Brian Stelter analyzes Fox News’s impact on political narratives and GOP influence, and its future in bending American democracy.
|
Listen To This Story
 |
This week’s WhoWhatWhy podcast features Brian Stelter, former CNN host and author of Network of Lies: The Epic Saga of Fox News, Donald Trump, and the Battle for American Democracy.
It’s clear that Fox News will likely play a key role in determining whether America remains a democracy, and Stelter provides a colonoscopy into Fox News’s influential role in shaping U.S. politics, especially post-2020 election.
He examines the network’s complex relationship with truth, and why it’s been so successful in conning a huge group of low information voters. He shares unknown information about key figures like Tucker Carlson and Rupert Murdoch.
The podcast also explains Sean Hannity’s clever avoidance of fallout and Carlson’s impact on the GOP and white nationalism.
Stelter discusses the details of the billion-dollar defamation lawsuit by Dominion Voting Systems, revealing how Fox News perpetuated election falsehoods and its ongoing effect on the decay of American democracy.
Additionally, the dynamics among Fox News’s prime-time hosts, their denial of the 2020 election results, and their strategy to boost viewership are explored. Stelter speculates on Fox News’s future trajectory, pondering whether it might shift to a centrist approach —- or continue its extreme right-wing narrative.
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
RSS
Full Text Transcript:
(As a service to our readers, we provide transcripts with our podcasts. We try to ensure that these transcripts do not include errors. However, due to a constraint of resources, we are not always able to proofread them as closely as we would like and hope that you will excuse any errors that slipped through.)
Jeff Schechtman: Welcome to the WhoWhatWhy Podcast. I’m your host, Jeff Schechtman. Fox News, a name synonymous with American media, rose to prominence well before the polarizing era of Donald Trump. Its roots really trace back to talk radio, the precursor to today’s right-wing media landscape and the original social network of its time. Talk radio, once a diverse platform for spoken word content, evolved into a potent force in political discourse, reshaping political adversaries into foes, and normalizing overt racism and hostility as central trends in the GOP platform.
This shift, which cleverly disguised ignorance as common sense, blurred the boundaries between entertainment and influence, left a lasting impact on the American consciousness, and paved the way for a new era in media. In October 1996, Fox News was launched and immediately recognized the potential to transform the raw confrontational energy of talk radio into a visually engaging television format.
Fast forward to December 2020 and we encounter the narrative that Brian Stelter unfolds in his compelling real-time book, Network of Lies. The book offers an in-depth analysis of Fox’s role in disseminating misinformation and shaping political narratives, especially concerning the 2020 presidential election and its fallout. Stelter, a seasoned media analyst, former CNN host and contributing editor to Vanity Fair, leverages his extensive experience to provide a meticulous exploration of Fox News’s journey and the propagation of the big lie.
His book, Network of Lies delves into the intricacies of the almost billion-dollar defamation lawsuit filed by Dominion Voting Systems exposing the network’s internal contradictions and duplicity. The book reveals how figures like Tucker Carlson and Rupert Murdoch privately disavowed the false narratives that they publicized on the air. It also examines Carlson’s profound influence on the GOP, his role in popularizing white nationalism, and the circumstances surrounding his departure from Fox.
Stelter critically assesses the network’s disdain for expertise and culture and its contribution to the erosion of our democratic values. Additionally, Network of Lies sheds light on Rupert Murdoch’s historical significance and speculates on the full trajectory of Fox News within the broader context of American politics and media. In an era dominated by alternative facts, where every story and half-truth can fuel a wildfire of misinformation, the struggle for truth becomes ever more challenging.
Network of Lies is a timely exploration of this complex and contentious landscape. It is my pleasure to welcome Brian Stelter back to this program to talk about Network of Lies: The Epic Saga of Fox News, Donald Trump, and the Battle for American Democracy. Brian, thanks so much for joining us on the WhoWhatWhy Podcast.
Brian Stelter: Thank you for the generous introduction. Good to be here.
Jeff: Well, it is a delight to have you here. You’ve been covering Fox News for a long time. You’ve written about it previously. As you dug into this story, and we’ll talk about how it got started and how it exploded the way it did, talk about the changes that you had seen over the years in Fox, in Fox News, and how it had become even more insular in how it approaches its work.
Brian: Yes, I think Fox’s history over more than 25 years is a history of right-wing turns, [chuckles] right-wing turn. They go further, further, further to the right. And whether that’s the election of Barack Obama or in, more recently, the election of Donald Trump, and then the big lie about Trump’s election loss. I think it was very clear that when Biden was named president, when he was projected to be President-elect, and then he was inaugurated, the Fox audience hated to hear it.
And the Fox audience, a very radicalized audience, wanted to hear something different. And Fox served that audience. Served them up a lie instead of what was really going on. At least on some of the talk shows. It’s the most recent dramatic example, something that was going on for a long time, which is Fox catering to the audience, but also pushing the audience even more in a radical direction.
Jeff: And does it seem that, over time, that their confidence in their audience, their confidence in their connection to their audience, really allowed them to have this sense that they could keep pushing the audience further and further and further?
Brian: Yes, I think that’s right. I think the view within Fox, and this is an accurate view, is that Fox, basically, has a monopoly, that Fox, basically, has control over the GOP viewing audience in the United States. You referenced talk radio, right-wing talk radio, in much the same way that Rush Limbaugh was far and away the biggest star on talk radio for decades, Fox News has far and away been the number one television source for conservatives for decades.
And yes, there are competitors. There’s wanna-be’s. There’s rivals like Newsmax that, around the edges, might make a little bit of a dent, but none of them make a serious impact. It is Fox’s audience. The GOP’s audience is Fox’s audience. And because they, basically, have a monopoly position, I would argue they get away with a lot. They get away with too much. They’re not held to account.
This is an interesting example of competition would be a good thing in this marketplace, but instead what you get is you get a bunch of wanna-be’s who are a lot smaller who are even further to the Right, who are even more extreme. To the extent that Fox feels any competitive pressure at all, it’s to go further to the Right, further away from reality as opposed to you could imagine a center-right channel that cared about journalism more and cared about reality more and cared about winning elections, but based on a reality-driven platform. But no, that’s not what we’re seeing today.
Jeff: Talk a little bit about its power and influence with relatively small numbers. When we look at Fox two, three million viewers a night, it seems like a small number.
Brian: It is on, one level, a small number. Jesse Watters, Greg Gutfeld, Laura Ingraham, they get two to three million viewers a night. But here’s why the number matters so much. First of all, it’s not always the same two million viewers every minute of every day every night. Second, those viewers, that core, that base, they are the GOP primary voters. They’re not casual news consumers, they’re not people who sit out elections. They are the base, they are the people who care the most. So they have a large impact for that reason.
And then number three, what is said and heard on Fox radiates out throughout the network of lies, if I may borrow the name of the book. This really is a network. And what starts on Fox, what Fox leads with, what Fox prioritizes, is what ends up on the radio the next day, it’s what ends up on Newsmax the next day, it’s what ends up on the homepages of right-wing websites the next day. So Fox is a starting point.
Now, at the same time, it’s also a follower. I don’t want to overemphasize the idea of Fox as a leader because I don’t think they — I often think they are the follower. But the point is that what starts out with that two to three million viewers at any given time does radiate outward widely. Of course, across social media as well. So even though it’s only one percent of the US adult population watching at any given time, the real scale, the real influence is much, much larger.
Jeff: How much self-awareness is there within the upper echelons of Fox and the executive side, and even among the hosts, of the network influence that they have and how things can spiral out of control if it goes wrong. As it did, and, we’ll talk about the details of that. But how much self-awareness has there been of that?
Brian: Very little. It’s hard to get my sources at Fox to be introspective, to think about these issues critically. I did have a couple of cases. I had a Fox host the morning of January 6th, 2021, say to me, “Yes, we’ve turned Ronald Reagan Republicans into extremists.” She saw what was happening, she recognized it. There are some people of Fox who do see some of the damage that’s been done, but for the most part, in the executive ranks, there’s a defensiveness.
There’s whataboutism, right? They say, well, what about CNN? What about MSNBC? They point a finger in a different direction. There’s not a lot of introspection. And I think that comes through in the Dominion emails as well. There’s precious little evidence in those emails and text messages that were obtained through the Dominion lawsuit against Fox, precious little evidence that they are really thinking about the impact of the poison. And of course, poison’s my word, right? They would never call their programming poison. But I think there’s a strong argument to make to that.
Jeff: Because that self-awareness seems so important in this particular story, the story of the Dominion case, because as you detail in your narrative of it and also in all the documentation that came out of the Dominion lawsuit, this started out as, really, one crazy lady’s idea of something and exploded into a billion-dollar case.
Brian: One random woman in Minnesota, yes. A woman named Marlene Bourne who had this conspiracy theory about Dominion and Nancy Pelosi and rigged machines and hacked elections. And that conspiracy theory was sent to a Trump-aligned lawyer named Sidney Powell who then forwarded it to Fox Host Maria Bartiromo. Maria Bartiromo then queued up Sidney Powell to talk about it on TV the next day.
Now, this was floating around in the fever swamps of the internet, but there was no one else at Fox that was doing any digging on this. There was no one at Fox doing real reporting about Dominion or about these voting machines. There was no one at Fox vetting the information that Maria Bartiromo was just vomiting on the television. This was just a really clear example of reckless broadcasting by Maria Bartiromo with no checks and balances, no standards and practices, none of the journalistic norms that you would expect at a major network.
Now I get some listeners are saying, well, Fox is not a journalism outfit. Yes, Fox largely is not. Fox is largely a talk and propaganda machine, but it does have some real reporters, it does have a small newsroom, so I do think we should hold Fox to high standards. The same standards we hold NBC or ABC or CBS. They have the word news in the name after all, they want us to call it news, so this is an example of a failure on every level to vet, to check, to have any standards at all.
And the point of this story is that the lie about Dominion, it becomes part of the big lie that Trump tells. Trump is inspired by what he hears on Fox. He goes out there and repeats these lies about Dominion. And then, of course, a couple of months later, some people are so motivated, so convinced, that they board flights to Washington for January 6th.
Jeff: At one point, it could have gone the other way. Did many of the hosts on Fox, as you talk about, and even going all the way up to Murdoch, were fed up with Trump. They saw him as the loser of this election, and they thought that his time was up.
Brian: Many Fox hosts knew the truth. That’s what Dominion found when they gained discovery. Some listeners already know the discovery process happens when a lawsuit gets through the first couple of stages and then both sides get to go through discovery. They get to look through each other’s emails and texts and memos and records. And so Fox is having to hand over all these emails and text messages to Dominion.
And what Dominion’s lawyers find is that host Tucker Carlson knew that Trump had lost. Hosts like Laura Ingraham were sending messages saying Trump’s always on a grievance loop. And one of my favorite messages that I found in this archive is from Tucker Carlson saying, “If Trump had just run on a campaign platform of open the schools,” remember this is during COVID in 2020, “open the schools and law and order, he could have won. He would have won.”
So you have these hosts acknowledging in private that Trump screwed up, that he lost, that he did things poorly. And yet on the air, you know how it was, they were always defending him. And if they weren’t defending him, they were attacking the people who criticized him. So they were still doing his bidding even when they weren’t defending him. So yes, they were saying one thing, and they were doing another. And this lawsuit, even though it was settled out of court for, as you said, almost a billion dollars, this lawsuit was able to expose this reality to the world.
Jeff: Even the Murdochs were fed up with Trump at some point.
Brian: The Murdochs were so fed up. Especially Rupert Murdoch. Rupert Murdoch, the patriarch, the 92-year-old who started this entire thing, his empire, Rupert Murdoch, by 2020, was sick and tired of Trump. But nowadays, people say, people in his camp say he hates Trump. They’re very explicit about that. He hates Trump. He can’t believe Trump’s probably going to be the nominee again.
But by 2020, the two men stop really speaking, Trump and Rupert. They used to talk a lot in the beginning of the Trump presidency. There was a mutually beneficial relationship there and Rupert liked cozying up to power, sucking up to power. But by 2020, Rupert had given up on Trump, he was tired of the guy. And that was certainly significant.
Now, his son, Lachlan, Lachlan Murdoch now the CEO of Fox Corporation now, now the one appointed by Rupert to be in charge, Lachlan Murdoch is more at a distance. He doesn’t care about politics as much, he doesn’t want to cozy up to politicians, but I’m told that he’s not fond of Trump either. So these guys, although they are running a network, or they’re supposed to be running, overseeing a network that is Trump’s lynchpin, the critical node in the network of lies on behalf of Trump, they personally know. To say they’re not fond of him would be a big understatement.
Jeff: The other thing that comes out in all of this documentation, everything that came out as you talk about in discovery in the Dominion case, is the way some of the hosts walk this tightrope. Perhaps none walked it more than Sean Hannity.
Brian: Yes, Hannity is fascinating. Because Hannity, during the Trump presidency, was the shadow chief of staff. That’s a phrase some White House aides used for Hannity. He was the shadow chief of staff. Rupert Murdoch, in his deposition with Dominion, said Hannity was the one with the closest relationship to the Trump White House, the closest one at Fox to the Trump White House.
Hannity used his airwaves to promote Trump at every opportunity, to bash Trump’s critics, to call real news fake and fake news real. Hannity did everything he could have done for Trump. And yet, by November 2020, he gets so frustrated. He can’t believe that Trump lost, but he’s frustrated that the campaign is not providing proof that he won. Basically, he wants better evidence for the big lie. He doesn’t believe what he’s seeing.
In December of 2020 and the weeks before January 6th, he’s bringing on Kayleigh McEnany to claim that voter fraud is a big deal and that there’s all this stuff to investigate when there’s really not. And, well, you get the sense of that Hannity, he texts Mark Meadows, the actual chief of staff about how depressed he is about the situation. You get the sense that this guy is going through the five stages of grief, not able to accept Trump’s loss.
But by January, very early January, before January 6th, before the attack, Hannity is texting Mark Meadows saying, “I’m very worried about what’s going to happen on January 6th. I’m very worried.” And I find that fascinating. The Sean Hannity who was in touch with the White House, in touch with Trump directly, he feared what might happen that day.
Jeff: Was he really worried about it or was he trying to cover his own rear end?
Brian: [laughs] Gosh, I would love to ask Hannity that question. Hannity has never talked about what he knew about Trump around that time. He’s never addressed Trump’s state of mind before and after January 6th. There’s one very curious text message from a few days after the attack where he’s texting with Mark Meadows saying, “You know, we got to land this plane safely. We can land this plane safely in nine days,” as if Hannity is the pilot for the country. Right?
And you have this situation where Hannity is saying he’s — He was on the phone with Trump, and he felt like Trump wasn’t listening, that he couldn’t get through to the President. He was talking to him but couldn’t get through to him mentally. He made him sound like Trump had only one oar in the water, so to speak. Here’s the quote from Hannity. He says, “I’m not sure what is left to do or say and I don’t like not knowing if it’s truly understood.”
It was like Hannity was admitting that Trump could not comprehend his basic attempts to help him. And yet, again, Hannity has never talked about that publicly. He’s ever given an interview where he’s addressed what he knew about Trump’s plans to overturn the election or mount a coup. Hannity has kept all that a secret from his viewing audience. And I view that as a betrayal. Not of me, but of his audience.
Jeff: There’s also the sense, I don’t know if you agree, that Hannity became — he drank his own Kool-Aid. That he became so intoxicated with what he thought was his own power that he himself had no idea what was really happening at a certain point.
Brian: I think that is true. And that’s true for a number of these individuals. Sometimes it reminds me of that phrase about getting high on your own supply. It was that old drug dealer phrase. “Don’t get high on your own supply.” Well, some of these figures clearly did. Both with regard to their own ego and believing how famous and successful and rich and all that they were, but also with regards to Trump.
Jeff: Talk a little bit about Tucker Carlson and how he fits into this equation.
Brian: Well, for a while Tucker was the face of Fox News. He was by far the network’s the single biggest star, the highest-rated host. And he was, in some ways, he personified Trumpism without Trump. He didn’t like talking about Trump on his show. He often avoided talking about the President of the United States during the Trump years. He thought Trump wasn’t very effective. He liked Trump’s campaign promises. He was frustrated that Trump wasn’t always delivering.
And whereas every other show and every other hour cable news was obsessed with Trump, you know, Tucker went the other direction. I think that’s because he viewed himself as more effective. He would be better at doing it. He’d be better at selling the policies, et cetera. By 2020, all these text messages Dominion obtains saying, “I hate Trump passionately,” because he also says about the anti-Trump [unintelligible 00:18:47] He also says about the GOP, “I hate them so so much.”
He basically says he hates everybody, but the point is he was privately sour on Trump. He was publicly providing support by ignoring Trump’s scandals, by ignoring Trump’s controversies, by attacking Trump’s enemies. He was doing all that kind of work instead. But yes, I think Tucker was, at least in the Trump years, he thought he was, kind of, in some ways, even bigger than Trump. He was doing his own thing. He was trying to move the Republican Party in a direction that he wanted with or without Trump. And of course, as your listeners know, he was ousted earlier this year, so.
Jeff: What did Carlson want? Was it really just about himself?
Brian: I think Carlson has a view of the world, an apocalyptic view of the world. You know, Armageddon at the doorstep. He has a view of the world that he thinks he’s fighting back against, pushing back against. He’s trying to right these wrongs. Right? I think Carlson was always interested in Trump’s ideas. Restricting immigration, ending foreign wars. He was always more interested in Trump’s ideas than in the man himself.
He wrote very early on for Politico evangelicals have embraced Trump as a bodyguard, someone to shield them from the threats to their freedom of speech and worship. It’s like Carlson did the same thing. He knew Trump was highly imperfect, but he was driving in the same direction that Tucker wanted to drive in. So he hopped along for the ride so to speak.
Jeff: One of the things that you talk about is that when Carlson got fired by Fox that it wasn’t just for what happened with Dominion. That they were pretty fed up with him for a long time.
Brian: They had so many reasons to let him go. And I think Tucker created an image of himself as being untouchable, as being irreplaceable. And yes, his ratings were high, and yes he was charming in private to some people, and yes he did have lunch with Lachlan Murdoch the head of Fox occasionally, but there was a portrayal and there was a real concerted effort to portray him as a buddy of Lachlan Murdoch’s, as friends with the boss, friends with the owner. And that just wasn’t true.
So internally, there was this perception, oh Tucker’s safe, he’s protected, he’s friends with the boss. It just wasn’t true. And on top of that, not only was not friends with the boss the way people thought, the way Tucker claimed, Tucker pissed a lot of people off. He made a lot of enemies. He used awful language internally that was then shown to the people that he insulted. He turned off advertisers and made the show less valuable than it could have been, at times a lot less valuable than it could have been.
He indulged in so many conspiracy theories that he caused so many headaches internally. In the book I have like a two-page long list of all the reasons that added up to the decision to dismiss him. At the end of the day, it wasn’t one thing. It was everything. The only surprise that it took so long for the Murdochs to yank the plug.
Jeff: Was Tucker a true believer in the politics of all of this? You get the sense, certainly with Hannity, and you can speak to some of the others, that Hannity also knew that he was an entertainer. He had been in the talk radio business too long to not know that. [chuckling] Was Carlson a true believer?
Brian: I think Carlson talked his way into becoming a true believer. I think in the beginning, I knew Tucker 20 years ago, we’ve kept in touch until recently, I think Tucker, he always knew how to be provocative, combative, contrarian, charming. I mentioned that word earlier. That was all there. He’s always believed in some core values. But then it comes to the conspiracies that he projectile vomited onto TV, the false flag conspiracy about January 6th, the other nonsense that he aired in recent years, I think that stuff he actually does mostly believe now because he talked his way into believing it.
If you watch enough of these far-right shows, if you read enough of these websites, if you listen to enough of this content, if you only have friends who believe all this stuff already, it’s going to make you more susceptible to actually internalizing it. And I think that’s what happened to Tucker.
Jeff: What were the relationships between the various primetime hosts? How much did they get along, how much did they feed off each other and — Or how much were they siloed?
Brian: Yes, they are mostly siloed. I’m glad to use that word. They mostly lived in different cities, most lived in different states actually, had different staffs, rarely interacted. To the extent that they did interact, their show teams were and still are, except for Tucker who’s gone, very competitive. Sometimes stabbing each other in the back. Always wanting to be number one, always wanting to beat the other shows. Because Fox, basically, is a monopoly, it’s not like they can look at the ratings and say, yes, we want to try to beat that other channel.
Fox is the number one channel on cable for the most part, so it’s not like they’re competing against other channels. They’re competing with each other internally. And that was true to some extent for the host as well. But what was striking about the Dominion documents is that we were able to see into the text messages between the primetime stars, Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, and Sean Hannity, and I spent a lot of time in the book recreating those text message chains.
Because what you see is that, even though these shows are competitive and even though these hosts have some not-so-kind words for each other in private, what you see is at the moment in 2020 when Biden’s becoming president and the audience freaking out and Trump is lying about the election, these hosts come together. Almost like a family at a time of loss or heartbreak. They come together and they pair up, they team up with each other. It’s like they’re fighting against the world together.
It’s because even though they are at odds and even though they don’t like each other, necessarily, behind the scenes, they all felt like, at that time, they were going through something together. Of course, what they were going through is the Fox audience objecting to Biden, objecting to Fox telling the truth about Biden. And so I think we know what happened. Fox whispered the truth and shouted the lie instead. They shouted Trump’s lies instead in order to try to win back the viewers.
Jeff: Is there a Fox 2.0 that emerges from all of this or is it just more of the same?
Brian: Right now I think we’re continuing to see Fox exist in its own echo chamber, its own environment where Democrats are evil, are perverts, are dangerous, where Joe Biden is senile and unfit and maybe not actually running the country. Maybe it’s actually Barack Obama. That is the Fox worldview. There’s nothing really changing that right now. But I do think Tucker Carlson’s firing is a sign of something. And maybe not much, but it’s a sign of something.
Lachlan Murdoch couldn’t take it anymore. He did not want that brand of conspiracy thinking on his network anymore. And maybe Lachlan did it for craven business reasons, I think that’s mostly the answer, he just he did it because he wanted to make more money, and he can make more money without that conspiracy guy on at 8 p.m. Eastern, but that was a change. That was a significant change to the lineup.
And I think the question now in 2024 is going to be, will Fox tiptoe a little bit back toward the center, tiptoe a little bit closer back toward a shared reality, back toward the idea that maybe Democrats are actually principled in their views and not all just a cabal of elites trying to hurt America. Maybe they’ll at least be a little more open-minded. Again I don’t know, and I’m not going to claim they’re going to go very far in that direction, but the removal of Tucker was a statement by the Murdochs of what they weren’t going to tolerate. So in 2024, we will see what they will tolerate and what they won’t.
Jeff: And I guess, finally, the impact on cable news and whether or not it is a fading entity at this point
Brian: [chuckles] Cable news — Well let’s take off the word cable. Because cable is certainly fading. Cord cutting continues to accelerate, more and more homes are going without the traditional cable bundle with the cable box in the family room. But having a live linear television news coverage of breaking news and having talk shows on when that news is not breaking, that model is not going to go away.
If anything we’re going to see more and more flavors of that news coverage. We’re going to see more and more options. We have digital channels now like NBC News Now and a then ABC News Live, so there are more players than ever. So cable news, maybe fewer people will actually have the cable bundle, but they’re going to be getting CNN, for example, through Max, the streaming service that now has CNN, basically, 24/7.
So there’s going to be different ways to obtain this, different forms of distribution, but I really truly believe that that experience of watching someone you trust to tell you what’s going on in the world, the bad — the good, the bad, and ugly, that that will endure in different ways. Now Fox News, a little bit different than that. Fox is mostly a right-wing rage machine, an entertainment product that’s disguised as news, and I don’t see any evidence that that’s fading away either.
Because a lot of people, sadly, a lot of people want to be fed the — this nonsense. They want to be made angry, they want to be filled with rage, but hey I think that’s something that was true before Fox. Fox has accelerated. They’ve lit a match about it so to speak. I think what the rest of us can do is be aware of it, be media literate, and push back against it in our own little ways.
Maybe at Thanksgiving last week. Just personal private conversations about what is really going on in the news and not what Fox tells you. [chuckles] I know sometimes those conversations can go sideways, but I have found that listening helps. And suggesting a balanced diverse media diet helps. Just like our nutrition diet. A balanced media diet serves you well.
Jeff: Brian Stelter. His book is Network of Lies: The Epic Saga of Fox News, Donald Trump, and the Battle for American Democracy. Brian, it’s been a pleasure. Thank you so much for spending time with us here on the WhoWhatWhy Podcast.
Brian: Thank you. Good talking with you.
Jeff: Thank you. Thank you for listening and joining us here on the WhoWhatWhy Podcast. I hope you join us next week for another Radio WhoWhatWhy Podcast. I’m Jeff Schechtman. If you like this podcast, please feel free to share and help others find it by rating and reviewing it on iTunes. You can also support this podcast and all the work we do by going to whowhatwhy.org/donate.
