Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
New Documentary Explores CNN Camerawomen; Interview With State Sen. Mallory McMorrow (D-MI); Interview With "No Ordinary Life" Director Heather O'Neil; Interview With Former CNN Camerawoman Cynde Strand; Interview With Marketing Professor At NYU's Stem School of Business Professor Scott Galloway. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired April 26, 2022 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:40]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: Hello, everyone, and welcome to AMANPOUR.
Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
STATE SEN. MALLORY MCMORROW (D-MI): I want every child in this state to feel seen, heard and supported, not marginalized and targeted because they
are not straight, white and Christian.
GOLODRYGA (voice-over): A Republican colleagues smeared her in a vicious attack, so Michigan lawmaker Mallory McMorrow responded in a fiery speech
that's invigorated Democrats. Now she tells me whether her viral moment will spark a turning point in the culture wars.
And the brave volunteer working on the front lines of the war in Ukraine, can she convince reluctant families to flee for their safety?
Plus:
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So many times, people have asked me: Why do you do it? Why do you risk your life?
GOLODRYGA: The documentary turning the lens on pioneering CNN camerawomen who stare down danger and misogyny to capture history?
Then: How will Elon Musk's Twitter takeover impact free speech? Hari Sreenivasan talks to tech expert Scott Galloway.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour, who will be back on Thursday.
Well, the U.S. midterm elections are just months away. And right on cue, the culture wars are raging. Nationwide, Republicans like Florida Governor
Ron DeSantis have seized upon discussions of race, gender identity and sexuality in schools. Michigan Democratic lawmaker Mallory McMorrow found
herself in the middle of this pitched battle after defending the LGBTQ community.
In a fund-raising e mail, a Republican colleague accused her of wanting to -- quote -- "groom and sexualize children." McMorrow says she was livid.
And, last week, she delivered this blistering response on the floor of the state Senate:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MCMORROW: People who are different are not the reason that our roads are in bad shape after decades of disinvestment or that health care costs are too
high or that teachers are leaving the profession.
I know that hate will only win if people like me stand by and let it happen. So, I want to be very clear right now. Call me whatever you want. I
hope you brought in a few dollars. I hope it made you sleep good last night. I know who I am. I know what faith and service means and what it
calls for in this moment.
We will not let hate win.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: That speech has earned McMorrow more than 15 million views and a call from President Biden.
But has she also offered fellow Democrats a blueprint on how to navigate the thorny social issues usually dominated by Republicans?
Mallory McMorrow joins me now from Michigan.
Mallory, it's great to have you on.
I'm sure you have now watched and heard clips from that speech of yours many, many times, obviously, millions of views on social media. Let's walk
back to the moment that you woke up and saw that fund-raising e-mail from that Republican state senator, Senator Theis.
She wrote: "Progressive social media trolls like Senator Mallory McMorrow (D-Snowflake) are outraged that they can't teach, can't groom and sexualize
kindergartners or that 8-year-olds are responsible for slavery."
What went through your mind in that moment when you read that e-mail?
MCMORROW: It was just so hurtful and so vile, especially for a mother to say about another mother.
And I did not understand where it came from, and just realizing that, if I feel this bad in this moment, imagine how much worse it is if you're a
member of the LGBTQ community who is called this vile nonsense every single day.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
And when I was watching you deliver that speech, clearly, I could see you were reading it, you wrote it, but it was as if you were saying it and
delivering it in the moment. It came from the heart. It came from the gut. You barely took a moment to pause. And you were giving your audience,
people there on that floor a sense of who you are as a person.
[13:05:04]
And you describe yourself as a straight, white, Christian, married, suburban mom. Why did you choose to label yourself with those specific
words?
Because it is so disgusting to see the Republican Party right now really weaponizing Christianity, taking advantage of particularly white suburban
moms, who are burned out and frustrated after the pandemic and balancing family and work life, and weaponizing that to target already marginalized
people.
So I felt like it was very important for me to reclaim my own identity, knowing that there are so many more like me who do not feel like targeting
people is the way forward and to say that you don't speak for us. And there's a lot more of us who want to get back to a place where we can
debate policy, but we're not ruining people's lives.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, a white, suburban, Christian, Democrat and a mother. And that's how you describe yourself.
You don't hear many Democrats describe themselves that way in terms of being proud of their background, who they were, who raised them, what their
mothers went through, what their pastors taught them at church, going to soup kitchens as a child.
I wonder, do you think that that is because this issue has become such a binary choice? You're either in one camp or the other. And you were able to
break through in a way that we haven't heard from other Democrats. Do you think that opens the door to more people like yourself who just happen to
be from a different party?
MCMORROW: I hope that it does.
When I fill out endorsement questionnaires, there's often a line that just says religion, and it's a one-word answer. And what I was hoping in this
moment was, it's a lot more than a one-word answer. This is who I am. This is how I was raised. And a lot of us have similar relationships with faith
and the church and community and what that means.
And people will vote for you if they trust you. And you have to build that trust by finding common ground, finding areas where you don't know you have
a lot in common, but you do. At the end of the day, we love our families, and we love our communities.
And I think reclaiming that moral ground that's been taken away from us is really, really powerful.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and you hit on the timing of this all.
This is coming -- we're still -- the vice president just came out testing positive for COVID. I mean, we're still dealing and living in the pandemic,
right, and dealing with COVID, but, obviously, not during the height of it anymore. Schools are reopened, thankfully. But we came out of a period
where, for many Americans, their children were home, out of school for over a year.
They had to become the parents -- the teachers. They had to talk about and cover some of the literature that their children were reading, and they
became more involved. And this seemed like a real opportunity, and we have seen the impact of it in state elections across the country, where parents
didn't like some of the things that they saw directionally happening at schools.
I mean, do you think that is a point that's worth debate, but has, in at least your case, been sort of hijacked by some people just trying to raise
money off of it?
MCMORROW: Yes, I think there's a difference between debating how we engage with each other.
It takes a village to raise a child. My mom was super active in my public school. She was a homeroom mom. She went on field trips with us. She always
knew what was going on. And I think that this experience has elevated we should be more involved. Teachers want that too. They want parents who are
involved in sharing what's happening at home.
It makes being a teacher easier. It makes being a parent easier. So I think that that room is there. But that doesn't mean that we target and
marginalize and attack people just because they happen to be different, because that is a deflection away from the real issues that are impacting
people's lives.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
And you say in your speech that the marginalized, those who are targeted, those who have less, often unfairly. Who in this case are you referring to?
MCMORROW: So we have seen this. And we had Christopher Rufo testify actually in the Senate Education Committee here in Michigan, who was
profiled in "The New York Times" as really creating these moral panic culture wars that manufactured outrage.
It started with Critical Race Theory. And he said as much here in Michigan and, in the profile over the weekend, pointed out that he feels that
there's so much more power in attacking the LGBTQ community and attacking this moral panic around sexuality. So it is the black community. It is the
LGBTQ community and really any community that is targeted by this strategy.
GOLODRYGA: And you sort of equated that with some of the social and economic issues that Americans across the country are dealing with by
saying, listen, targeting this group of people will not fix our roads and bridges, will not handle inflation and bring inflation and prices down.
[13:10:12]
Why do you think that the two seem to be so linked by at least some members of the Republican Party in their quest to win the midterms? We're just a
few months away.
MCMORROW: Right.
I think it's a lot easier to play on fear than to offer up real policy solutions. And it's also not sexy to talk about policy solutions, when you
can stoke fear and anger. We saw here in Michigan the Republican nominating convention play out this past weekend, where they nominated secretary of
state and attorney general candidates, and nominated far right fringe, conspiracy theory, Trump-backed candidates who do not believe that the 2020
election was valid, who continue to promote ideas of election fraud and who have said outwardly that the LGBTQ community is -- quote -- "not a part of
God's design."
This is where the party is going. And I feel like too many people who are kind of traditional moderate Republicans are afraid to stand up and stop
that from happening.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, I'm glad you brought that up, because, again, I think it only exacerbates the problem when you lump everybody into one party, and
then the other party is sort of the champion of a cause, right?
So, in your conversations, in your day-to-day and your work, do you have these conversations with Republicans who tend to agree with you behind
closed doors, but may not be as vocal about it, for fear of what some of their constituents may say?
MCMORROW: I think so.
And outside of the colleagues that I work with, I want to talk about the constituents I represent, because I flipped a district in 2018. I represent
Mitt Romney's hometown. And I think there's a lot of people who voted for me because they don't hate other people, because this version of the
Republican Party is not the party that they grew up with.
So I wanted to be very intentional about not saying this is a Democratic vs. a Republican issue. But it is this iteration of the Republican Party
where Mitch McConnell has said outwardly there is no policy strategy going into the midterms. And now you see these manufactured culture wars being
the only policy.
That's not where a majority of the people that I represent are. We can debate how we raise and spend taxes. We can debate what we are doing to fix
the roads and improve infrastructure and transportation, but not targeting people, because it doesn't solve those problems.
GOLODRYGA: So how do you have these conversations, again, not targeting people, but explaining to some, perhaps of an older generation that are
accepting of the trans community, but don't necessarily understand new bathroom laws or what's happening in Florida with the don't say gay bill?
They don't want their children, for many families, to be discussing sexual orientation, reproduction, any of that up until a certain age. I mean, how
do you have sensible conversations without being lumped into one category or the other?
MCMORROW: Yes, I think it's a good question.
And I think a lot of it is about exposure. There's a huge difference between teaching vulgar sex acts, which is not happening in kindergarten
classrooms, and acknowledging that there's a lot of different people in the world that kids are already meeting. Kids are in the world right now. It is
-- some kids are raised by mom and a dad or two moms or two dads or a grandparent or a foster parent or maybe a trans transparent.
And that is wonderful. And I think we should have those conversations. And there's so many people in our own community who would be willing to sit
down and meet and just say, here's who I am. I love the same things that you do, my community and my state and my country.
And I think we're going to find that, once we see each other as people, we don't have this fearmongering that's really reminiscent of the same
language that we saw during desegregation, when parents and certain groups were arguing against their kids seeing black kids in their school.
GOLODRYGA: Right.
And I'm glad you brought that up, because you flagged that in your speech as well. It's, I think, accepted and oftentimes happens that a new
generation says, this is a crisis moment, we have never experienced something like this. And you say that you ride on the shoulders of people
from the past of somebody like Father Ted Hesburgh from Notre Dame, who stood for some of the same issues and values that you are advocating for
now, for fighting for the marginalized, given that he had a voice that many others didn't.
MCMORROW: Absolutely.
And you know what? Change is hard. And I think that there is space for us to acknowledge that and accept that, but also recognize our own place and
reach out to help those who are being targeted, and making space for even those who may be like me, may be straight, white, suburban moms, who don't
necessarily know how to step into this space and feel like you might say the wrong thing, and that that's OK.
[13:15:10]
But, again, it's how can we remind people we all want the same things at the end of the day? And it is that community, family value that we all hope
for, for our own kids.
GOLODRYGA: And talk a little bit about what Father Hesburgh did and who he marched with.
MCMORROW: He was instrumental in the civil rights movement, marched arm and arm with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr -- and I said this in the speech -- when
Dr. King was alive, and when it wasn't a popular thing to do.
And Father Ted is a white man, is a priest, and was the head of a very well-respected institution. That was a risky thing to do at the time, but
saw his own privilege, his own place, saw our neighbors being attacked and targeted and beaten because of who they are, and instead of saying, well,
they just should have complied, reaching out and locking arms and saying, we got you, we see you for who you are.
And that is the type of faith and Christianity that I have and somebody who I want to learn from and walk in the footsteps of.
GOLODRYGA: So how can you be that blueprint for your party, which many say that speech was the definition of?
MCMORROW: So my story is not everybody's story, but everybody has a story. And I only ran for office for the first time in 2018. I haven't done this
my entire career.
But I know, even as a voter and a constituent, I vote for and support people who I trust, who I feel like, even if we might disagree, that they
got my back, and they're going to fight for me, and they are real people. They don't talk in policy language. They talk like real people. And I think
that is something that everybody in my party and, frankly, in our communities can do.
What is your story? What is your background? What do you care about? And how can you connect with somebody on a real human level?
GOLODRYGA: Your background was in brand strategy and marketing. And I'm just curious, as we end this conversation, do you regret leaving that? Do
you enjoy politics? Are you going to stay?
MCMORROW: Especially after this past week, I did not expect the reaction to this, but the outpouring of love and support and stories that -- the amount
of letters that we have gotten from all over the country, from families, parents of trans kids, from members of the LGBTQ community, of Martin
Luther King Jr.'s son calling out our speech and saying, this is what dad stood for, I mean, it has really renewed my faith in this job.
I made the right move, even when it's hard. And, hopefully, we're leaving the place a little bit better than we found it.
GOLODRYGA: That's really lovely to hear.
Mallory McMorrow, thank you so much for spending some time with us.
MCMORROW: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Well, we turn next to the war in Ukraine.
The U.N. secretary-general is in Russia today meeting with Vladimir Putin and accusing Moscow of violating the U.N. charter, this as the mayor of
Mariupol says that a third mass grave has been found near his city.
With Russia's assault intensifying in parts of their country, some Ukrainians have decided to hunker down.
Correspondent Sam Kiley spoke to one volunteer who is risking her own life to make sure that others find safety.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SAM KILEY, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): At 21, Maria Shtern is a war veteran. She's been a volunteer on Ukraine's front
lines in the Donbass for five years.
Today, she's delivering medicine and food to villages within range of Russian artillery. A new phase in Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine is
under way. And it's sometimes hard to understand why people stay in front- line villages.
MARIA SHTERN, UKRAINIAN VOLUNTEER (through translator): I'm asking people a specific question.
Are you ready to hear children crying and saying mom, I'm scared to die? It gives me the creeps to hear them say that myself.
KILEY: Russian forces have captured Izyum a few miles to the north. Pounding nearby towns with artillery and rockets, they're slowly advancing
south towards Slovyansk and the city of Kramatorsk. Russia's aim is to capture this territory.
To do so, it needs to overrun this landscape. Maria is heading towards them, about three miles from the latest reported Russian forces and heavy
shelling. She ignores air raid sirens. A family who had become friends are hanging on in their home, and she's bringing them food.
On arrival, good news. They have agreed to pull out. A last run in the spring time garden for Evgenia and Oleksandra, who ignore the town's
sirens.
NATALIA MALIGON, RESIDENT OF MYKOLAIVKA, UKRAINE (through translation): My sister woke up this morning and said, we have to leave. So, we packed up.
We didn't want to leave until the last minute, but then something made her want to. So, we had to.
[13:20:00]
KILEY: It's an emotional wrench, but it's a relief.
(on camera): The importance of groups like Maria are part of a volunteer army right across Ukraine here in the front-line villages is not just
humanitarian. It's political. It's about trying to hold on to as much Ukrainian government territory as is possible for as long as is possible.
(voice-over): The lessons from Bucha and other towns captured by Russia is that many civilians may not survive occupation. A neighbor herself,
frightened and confused, still refuses to go. She's got a job at the local power plant. Joining Ukraine's millions of refugees risks a life of deeper
poverty.
SHTERN (through translation): It's simply genocide of the Ukrainian people. I don't know how else to explain it to you. You just ask for what?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translation): We're not planning to leave here. This is my homeland. And my relatives are here. I cannot leave anyone
here. My elderly grandmother is 80 and can hardly walk. I can't leave her. Do you understand?
KILEY: There's no joy in escape for grandmother Luga, not for anyone in this family.
Tens of thousands of people are staying on in their homes across this region. In a nearby church, Orthodox Easter services are dominated by
prayers for peace, but the unholy ghost of war looms heavily here.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Our thanks to Sam Kiley and that incredible reporting there.
And among the many casualties of Putin's war on Ukraine are journalists. It's a tragic reminder of the dangerous, yet essential work by those on the
front lines.
Among those risking danger in such crises are photojournalists, the people normally behind the camera. But now they are the focus of a new
documentary. "No Ordinary Life" profiles five veteran CNN camerawomen who traveled the world covering conflicts and overcoming sexism.
Here's a clip from the trailer featuring Christiane.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: These camera women blazed a trail that they didn't even know they were blazing at the time. They were
incredibly brave, incredibly resourceful.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It is a sisterhood. When you go into these situations that are very difficult, very scary, it's nice to know that somebody
understands what you have been through. There's not that many people that understand what you have been through.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Joining me now our director Heather O'Neill, plus two of the women featured in the film, Maria Fleet and Cynde Strand.
Welcome, all of you.
I have to say, I watched this yesterday. And I don't know. I mean, like 1,000 emotions just overcame me watching it. I'm so proud to be a colleague
here at CNN. And I was a bit jealous that I didn't get the chance to work with you.
But let's talk about this film, because, Heather, to have -- obviously, this is a no-brainer, having watched the documentary, but what made you
decide to cover the women in particular behind the camera?
HEATHER O'NEILL, DIRECTOR, "NO ORDINARY LIFE": Well, when I started at CNN, Bianna, these women were all legends. And I knew their work.
And I wanted to show the world what -- not only what they covered, but to share these important stories with the world in front of the camera and
what was going on behind the camera. Each of these women are incredibly brave and took enormous risks to inform the world. And I wanted to make a
film that immersed people in their whole experience ,in their point of view, now what it was really like to be behind the camera in some of these
really searing moments.
GOLODRYGA: Maria, when you were approached about this documentary, was there any hesitation about being profiled, about now being in front of it
and capturing so many years of your important work?
MARIA FLEET, FORMER CNN CAMERAWOMAN: Well, thank you for having us on.
Yes, I guess I had a little hesitation just because I'm a photojournalist, and I'm used to being behind the camera, and I'm not used to having people
focus on me.
But I knew Heather and I knew her work. And so I -- and we -- it is an interesting story. We kind of don't think our own stories are that
interesting, until someone points out that that's a unique -- that that was a unique experience for us in a Unique time in journalism history.
GOLODRYGA: Your stories are fascinating.
And just sitting there, Cynde, and watching you begin your career sort of doing what you grew up wanting to do, right, and that is learn Mandarin and
go to China and ride your bicycle there, it's a job, it pays the bills, but it's clear that it takes a certain passion to enter this field.
What was it about you that made you realize this was the field for you?
CYNDE STRAND, FORMER CNN CAMERAWOMAN: Well, there's two things.
[13:25:00]
I have always wanted to be a journalist. B, the, unfortunately I can't spell. So what did I gravitate to? I gravitated to camerawork. And I think,
more importantly, though, to be able to tell people's stories, that's what really put the fire in my belly.
And I have to acknowledge the courage of all the journalists right now in Ukraine, CNN journalists, all the journalists there. And, once again, it
just shows you how important it is to be on the ground somewhere and tell people's stories, to be able to introduce people around the world to the
people that live in Ukraine right now, in our case, maybe Bosnia or Somalia and other places, but to put names to the people that are going through
this.
And their lives are changing. And so I just feel like that passion I had is what drove me -- drove me to become a journalist. And, fortunately, CNN
gave us opportunity as women to pick up the cameras and travel around the world.
GOLODRYGA: When you're on the ground there, and especially, Cynde, your time in China was so crucial in getting a pulse on what was happening in
that country. And you talk about in the film -- and I want to play a clip of it -- of just knowing in your bones that something was about to happen
in Tiananmen in 1989.
And you decided to work in the evening, because that's when the uprising -- that's when something would happen. That's when the military would come
out. You weren't given a heads-up. It was just something you felt. Let's play the clip. And then you can talk about what led you to that after.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STRAND: That particular night, I knew that was the night.
I just felt it in my bones, that the government was going to shut this down. You're it. You're the one that's going to see it, and you're the one
that's going to record it. That's why you're a journalist. So, we stayed.
We started to get to reports that the tanks were coming. There's flames in the distance, and we're starting to hear bullets cracking down the street,
and not just zing, zing, but pretty heavy fire, and bodies coming into the square.
We snuck around the back and started talking to the kids as they left.
QUESTION: Do you think anybody got killed?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Of course, I'm sure, very sure. Many students were killed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: You know, I was watching, and what stood out to me, just with your camerawork. I could see the sweat beads of the soldiers there. You
were that close. You were that focused.
In that moment, were you aware of the magnitude of what was transpiring in that country?
STRAND: Yes, because I was living in China at the time. I wasn't parachuted in. This was my home.
And we had been in the square day after day after day and, in my case, night after night after night. And, as I said in the film, you -- we just
knew it was going to happen. And, once again, this is the importance of being there and being a witness to what's happening and being able to
interpret that to the world and tell the world.
And, that evening, we knew there were reports of people being killed on the ring roads around Beijing, as the soldiers moved into town, and people
tried to stop the soldiers. And so we knew that this was happening as it got closer and closer to the square.
And another example of why it was so important to be there, I saw a lot of people killed around the square, but in the actual square, people weren't -
- the students weren't killed. The soldiers came in and pretty much beat them off the square.
So it's just another example of how important it is to be there and, in my day, how important to -- we had to hide on the back of a -- kind of a
rickshaw to get our tape out with blankets over us. So just -- not just filming it, but getting the tape out in those days was a challenge, on that
day in particular.
GOLODRYGA: And it speaks to the danger that's involved in the job.
And it was interesting to hear all of you say you're not necessarily adrenaline junkies. You're not out there seeking to be in the middle of a
gun battle, but you're filming some of these important moments as countries -- as these conflicts unfold.
And, Maria, you found yourself in a dangerous situation where you were hurt in Tikrit. We have a video of that. And I don't know how you managed to
keep it all together, but that's why you're able to do what you do.
But let's play it for our viewers.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FLEET: We went through this armed checkpoint.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right, they're saying no film.
FLEET: But, soon, we attracted some attention. And a couple of pickup trucks with guys with guns came. And we figured we needed to get out of
there.
The guys with the AK-47s pulled up right next to us.
[13:30:00]
And my driver was talking to them, across me. Then they slowed back up and just started firing into our car.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK that's gunfire. OK. We've just gone under attack. Under attack.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Yes, you just see that bloody hand there. Maria, in the moment, did you realize what had happened? And, you know, what's the first thing
that goes through your mind as you've got your camera right with you and you realize that you got, you know, a head injury?
FLEET: Well, and to be clear, we were -- I had -- I was -- had transitioned to -- into producing at that point. And I had a camera with me but we also
had a fellow -- there was a fellow camera -- cameraman, Christian Strive (ph) with me as well, who shot a little bit of that footage, too.
But we had gone into Tikrit to -- right after Baghdad fell but Tikrit had not fallen and we ventured in and then realized, oh, it's kind of a dicey
situation. We need to turn around and get out. And as we turned around, these cars followed us -- cars -- two cars full of gunmen, pickup trucks.
And I just thought, you know, we made a mistake. I had a very -- it was a very sobering moment where I just thought, we made a mistake and this is
how it ends. This is, you know, we are going to get killed.
GOLODRYGA: And you were fortunate enough to survive. I do want to ask you, Heather, about another photojournalist who you feature in this film, and
that's Margaret Moth. She had a devastating injury that she encountered while she was driving in sniper alley in Sarajevo. Christiane worked with
her as well. And Christiane and the film talked about how she just felt that it was time for her to leave. And she wanted to persuade Margaret,
too. And Margaret said, no, I am staying. And she was defiant.
Why was it important for you to tell Margaret's story, and we should tell our viewers that she, sadly, many years later, then passed away after a
long and courageous battle with cancer?
O'NEILL: Yes, Margaret was incredible. You know, Maria and Cynde knew her quite well. I never was actually able to meet Margaret. But, a really dear
friend of hers, Joe Duran, had an incredible, you know, interview with her. And as a filmmaker, it was really important. I was having a hard time, you
know, finding her voice, you know, to tell her own story.
And, you know, we found this interview with her and it was really remarkable to be able to have her speak and talk about her life, and, you
know, everything that she had done and contributed, too. And I was just so struck by her spirit. I mean, just her absolute fierceness. I mean, she was
an incredible journalist. And, you know, just until the end, I think it was probably pretty hard for her to put the camera down, you know, once she was
diagnosed.
So, it was really important to have Margaret, you know, be present in this film. And we found some amazing footage of her returning to Sarajevo. I
mean, that's the best part of her story, is the first place she wanted to go back after a year of really grueling surgeries was Sarajevo and she did.
And --
GOLODRYGA: Do you think she was --
O'NEILL: -- thanks to her doctors, yes.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. You captured her so well. I mean, fears and courageous and bold. And I could, you know, those piercing blue eyes. I just -- I couldn't
stop looking at her in this film. Cynde, what is clear is there are not many women photojournalists out there. And, I know one question that you
all, at this point, you know, were so exhausted about hearing so many years into your jobs was, can I help you carry that camera?
Is it too heavy? Is it more dangerous to be a woman than a man in this job? And you hear it not only from strangers but I know from family members who
were worried about you going out there. Talk about, you know, being a woman in the middle of a war zone filming it'll.
STRAND: Well, I will say, you know, I have many role models, you know, many of the still photographers were women and especially some trailblazers from
Vietnam. You know, Catherine Leroy and Dickey Chapelle and just so many women that I could name and they were still photographers.
So, when we showed up on the scene as, you know, carrying heavy equipment, and ladders, and tripods. A lot of times people were just shocked. And they
were -- well, and often I would set -- people would say, are you -- where is the cameraman? Are you -- are they making you carry that stuff for the
cameraman? So, you know, and I can't tell you how many times we're in these security scrums, you know, if you're filming a VIP, and you have these big
burly security guys and they're trying to push the camera people away.
[13:35:00]
And they'd look at us and shock, like, wait a minute, that -- there's something wrong here. But, you know, I have to say, you know, so many of
the -- you know, when we first got started and -- you know, also, there was Jane Hartney from ABC. There was -- one of the leaders, you know, lead
camerawoman during our time. But, you know, the camera guys, you know, they welcomed us. They moved our tripods over and made space for us, you know.
Quite a few guys would look at my tapes and give me some feedback on my tape and you know.
In the old days, we would feed from these TV stations and no one would wait around to watch CNN's tape and certainly, no one would wait around to see
my tape feed. And then, you know, then people started waiting around to see my tape feed. And I really felt like, oh, you know, I'm -- I'm there.
GOLODRYGA: Maria, listen, we work with some incredible male photographers and photojournalists. So, not to knock any of their incredible work, but I
was sort of struck by the female gaze. And that being a concept that was picked up on by female photographers shooting some things that, you know,
perhaps it's being a mother, perhaps there's just something about seeing children and families, just little details that really add to your
storytelling. What do you make of that? Do you see a difference in some of the work that you've seen from your female colleagues that you don't
necessarily always see from men?
FLEET: Well, I think that the female -- as women, we move through the world in a certain way. We have a certain perspective. And, I know that that
informs the pictures that we take. I can't say, as a class, you know, what it is. What it is that we do differently. I mean, I know that most of the
time, in conflicts, we don't spend a lot of -- we don't pay a lot of attention to the hardware of war and, you know, what kind of a tank that
is. I mean, to the extent that we have to know what it is we do.
But, you know, we pay a lot -- I know that we, Cynde and I, and Mary, and Jane, and Margaret, all paid a lot of attention to the people who are, kind
of, the bystanders in war. The people who are just -- the war is happening around and they're kind of the victims of it, and that's most of the
people. And they're just trying to, you know, get their -- you know, take their kids to school or, you know, make a living. And instead, they're
being uprooted from their homes. It's --
GOLODRYGA: Well --
FLEET: -- it's very hard for me to watch what's happening in Ukraine right now because of that.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, I can only imagine --
FLEET: To see that.
GOLODRYGA: -- and seeing all the suffering. And yet, you know, I think about the incredible strength that all of you had. You know, I was watching
this film and seeing emaciated starving children in Africa. I was looking away. And then I told myself, these women were filming. These women were
filming all of this when they were probably feeling the exact same thing I am.
And that's why it's so important that people around the world saw what was happening there and all of the other conflict zones where you report. I am
just so honored to meet you, virtually. I wish we could spend more time talking about working with Christiane. That's going to be the next segment
we have you on for. But Heather, Cynde, Maria it's an honor to talk to you. And I'm so glad that you are featured in this wonderful documentary.
STRAND: Thanks, Bianna.
O'NEILL: Thank you, Bianna.
STRAND: Thanks so much.
GOLODRYGA: Well, the world's richest man just got a lot more powerful. Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has done a deal to buy Twitter for $44
billion. He says, his goal is to bolster free speech on that platform. But, what does this mean for the future of one of the world's most influential
social media sites? Here's author, entrepreneur, and professor Scott Galloway speaking to Hari Sreenivasan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Bianna, thanks. Scott Galloway, welcome back. So, for the billions of people on the planet who
are not on Twitter, why is this a big deal?
SCOTT GALLOWAY, PROFESSOR OF MARKETING AT NYU'S STEM SCHOOL OF BUSINESS: Well, you have a media company -- that is a media company that reaches, not
only reaches hundreds of millions of people but it has tremendous influence. Have you checked Twitter today, Hari?
SREENIVASAN: Yes, but you know, I'm a journalist. I stay on top of it for that reason. But, you know, for people who don't understand the value of
this medium who say, well, I don't really care about the -- you know, what someone is thinking about or doing in this place. OK. So, it's the richest
man in the world. Is this really the Townsquare? Has this become the public square?
GALLOWAY: Well, I would describe it as the private square, you know. I think there's been an incorrect inflation of First Amendment issues and
this takeover. And that is that the First Amendment is a government pass on the law that restricts free speech. This is a private company and any
private media company creates a voice. And part of that voice is not only about what's on the platform but what's not on the platform. So, I think
that we incorrectly inflated First Amendment issues.
[13:40:00]
But you say, well, I'm one of a small group of people. But the people who have impact on a lot of other people and shape their narrative usually they
turn to Twitter first. So, I was on the board of "The New York Times" and we like to think that we were the paper record. And we you watch the
evening news, what you found is the evening news, the producers of the evening news decided what America would see based on what was on the front
page of "The New York Times".
And I think you're starting to see that the narrative, what people decide is important is in large part dictated by what Twitter thinks is important.
And it has become, sort of, the news polls if you will, where the kind of the narrative pulse where some people would refer to it as consciousness.
And I'm -- some of them misused that word. But it's never, sort of, commanded the space that occupies as it relates to its financial value. The
people -- very few people argue it has global impact.
SREENIVASAN: You know, going back in time -- look, billionaires have always tried to control and have successfully controlled the printing press. I
mean, right now Jeff Bezos owns "The Washington Post". There's no evidence that he tampers with the editorial influence on a daily basis. Mark
Zuckerberg has an enormous leverage and power over Facebook if he chooses to exercise it. And now, here's the richest guy in the world saying, I want
to on this one.
GALLOWAY: That's exactly the right comparison, Hari. So, let's look at that. Jeff Bezos, when anyone raises concerns about this, people say, well,
this isn't anything new. Michael Bloomberg has a media company and Jeff Bezos purchased "The Washington Post".
But just to give you a sense of just how stunning this offer is and the magnitude, Jeff Bezos purchased "The Washington Post" for $250 million.
This is $45 billion. This is 180 times the capital of the purchase of "The Washington Post". In addition -- so, let's make the bull on the bear case.
The bull case is that it brings a fraction of that incredible innovation around product to Twitter and Twitter registers some of the incredible
value that Mr. Musk has been able to create across his other ventures. The bear case is that you look at Mark Zuckerberg. And that is, you have one
person who doesn't have any safeguards between him in this media company.
At "The Washington Post", Mr. Bezos has an editorial board. He has 700 journalists, who quite frankly, you can't tell them what to do every day.
You can shape their narrative a little bit but they have their own free will. They have a lot of journalistic standards, you have editors, fact-
checkers. At Facebook, it's basically algorithms deciding what content is elevated or not elevated. It's not about what content goes on the platform.
It's what content whether it's hate speech or anti-vax information, gets more sunlight that it should.
So, with Mr. Musk, what you have is an individual, who, a lot of people would describe as kind of reckless and sometimes punches down on the
network. Who will -- no -- have no safeguards. There's no editorial board here. It's just him and the algorithms and the ability to elevate or
deescalate content based on these algorithms. And, I think that's the difference here. I think there are fewer guardrails between Mr. Musk and a
global media company and Mr. Bezos and what ends up on the front page of "The Washington Post". I do think there is a distinction here.
SREENIVASAN: You know, if you look at some of the reasons that Elon Musk says he wants to try to change Twitter, he says, he wants to stop at being
an ad supportive model. He wants to shift to subscribers. Something that you have advocated for, for quite some time. He says that he wants to get
rid of automated spam accounts, basically accounts that don't actually exist, but they're just created just for a moment to amplify something. And
he says that very thing about the algorithm, if he wants to make it more transparent.
Now, whether or not Mr. Musk follows through on these interests, I don't know. But what's wrong in trying to make the algorithm more transparent?
Because it seems like one of our big, kind of, roadblock is that we keep talking about content moderation. But really, as you pointed out, it's the
algorithm that's deciding what's in front of our face.
GALLOWAY: Yes, there is this notion and some ideas and Jack Dorsey has promoted this, sort of, a web three decentralization kind of narrative.
That you would open up the algorithm and people could tweet their own algorithm. And less than 10 percent of people clear their cookies. I just
think it's sort of a little bit ridiculous that we're all going to start tweaking our algorithm to figure out what information we want. I don't
think that's realistic.
His narrative has changed a little bit. He initially started with -- it's about reducing moderation and free speech. And that was a difficult
narrative to raise money on. There aren't a lot of people who want to put a billion dollars towards Mr. Musk to kind of adventures or misadventures in
free speech. So, he has more to his narrative into what I would call, I think, a more constructive narrative.
For a long time, I've been saying that Twitter needs to move to a subscription model. When it's a subscription model, you're focused on a
long-term relationship. You're not focused on running on any more ads.
[13:45:00]
And unfortunately, both Facebook and Twitter have incentives to take the commonwealth, the bad place and make our discourse more course. Because the
bottom line is as a species, they have very much, kind of, leveraged a form of our species and that is we love -- we're like a Tyrannosaurus Rex. We
like movement and violence. And the algorithms promote content that upsets people. It promotes novel content.
So, information questioning the rights of women, or information saying that a vaccine alters your DNA gets a lot of engagement, a lot of enragement,
and more ads. So, unfortunately, the algorithms sort of trade and shame and trade misinformation. And those algorithms have been hugely damaging to the
commonwealth.
So, the notion that we move to subscription and be more about the relationship. I mean, no one's worried about Netflix being weaponized by
the GRU. Yet these ad-supported platforms seemed to get weaponized and seemed to have real problems around the narratives and what is fact-checked
and what isn't. So, I think moving to subscription and cleaning up the platform, is a great idea.
I would argue that the real secret to Twitter's successes is actually more moderation. That people don't want a free-for-all. They can go to Four
Chant (ph) for that which has 20 million visitors a month versus 200 million a day. And to put it, I would argue Twitter's success is because of
moderation and not despite it.
SREENIVASAN: What is he getting wrong about this free speech question? Because I don't know if he realizes. Obviously, he's not a -- say for
example, women on the platform or journalists on the platform and the amount of trolls, and abuse, and harassment that they get. He might not
have to live with that necessarily. But what is he not getting about his vision of free speech?
GALLOWAY: I think he uses the First Amendment as some blanket call sign to rally people on the right, which absolutely makes no sense. And also, I
would argue -- you can make an argument, there should be less moderation and it'd be a free for all. I don't think that works. I think people get
sick of that. They get sick of the abuse. They get sick of the false information.
So, I get -- the question is, when you say, what does he not get? What -- I guess what we don't get is, what exactly does Mr. Musk want to do on a
platform that he can't do right now? He's been profane around elected U.S. Senators. He's accused an innocent man of being a pedophile. He's posted
Hitler memes. You know, what does he want to do, Hari? Does he want to kill a puppy on Twitter spaces live? What exactly is he being constrained from
doing?
I don't -- very few of us woke up this morning and said, finally, I can express myself on Twitter. Twitter is more of the Wild West than it is
Singapore, to use some sort of analogy. So, what does he get wrong? I think that he has incorrectly used this false flag of free speech when this is
one of the freest speech platforms in the world that has some of the least moderation. And I would argue that's been a negative that we have been
subjected to a lot of misinformation. When they kicked Trump off the platform, mostly a third of election misinformation went away overnight.
So, the question kind of goes back to Mr. Musk, like, what exactly do you mean when you say you want less moderation? Do you really want less
moderation here?
SREENIVASAN: He said in a tweet recently that he wants all of -- he hopes that all of his critics stay on the platform. You have been a critic of
his. He's called you -- what was it, a numb skull.
GALLOWAY: An insufferable numb skull. And I -- I would --
SREENIVASAN: An insufferable --
GALLOWAY: -- I would push back on the insufferable part.
SREENIVASAN: Are you going to stay on the platform?
GALLOWAY: Oh, yes. I mean, this is like -- you don't like your heroin dealer. I am addicted to this thing. So, I'm still, you know, I'm still on
the platform. And I think-- I don't think a lot of people will leave the platform. The platform -- man, I don't know how you feel, I do find it
addictive. I do -- the need for that dopa hit. That desperate need for the affirmation of others. That ability to get both good and bad comments. That
ability to feel like you are seeing raw pulsing of the world's consciousness is very addictive across a small number of us. But it --
there's just no getting around it. It's, you know, it's information crack. So, no, I'm not going anywhere.
SREENIVASAN: I want to ask a little bit about the business. Was it a good deal? I mean, how much money does Twitter have to turn around and make for
him to make money on this?
GALLOWAY: Well, just to give you a sense of scale, Twitter will do somewhere between $6 or $7 billion. Facebook will do $170 billion. I mean,
this is actually a pretty small business. You know, someone said on CNBC yesterday, you know, Twitter's the size of all of the gardens in terms of
revenue. I mean, it's just not -- it's not a big business. And they -- the issue here has always been the Delta or trying to -- the investment piece
has always been the same. How do we close with Delta between its influence and its evaluation?
But nobody has been able to crack that knot. Now, if he's able to (INAUDIBLE) move to subscription, I believe that if Twitter charged Elon
Musk a million dollars a month, he'd start attacking all the board members.
[13:50:00]
Make ad home meme and profane insults of management and then he would then pay it. Because General Motors spends $2 billion a year on marketing, on
advertising. Tesla pays none. Which has the better brand? And it's because they have an individual at 81 million followers that can put massive
awareness and massive information around his products out hundreds of times a day. I think PBS gets huge monetary value from putting your stories and
your great content out into the Twittersphere.
I think if they charge, you guys, 1$,000, $5,000, $10,000 a month, you'd check back, you'd be angry, and then we'd pay -- they charge me a few
thousand dollars a month. I have almost a half a million followers, so. I think there's a ton of surplus value here that is not being captured. I
think that's, if you will, the vision for the economic case. Other than that, it's not entirely sure how he takes kind of a subscale platform with
an inferior ad stack and competes against Google and Facebook.
SREENIVASAN: Let's talk a little bit about how he financed this. Yes, he's the richest guy in the world but he can't write a check for $44 billion. He
had to line up some money in some banks but he also put up some of his shares in Tesla as collateral.
GALLOWAY: Yes.
SREENIVASAN: And so, what is the -- is there a contagion or ripple effect on that company which frankly has nothing to do with the business of
Twitter?
GALLOWAY: That's exactly right. So, CNN+ was shut down on Thursday unceremoniously. And everyone's trying to figure out what happened with
David Zaslav or Discovery or CNN+. What happened had nothing to do with Hudson Yards or Discovery. What happened is in the last six months, Netflix
stock has declined 72 percent. Meaning, the entire ecosystem has been broken up and said, OK. This market isn't worth as much. It was someone
else's stock that closed CNN+.
The same thing could happen here. What people aren't focused on is that Twitter is largely -- the actions around Twitter and Mr. Musk's involvement
in Twitter is going to be unfairly dictated by the share price of Tesla. And that is -- the deal is basically $13 billion in debt, and then about
$33 billion of Mr. Musk's money. Either him borrowing money or him pledging shares and getting margin.
If Tesla's stock were to do what Netflix stocked in and go down 72 percent, you would have an individual who has a lot of margin loans against Tesla
stock and Tesla stock would get additional downward pressure. So, Tesla stock plays an important role here because this is the largest single
contribution of someone's individual wealth to take private in history.
And the idea of Mr. Musk being a forced seller -- I mean, quite frankly, Hari, this is nothing but downside for Tesla shareholders. It's a
distraction. And also, if in fact, Tesla stock were to go -- if Tesla stock went down 90 percent, it would still be worth more than 14 General Motors
combined. So, if you don't think it can go down 90 percent, well it's gone up tenfold, it can go down 90 percent. And I'll point you to a bunch of
great companies that are off 70, 80, even 90 percent in the last six months.
So, if you see Tesla stock go down 20 percent or more before closing, you could see Mr. Musk walk from this deal. He has, what I call, new pressure
on him. And also, people watching the price of Tesla stock because a lot of the money he's put in in this deal is leveraged or borrowed against the
value of that stock.
SREENIVASAN: You recently wrote on one of your blogs that a sign of intelligence is the ability for us to have contrarian thoughts in our head.
And you said, you know, on the one hand, basically, Elon is one of the best entrepreneurs we've had in our lifetimes in the contributions that he's
made to Tesla, and SpaceX, and other companies that he's owned. And at the same time that he could do more harm than good to -- well, with Twitter.
Explain that.
GALLOWAY: Well, you can land two rockets concurrently onto barges, you know, when we get to Mars, we'll get there sooner because of Mr. Musk. The
climate is better off because of Mr. Musk. More Tesla's will be sold in America than Mercedes. I mean, he's just -- he is the entrepreneur of our
generation. At the same time, he puts out names, mocking someone's physical appearance and comparing them to the meme of a pregnant man. And I think a
lot of young men, especially, around the world really looked to Mr. Musk for leadership. And the term I would use is punching down.
And I don't know if this -- of someone who lacks the self-control that Mr. Musk seems to lack is the right person to be controlling the algorithms of
a service that influences the way we feel about the world. So, I think he could do a lot of damage.
[13:55:00]
I think this is the -- I think the key to success in America is quite frankly that we have guardrails. We have boards of directors. Its
individual leadership. We've sort of created this idolatry of the individual. And seeing leadership with someone who now does kind of profane
or very provocative and inappropriate things with incorrectly complete battle leadership. The most great CEOs have a board that saves them from
themselves, a partner, regulatory agencies, economic constraints. And now we have a billionaire that can buy a $45 billion media company.
So, the question is, do we want to live in a society where these individuals that can extinguish media companies or buy them outright with
no guardrails? And I would argue that is dangerous. The power corrupts and absolute power absolutely corrupts. And we are getting to a situation here
where we have some individuals who have absolute power. And I don't think Mr. Musk has quite frankly demonstrated the grace that you'd like to see in
an individual that controls such an important messaging vehicle. There's a lot of fun there. There's a lot of dope hits. I don't know if it is good
for the commonwealth, Hari.
SREENIVASAN: Scott Galloway, thanks again.
GALLOWAY: Thank you, Hari. Good to see you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Well, we just heard Scott mention CNN+ there. So, to be transparent, we should note that he had a show on the platform prior to its
closure being announced. Well, that is it for now. Thank you so much for watching. I will see you tomorrow. Goodbye from New York.
ANNOUNCER: Quest's World of Wonder in association with Turkish Airlines.
RICHARD QUEST, CNN INTERNATIONAL NEWS ANCHOR: I appreciate that it was the Goachers that created the wealth that grew Buenos Aires. And thus, placing
Argentina amongst the wealthiest nations in the early 20th Century. My horse, Rosa, knows little and cares less of her grand economic place in
history. I'm on a horse and I know who's in charge.
The horses here are pretty much encouraged only to walk and then gallop usually in the wrong direction. You are not going home. There you go. Come
on. Let's go and get some cows. Here we go.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
