I've heard of all of these scenarios. You know, the paperclip scenario about how artificial intelligence on its own may kill us.

And underreported, in my opinion is the report. Hundred and forty pages long, I read it from Anthropic, detailing exactly how artificial intelligence is already being used, human against human. Forget that the machines are going to kill us, it's that malevolent actors, as I just discussed with Scott Galloway, are already up to no good. Did you not hear about the surveillance in Mali or the development of a hypersonic missile? It's here and it's now.

I'm not trying to be alarmist. I'm just trying to shine a light on an underreported aspect of this story. So no hysteria for me, no alarmism for me, just good information.

Put that poll question up so that everybody can see what I'm asking today at smerconish.com. Which scares you more, AI escaping control? That's the conventional wisdom. Those are all the stories you've been hearing or the report that I discussed in detail from Anthropic saying, hey, Houston, we already have a problem.

Those are your choices. Go to my website. Cast a ballot. Register for the newsletter while you're there.

Up ahead, President Trump says that he's banning CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House. And just this morning, MS NOW access has reportedly been denied.

[09:15:00]

Why is he doing this? I've got a theory. What is it he doesn't want us talking about today? I'll explain in a moment.

Plus my take on the Boston Globe publishing the name of the lone juror holdout in the Clancy murder trial. I not only worry for his safety, I worry about the next jury pool.

Sign up for the newsletter at smerconish.com. You get the work of illustrators, including Eric Allie.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMERCONISH: What is it he doesn't want us talking about? That was my first reaction when I heard that President Trump is threatening to ban CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House because he clearly wants us chasing this rabbit.

[09:20:00]

And here's the thing, if he actually were to do it, in my opinion, it would so clearly be unconstitutional. There's no unfettered right of media access to government, but once access is open to some, it can't be denied to others because of the slant of their reporting. That's true of your school board, your borough council, the Congress, the White House. It's not just my opinion. It's been the law since the 1970s, when the Nixon White House tried to deny a press pass to a reporter that it didn't like and a federal appellate court said no.

And when this president pulled Jim Acosta's credential in 2018, a judge he appointed ordered it restored. Currently being litigated the question of whether in some small spaces like Air Force One or the Oval Office, there can be limited press access. But there's no doubt that he can't bar certain media from the White House generally based on their coverage. It's a no brainer, and the president surely knows that. So why float it?

I can think of only two explanations. One, he'd rather we not be talking about something else today, and there's no shortage of candidates. The unresolved conflict with Iran, gas prices, what AI could do to the job market. Or two, it's a conversation that he figures is good for the base in the midst of the midterms. A settled constitutional question, in my opinion, but nevertheless good barroom fodder over whether the President gets a fair shake from the media.

And his supporters will answer that one resoundingly no. Either way, he wins the day by getting us to spend time on this. So you got me, Mr. President. I was planning to talk about something else right now, by the way, something you would have liked. One of the virtues of our economy.

But that's the trap. You know, ignore this issue and I become an accomplice. Take the bait and I've given you exactly what you wanted. A T.V. segment about a legal nonstarter.

Joining me now is Greg Lukianoff. He's the President and CEO of the foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and co-author of "The War On Words, 10 Arguments Against Free Speech And Why They Fail."

Hey, you're the speech expert. Is it as clear and a no brainer as I just made it out to be? Or maybe I'm wrong.

GREG LUKIANOFF, PRESIDENT & CEO, FOUNDATION FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND EXPRESSION: Michael, you totally nailed it. I mean, basically, kind of like a First Amendment lawyer's job is to show that he's engaging in First Amendment -- in viewpoint discrimination in the law. And then he announced on Truth Social. Essentially, I am engaging in viewpoint discrimination against the press right now in violation of the First Amendment. So, yes, your intuition that, like, what else is -- what am I missing here, I think it's dead on.

SMERCONISH: So let's put that on the screen because here is what the president said. I don't know if I'll read the whole thing, but just to be fair and to give it an airing. "I'm proud to announce that effective immediately, I am banning fake news CNN, MS NOW, who recently changed their name due to a lack of viewership, and Politico, a ridiculous recipient of $8 million, an all-time record from the United States government under crooked Joe Biden." I mean, it's a total political screed. And yet then he says, I guess, Greg, to your point, but because they're the biased ones, I'm going to try now and preclude them.

LUKIANOFF: Yes. Yes. Well, and it's weird to say -- if there's some kind of deeper play going on because Trump, from the very first day, actually from before inauguration, has been trying to pressure the media to give him better coverage and to punish them when they don't. So this has been a consistent pattern. It could be a deeper plan or it could just be impulse control.

SMERCONISH: So I extended myself to, well, why would he want us talking? You don't have to play that game if you don't want to. But what do you think is really going on here?

LUKIANOFF: You know, I really don't know. But I do honestly think sometimes it's just his immediate reaction to bad coverage in the press because we've seen it so consistently. Like right now we're defending Ann Selzer, which was a lawsuit, and she was the pollster who got the Iowa poll wrong, saying that Harris was ahead and he's still in the process of suing her in that case. So even before he was --

SMERCONISH: Right.

LUKIANOFF: -- inaugurated, he's been going after -- going after the press. So maybe this has just become muscle memory.

SMERCONISH: Right. Or maybe, you know, the old Roy Cohn line, "don't tell me what the law is, tell me what the -- tell me who the judge is." I think that's a game that the president plays sometimes effectively. And maybe he gets a good poll at the district court level.

LUKIANOFF: Yes.

SMERCONISH: And by the time it gets to some appellate court, we've all completely forgotten about this and nobody was denied access, or so we can hope. Final thought from you.

LUKIANOFF: All you have to do to stop the press, in many cases, just slow them down by a couple seconds or a couple of minutes. And if he's planting in the head of journalists --

SMERCONISH: Right.

LUKIANOFF: -- maybe I shouldn't publish this. That can kill a story in today's fast paced age.

SMERCONISH: Greg Lukianoff, we always appreciate you. Thank you, sir.

[09:25:00]

Let's see what everybody at home is saying via social media. From the world of X -- follow me on X, Facebook, YouTube. I am not a big fan of these fake news organizations. Well, thank you for watching one, I guess, according to you. But I don't like the ban.

No. Canceling people is not the way to resolve things, says Sohrab.

Sohrab, I completely agree with your point that you can say, hey, you know what, the guy doesn't get a fair shake. He doesn't get a fair shake. But this is not the way to go about it. But I'm telling you, he knows this is legally unfounded, but he's done it again.

Mr. President, can I just say I was -- I was going to talk today in this segment, now I'll do it next week, about a brand new book about millionaires all across the country and how they're exploding in growth. You love the segment. And about how so much of the wealth of the country is actually concentrated in red communities all across America. Not on the coasts and not by the coastal elites and not by the Magnificent Seven and the tech titans, but like real Americans who are drywall installers and roofing contractors and realtors and they built big businesses and they are the economic lifeblood of the United States. And you love this part too, that the American dream is alive and well.

But now I felt pressure instead to take seven minutes and talk about this story about how you're going to ban people from the White House. That that's never going to hold up. So you decide if it was a good day, at least as it relates to me.

Still to come, more of your social media reaction. And did Patriots owner Robert Kraft make Macklemore a martyr? The author of that Free Press piece arguing that that's the case is going to join me to discuss.

Plus, was the Boston Globe right to out the Clancy holdout juror? I worry more about the next jury poll. Who's going to accept a summons now?

Make sure you're going to my website at smerconish.com and answering today's poll question. Which scares you more, AI escaping control or humans weaponizing AI? Sign up for my newsletter while you're there. It's free, it's worthy and you'll get the work of editorial -- how's that one? I love that.

Who did that? Steve Breen? Yes. Great cartoon.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:31:44]

SMERCONISH: The Lindsay Clancy trial or mistrial continues to be in the news. But are there some things in that news that shouldn't have been reported, in particular, the name and other information about the holdout juror, especially the name?

On Monday, Judge William Sullivan sealed the names of the Clancy jurors, citing real and present risk of harm from the daily divisive attention that the case has drawn. And one would think that the attention would be strongest for the single juror who held out.

Since the mistrial was declared, he's received intense and often negative scrutiny from the media and from members of the public. Nevertheless, on Tuesday, the Boston Globe published his name. They published his name. They published his age. They published his hometown, as well as information about a 2021 domestic assault that was dismissed, a restraining order for allegedly assaulting his nephew, and an eviction case for unpaid rent.

There have been questions about how he filled out his juror questionnaire, but at present we don't know what boxes he checked. And in any case, none of his activities barred him from serving on a jury in Massachusetts. He did have an obligation to check certain boxes.

So like other jurors, he answered his summons. He sat through around five weeks of testimony. He took in part of more than 40 hours of deliberation. However, unlike some of his fellow jurors, he didn't initially choose to come forward and identify himself. The Boston Globe made that decision for him.

Then on Thursday, he did speak out, maybe thinking he had no choice, saying that the other jurors were mistaken when they said in interviews that he'd had doubts. He said he didn't have doubts. As he put it, based on the evidence presented, I thought it was enough proof that the defendant knew exactly what she was doing and planned.

But that's a different issue from whether his name and information should have been revealed, because at present he may be fearing for his safety. If he isn't, I am. Countless people they now know who he is. And as we learned, all it takes is one individual to cause trouble.

Even worse, the Globe publishing his name and information could affect future jury pools. Trial by jury, guaranteed by the constitution, is the underpinning of our criminal justice system. And to make that system work, the jury must be able to determine their verdict based on what they hear in the courtroom, not what goes on outside it.

If jurors are concerned that a wrong decision is going to have their personal information broadcast to the entire world, that could contaminate their deliberations. And the result could be that nobody's going to want to serve on a jury, and the public will have less trust in their verdicts. Maybe the Globe should have thought about that a little bit more before they published his name.

Social media reaction from some of you during the course of the program. Follow me please on X and all the usual platforms. Check out my YouTube content.

The Globe put this juror in harm's way. He is now being threatened and stalked. Not OK. And this could affect future citizens wanting to serve. Can he sue the paper now?

I don't think so. And by the way, if the Globe hadn't done it I know, in fact, I think there was a less known source that already was pretty much identifying.

Look, here's the deal. Take it from somebody who has picked juries. I know what it's like as an attorney to sit in front of a room full of people who do not want to be there, and they're already looking for an angle to get out, some of them legitimate.

[09:35:06]

If now, all of a sudden, especially in a high profile case, there's the specter of, hey, my name could end up in the newspaper. And if I disagree with my fellow jurors, you know, they're going to out me and say -- it's just one more impediment to drawing good people.

We have a wonderful system, an amazing system. We resolve -- we resolve civil and criminal dispute in this country by gathering one's neighbors, not professionals, not the judge, unless it's a bench trial in limited cases. And we let your neighbors sort it out. That's amazing. We don't want to screw that up.

More social media reaction. What do we have?

Propaganda outlets masquerading as news should be banned.

OK. I mean, come on the president cannot, by the First Amendment -- the president cannot, by the First Amendment, pick and choose. When the door is opened you can't then pick and choose by whether you like the sort of coverage.

I gave you the exceptions, limited circumstances, Air Force One, the Oval Office, where you've got tight space. But otherwise, if that door is open, he can't distinguish based on whether he likes them or not.

More social media reaction. One more.

It's a move right out of the novel 1984. Control what big brother perceives as disinformation.

It's a move -- I don't know if it's Orwellian. It's a move -- the president's a master at this to control the narrative. OK? I don't know what they're doing over at MSN or at Politico because it's CNN and those two which are affected by this. But of course, we have to talk about it, even though I think it's ridiculous and will never stand up.

But otherwise, if I didn't talk about it today -- by the way, if I didn't -- I'm going to make this point, Catherine. Just let me say this. If I didn't talk about the quote, unquote, "ban" then I'd be getting social media from all of you saying, oh, you're covering for him again. You won't even talk -- you know, you won't even talk.

So of course I have to talk about it, right? It's a huge story, but I just think that the whole thing is bogus, legally bogus. That's what I think.

All right. Vote on my poll question at Smerconish.com, where I am asking today, which scares you more AI escaping control, or humans weaponizing AI? My vote is in the latter category.

Still to come, Ed Sheeran's fans bought tickets for a concert and then his opening act turned the tour into a battle over Israel, Gaza and free speech. Did NFL owners, because it wasn't just Kraft, draw a necessary line? Or did they turn Macklemore into a martyr?

Register for my newsletter when you're voting at Smerconish.com. You'll get the work of illustrators that include Jack Ohman.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:41:57]

SMERCONISH: Ed Sheeran fill stadiums with an acoustic guitar and everyman grin. Nearly 21 million tickets sold since 2008, but since his opening act, rapper Macklemore spoke out in concert in favor of the Palestinian cause suddenly Sheeran's tour is the focus of unwanted international attention.

Robert Kraft, owner of the New England Patriots and activist against antisemitism, didn't want Macklemore playing in his stadium, and several other NFL owners were poised to follow suit. Which leads us to tonight. Sheeran will be performing here in Philadelphia at Lincoln Financial Field, home of the Eagles. He'll be Macklemore less.

But when his fans get there, it's expected that they'll be confronted with pro-Palestinian protesters. Yet not one of those ticket holders was shopping for a foreign policy seminar.

Three thoughts on the Macklemore mess. First, I doubt anybody paid to hear Macklemore preach. He was the opening act at MetLife Stadium, a guest in somebody else's house. Sheeran says his fans do not expect a political forum. And he's right.

Second, I've read what Macklemore said in New Jersey. I don't like it, but I can't find the firing offense. He said, free Palestine. He performed "Hind's Hall," which accuses Israel of genocide. He told his Jewish brothers and sisters that criticism of Israel, criticism of apartheid, being against genocide in no way is a criticism of you.

Plenty of people reject those characterizations. I just don't hear hate speech in that. Patriot's owner Robert Kraft and other NFL owners control the buildings, and Kraft took his objection directly to Sheeran. Yet Kraft's own statement holds that standing with Palestinians and standing against antisemitism should not be mutually exclusive. And that's close to what Macklemore told the crowd.

But I can't get past the costume. In 2014, fresh off four Grammys, Macklemore took a Seattle stage. He was in a fake wig and a beer, a beard, pardon me, and a large hook nose. I mean, I look at these pictures and they turn my stomach indefensible and disgusting.

He said that the getup was thrown together on the spot with no ill intent. He did apologize. The Anti-Defamation League's Abe Foxman told him that he took him at his word, accepted his apology, unreservedly, accepted his apology, even as he noted that the costume reminded many people of an antisemitic caricature.

Of course it did. And it's why his assurances to Jewish fans get a skeptical hearing today. The tour's other openers have quit in solidarity. Sheeran and Kraft have each pledged $2 million in aid, and Macklemore is donating his $1 million fee.

Those who bought tickets were paying for a night that was supposed to be about the music. My view, next time shut up and sing.

Joining me now is Josh Kaplan, who just wrote a piece for the Free Press called "Robert Kraft Made Macklemore a Martyr."

[09:45:04]

Josh, thank you for being here. You say that Robert Kraft was well meaning, but that you wish he hadn't. How come?

JOSH KAPLAN, DIGITAL EDITOR AT THE FREE PRESS: Yes, I think basically the problem with what Robert Kraft did is that it's now given Macklemore even more of an incentive to carry on speaking like this. And you noticed that he's managed to add like 200,000 Instagram followers. Before Kraft added -- before Kraft got involved in this story, Macklemore was a pretty irrelevant rapper. He wasn't too famous. You know, no one had really thought about him in years.

But since then, he's been all over the news. He's had Ed Sheeran songs pulled in Ireland. You know, there's a whole galvanizing of support around him, and I just think it's -- for people that care about this issue, it seems like it's backfired and it's not the first time, and it won't be the last time.

SMERCONISH: I found more offensive the mask and the get up that he wore about a decade ago than what he said recently in North Jersey that caused this latest kerfuffle.

KAPLAN: Yes, completely. I agree with that as well. I think that's, you know, a much clearer example of something that I would describe as antisemitism. I think what he said now is something that I disagree with, but I think it's more in the realm of acceptable political speech. And so I find it strange that Robert Kraft seemingly was OK with the things he did 10 years ago, but now has been -- but now has acted after he did what he did at MetLife.

SMERCONISH: And so, it's not just Robert Kraft. I mean, we've learned from that Wall Street Journal report and others that additional NFL owners were poised to do likewise. Which begs the question, at least for me, why does Kanye West get a pass? Why was he able to perform at the Buccaneer Stadium? Why is he about to perform in the fall at the Cowboys' stadium without this kind of debate and discussion?

KAPLAN: It's a really good question and I don't know the answer to it either. I think it's -- you know, you look at Kanye West, he has this incredibly illustrious history of pretty awful antisemitism. And the fact that he's been able to do this, it shows the boycotts don't work.

You know, Kanye West was banned. He was kicked out of the U.K. and all it did was make him more popular. It's something called the Streisand effect, where you attempt to ban something and you create a ground spring of enthusiasm for it.

SMERCONISH: OK. So Josh, what then is the proper response? If this is an overreaction that only gives heft to the Macklemore among us what should have been the Robert Kraft answer?

KAPLAN: Yes, I think -- in my opinion, I think he could have ignored it. I think he could have literally said, that's a guy that, you know, he's an opener for a show. He's being seen by a few thousand people. You know, he has his views.

A lot of these people are -- these views are not uncommon in the creative space. You ignore it, you let the concert go ahead and you don't create a national and international news cycle for a whole week about it. I think, you know, those who are concerned about antisemitism need to put their energy into defending Jewish people from attacks and working on ways that make the whole community feel safer, and not doing things that create backlash and blow up in our faces.

SMERCONISH: So I agree 100 percent with what you've just articulated and the way that you wrote it for the Free Press, but let's respond to those people who will say, no, you can't let it pass. It is antisemitism. And if you allow this to go unresponded to it will only grow exponentially. You would say, what? KAPLAN: I would say, it's already growing exponentially, right? You look at the way the antisemitism has bubbled up in the U.K. and the U.S., in places all across the world. You know, I think we need to put our energy into focusing on violent criminals that are attacking synagogues. We need to focus on synagogues, security, day care security, preventing incidents like we saw in Michigan, and not get distracted by these free speech arguments and focus on the actual people that are trying to do us harm.

SMERCONISH: Yes, I would just add, I don't know if you heard the intro to this conversation, but Ed Sheeran is in Philadelphia tonight. And now here -- where I'm located. And consequently, there will be protests surrounding that event, just giving additional attention to Macklemore. Final thought from you.

KAPLAN: Exactly. And I think if I was in Philadelphia and Jewish tonight, I would feel more upset that there would be more protests that have come as a result of Kraft's intervention. And I think this is not a good resolution for Jewish people anywhere.

SMERCONISH: Thank you, Josh. I appreciate your time. I appreciate what you wrote for the Free Pess.

KAPLAN: Amazing. Thank you, Michael.

SMERCONISH: You still have time to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Here it is. Which scares you more AI escaping control, or humans weaponizing AI? Sign up for the newsletter while you're there, you'll get the work of exclusive editorial cartoonists like Rob Rogers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:53:42]

SMERCONISH: OK, there's the result. So far, 28,201 have voted. I don't like round numbers, but all right. Which scares you more AI escaping control, or humans weaponizing? Seventy percent, in my estimation, have the correct answer and saying it's the humans.

Right, that whole Anthropic report. They're telling you things that have already taken place, not the hypothetical of how asking a machine to make paper clips is going to kill us. Here's some of your social media reaction to today's program so far.

This is all overblown. AI will not destroy the world. This is about fear mongering politicians and the very oligarchs he hates, wanting more control, power and money. Y2K all over again.

So I get the belief that, hey, they want to stop the game in progress, right? That the tech titans are the ones who actually now are pushing for the regulation because they have an ulterior motive. And what is it? If they stop the game where it is today, they're in control. And other, you know, would be competitors never able -- are never able to emerge. I'm not worked up thinking that the machines are coming to kill us. I'm worried, as I said at the outset, the use of technology in the hands of malevolent forces. There are bad actors in this world who wish America harm, and I don't want them to have unfettered access. Here's more social media reaction to today's program.

[09:55:02]

You have the right to free speech, but no one is required to give you a stage for it.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no If you're saying -- if you're saying that the president is legally justified in threatening this ban because, you know, nobody has to give you the stage, it's not his stage. It's our stage.

Here. You know what? I can tie all these subjects together for you. Robert Kraft, Robert Kraft as the owner of Gillette Stadium, I didn't know we owned the stadium. Like what happened to the era when municipalities and cities own the stadiums?

OK, but if he's the owner of the stadium, he absolutely has a legal right to say that he doesn't want Macklemore to be performing because it's his house. That's not a First Amendment case. There's no First Amendment issue. There's not a government role.

But the president, the president saying, I'm going to determine who gets access to me as president on federal grounds based on whether I like their reportage? No, that is that is quintessential First Amendment.

If you missed any of today's program, remember, you can always listen anywhere you get your podcasts. We thank you for watching and we'll see you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)