Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

U.S. Strikes Iranian-Linked Militia Targets In Iraq and Syria; Embattled D.A. Willis Refuses Calls To Step Down; Does Swift Endorsement Have Power To Sway Election?; Social Media Platforms Deny Role In Teen Mental Health Crisis. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired February 03, 2024 - 09:00   ET

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

[09:00:36]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: Deterrence without escalation. That's the goal. I'm Michael Smerconish in Philadelphia.

On Friday, the U.S. conducted major retaliatory airstrikes on Iraq and Syria, the start of what the U.S. military says will likely be a series of larger scale strikes on Iranian backed militias who have carried out attacks on U.S. troops in the Middle East. Airstrikes hit more than 85 targets according to U.S. Central Command including command and control operations centers, intelligence centers, rockets and missiles and unmanned aerial vehicle storage. The move came in response to a drone strike by Iran backed militants on a U.S. military outpost in Jordan on Sunday that killed three U.S. Service Members and wounded more than 40 others. The strikes began only about an hour after President Biden attended the dignified transfer of their remains at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware. Officials said the timing was coincidental but symbolic of the gravity of his decision.

Iraqi officials say at least 16 people were killed in those strikes and condemned the attacks as quote, "A flagrant violation of Iraqi sovereignty." Iraq has summoned the U.S. deputy chief of mission in Baghdad quote, "To deliver an official protest note regarding the American aggression." The Syrian military says the attacks caused, quote, "Significant damage to public and private property, killing civilians as well as military personnel." CNN cannot independently verify those claims.

A senior Administration official confirmed to CNN that the U.S. will not strike inside Iran itself, which would constitute a huge escalation. But President Biden says such response will continue for the attacks that have been rampant in the region since the start of the Israel-Hamas conflict on October 7.

Lieutenant General David Deptula joins me now. He was the Air Force's first chief of intelligence surveillance, and reconnaissance. He was the principal attack planner for Operation Desert Storm's air campaign, and commander of no fly operations over Iraq in the 1990s. He's now the dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace studies.

General Deptula, nice to have you back. The attack against the U.S. was Sunday, the response didn't come until Friday. Did it take too long?

LT. GEN. DAVID DEPTULA, U.S. AIR FORCE (RET.): Well, Michael, it's good question. There are a variety of different reasons that go into the timing of an attack, we understand that weather it was one of them. But the bottom line in the fact of the matter is that any kind of additional time that you give an adversary after a significant event like this allows them to prepare. But what I would say is that --

SMERCONISH: If the real -- if the real target were Iran, we gave plenty of time for Tehran to withdraw, bring back to the capital any of their personnel who were in the places that we ultimately hit. I guess that's what I was asking.

DEPTULA: No, that's accurate. However, remember, part of the rationale for the attacks, in addition to be retaliation for killing U.S. personnel is to reduce the Iranian backed militia capabilities in capacity. And that certainly was achieved. So, what I tell you is, the airstrikes yesterday were an appropriate response regardless of their timing, and it's good to hear the other part of this is they're simply the first part of a series of operations that are going to continue to degrade Iranian militias attacking U.S. forces. This is not a one and done kind of attack.

SMERCONISH: General, I wonder your thoughts on the big picture. My colleague Peter Bergen wrote a piece for cnn.com. I'm going to put a portion of it up on the screen and read it aloud as to big picture what's taking place. He notes the following.

He says, in the past four months, we have seen routine Houthi drone and missile strikes in the Red Sea against commercial shipping and American warships. Almost daily Israeli strikes against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon. Almost daily Hezbollah strikes against Israeli targets, more than 150 drone and missile attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria, U.S. airstrikes against Iran backed militias in Iraq. An ISIS launched major terror attack in Iran. Pakistan, strike against Iranian targets, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And of course, the war going on in Gaza.

[09:05:02]

He points out that there are 10 nations now in some state of conflict, Jordan, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, the U.S., U.K., Iran proxies in Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen, and four, count them, for terror organizations, Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, and also ISIS. Is a regional war now underway in the Middle East?

DEPTULA: Well, it depends upon definition, but there certainly is an extraordinarily increase in the amount of aggression that's occurring in the Middle East. You've heard the administration say that, you know, they don't want a wider war. Well, the fact of the matter is, to deter a wider war you don't do that by saying that you don't want one or that you won't strike inside Iran. But by making sure that Iran who is behind the majority of the aggression in the region understands that if they in their proxies continue attacks on U.S. personnel, that they can then expect disastrous consequences. Deterrence, Michael, is achieved by instilling in the minds of the Iranian leadership or other adversaries sufficient uncertainty of achieving their objectives, such that they decide not to continue their attacks due to the potential consequences. So attacks on U.S. forces in the region won't stop until Iran understands that their critical interests are at stake.

SMERCONISH: And do you think we have just threaded or in the process of threading that needle of deterrence without escalation?

DEPTULA: To a degree, yes. What I would tell you is the kind of response in series of attacks on the variety of targets conducted yesterday is what should have been conducted when the attacks against U.S. forces commenced last year. That would have increased the probability of deterring the multiple months of attacks on our forces since then. And what I have to tell you is that this administration has got to stop telling our enemies what the U.S. is not going to do is that only encourages them to continue their attacks.

SMERCONISH: General Deptula, as always, thank you for your expertise.

DEPTULA: Have a great day.

SMERCONISH: Still come, Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis has finally admitted to a personal relationship with her lead special prosecutor but maintains that charges of conflict of interest are manufactured and irrelevant to their prosecution of Donald Trump and his Georgia election fraud codefendants. Is she right?

Plus the big game next Sunday, Taylor Swift endorsed Joe Biden in 2020. And is a voter registration powerhouse, her boyfriend headed to next week Super Bowl. Could Swift voting be the October surprise in this year's presidential election? It leads me to today's poll question at smerconish.com. Go and vote.

Could Taylor Swift determine the outcome of the presidential election? While you're there voting sign up for the free daily newsletter, you'll find exclusive content from political cartoonists like this super relevant one by two time Pulitzer Prize winner Steve Breen.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:12:23]

SMERCONISH: Might the Stormy Daniels case ended up being not just the first but the only criminal case in which Donald Trump has tried before the election. That's the way things are starting to look.

On Friday, Judge Tanya Chutkan indefinitely delayed the trial date of Jack Smith's federal January 6 related prosecution until the appeals about Trump's immunity are decided. The federal Mar-a-Lago case theoretically set for May 20, but consensus is that date will not hold. Meanwhile, Alvin Bragg's prosecution of Trump for covering up the sex scandal is still on the calendar for March 25.

And then there's the question of D.A. Fani Willis' election interference case in Georgia, which Willis had asked to start on August 5, and that was before the defendants demanded that she stepped down from the case. On Friday, Willis filed a 176 page response to the challenge. Willis' critics allege she's in a romantic relationship with the lead special prosecutor that she appointed, Nathan Wade, who they say was under qualified and has billed the state for more than $650,000 in fees since 2021. And that Wade took Willis on vacations using the money that he was paid. The other two special prosecutors hired by Willis were paid approximately $73,000 and $91,000, they were not in the lead position and as such would not work as many billable hours.

The judge had scheduled a February 15 hearing on the matter. Willis, Wade and some of their colleagues could be forced to testify. But in the court filing on Friday, Willis while admitting to a personal relationship that she says started after Wade had been hired, she called the claims against her meritless and salacious in pursuit of media attention, and argues that the hearing isn't necessary and ought to be canceled. Quote, "The motions attempt to cobble together entirely unremarkable circumstances of a Special Prosecutor Wade's appointment with completely irrelevant allegations about his personal family life into a manufactured conflict of interest on the part of the district attorney. The effort must fail.

Is she right? Joining me now is Clark Cunningham, Professor of Law at Georgia State University where he's the chair of law and ethics.

Professor, thank you for being here. She acknowledged the relationship. Said it began after his hiring. To those who say, hey, it's the behavior of consenting adults. It's not our business, you would say what?

CLARK CUNNINGHAM, PROFESSOR OF LAW, GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Well, I would say what I have been saying about for two weeks now, Michael, which is that, I think, in the context of this motion to disqualify which has now been brought by three different defendants. Before the filing, yesterday it was my opinion that District Attorney Willis should seriously consider taking a temporary leave of absence and letting a career prosecutor take over the office and take over the case.

[09:15:10]

After reading what she filed yesterday and the response by Mr. Roman's lawyer, that conviction is even stronger, that she should be taking the temporary leave. I think that her filing in that fairly vague, evasive affidavit by Mr. Wade just raises a myriad of factual issues that are going to take a long time to resolve and greatly delay the case. And as you were saying, it looks like now there's a window where Georgia could jump in this spring, and maybe just do a Trump only trial. Before the general election, it would be the only televised trial far more important than the one going on in New York. But that opportunity is vanishing as long as District Attorney Willis continues to litigate this disqualification issue.

SMERCONISH: I'm glad that you made reference to the Nathan Wade affidavit. I'm going to put part of it up on the screen and read aloud some of what he said, "No funds paid to me in compensation for my role as special prosecutor have been shared with or provided to D.A. Willis. The district attorney received no funds or personal financial gain from my position as special prosecutor. I've never cohabitated with her. I've never shared household expenses. I've never shared a joint financial account of any kind.

The D.A. and I are both financially independent professionals." And then he goes on to say, "We share expenses." Why is that in and of itself, not compelling to you?

CUNNINGHAM: Well, let's take the last point about sharing expenses. So he seems to admit that they -- that he has paid for them to travel together. And the Roman response yesterday had attached documents from an outfit called fake and express that confirmed that he paid $3,600 for them to take a three day luxury trip to Aruba together. There is no claim in that affidavit or motion that she reimbursed him for 50 percent of that trip. Rather, they -- he seems to be making, the base seem to be making this rather strange claim that they sort of take turns paying for trips.

Well, that's very strange. So, you're a public official, a private contractor takes you out a luxury trip to Aruba and you don't reimburse your share of it. You say, I'll pay for the next trip to the Caribbean. I mean, really, that's a very, very weak position to say.

SMERCONISH: Right. But professor, but in her brief, if we accept it at face value, what she is saying she says she does share the expenses in similar fashion. As I read it, it was he may pay for this trip, and I'll pay for another trip. Why is any of that -- if the guy is doing quality work? And I'm not here to argue that he is, but let's just assume for the purpose of this discussion that he is, if he's doing quality work, why is any of this our business?

CUNNINGHAM: Well, it's the business of the court. And the defendants are saying that what they are arguing, which has yet to be decided, I'm not taking a position yet about whether the motions to disqualify should be granted, I think it's too early to say that. But they're taking the position that he is making a lot of money over $600,000 as a private contractor on this -- on prosecuting them, and that she has a financial stake and the money he's getting, because she was in a personal relationship with him. So she wants him to make money. And that, you could just stop right there. That's a problem.

But that she directly benefits from his wealth, because he takes her on lavish vacations. That's a pretty substantial claim that the prosecutor has a personal or financial interest in prosecuting these defendants. I'm not saying it's going to prevail, but it's going to be, I think, a long slog of litigation with a lot of disputed facts (ph) --

SMERCONISH: OK.

CUNNINGHAM: -- of (inaudible) get results.

SMERCONISH: So let's end on that note. Big picture, perhaps what's most important as it relates to the election is that Clark Cunningham is here to argue delay is coming. And this case, in all likelihood is not getting to trial before voters make up their mind. Fair assessment?

CUNNINGHAM: I think that District Attorney Willis is really running that risk by continuing to fight this disqualification issue rather than she could make it go away five minutes from now by taking a temporary absence from the office. That's absolutely what you should do in the public interest.

SMERCONISH: Professor, thank you for being here. Appreciate your thoughts.

CUNNINGHAM: Great to be talking with you, Michael.

SMERCONISH: Social media reaction, Catherine (ph), from the world of formerly known as Twitter, X, Willis and Wade made an unethical decision. Willis, as the one with power failed in her D.A. responsibilities.

Paula Mo, I'm going to give you this, there's an appearance issue here and a prosecutor's job is to avoid an appearance of impropriety. I read the -- I read the filing yesterday. Don't be intimidated by 150 pages because most of them are attachments and in the first 20, you can get exactly what she's saying. I was trying to play devil's advocate with Professor Cunningham and saying why should we care if in fact he's doing quality work? I'm not here to argue that he is, but if he's doing quality work, and they have a relationship that began after the commencement of his engagement isn't really our business. That's the rub of this.

[09:20:24]

So we'll see how it plays out. But you know, the amazing thing, I just take a second and say this, the amazing thing is what I said at the outset, it couldn't be the Stormy Daniels case, which I've long said is the weakest of the four Trump prosecutions that gets to trial before the election and maybe only that case. And I think it's an open question as to whether it helps or hurts Trump if he's on trial, because you know, there will be a significant number of people who watch that trial and say, wait a minute, the guy has been investigated for how long and how much money and this, this is what you're leading with? So we'll see.

Still to come, at a congressional hearing this week, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg apologized to parents and families of children who had died of causes they say were related to social media, and yet he didn't accept responsibility for their deaths. But there's proof. More on what a phone based childhood is doing to our kids.

Plus, there's a conspiracy theory running wild among certain Trump supporters that Taylor Swift is going to photobomb the halftime show with Joe Biden and endorse him. That ain't going to happen. But what they shouldn't be worried about is Taylor's data. I'll explain.

Meanwhile, don't forget to vote on today's poll question at smerconish.com, could Taylor Swift determine the outcome of the presidential election? When you're there voting subscribe to the newsletter. It's free and worthy and you get editorial cartoons from the legends. This is from Rob Rogers this week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:26:06]

SMERCONISH: Hey, it's me, and it's all about the data. We are spending way too much time wondering whether Taylor Swift is going to appear on stage in a cornfield in Dubuque next to Joe Biden. That is not what the Trump campaign is actually worried about, though admittedly, that scene would not be great for them. No, what they're worried about or should be worried about is Taylor's data. Couple of facts, 279 million, that's the number of her followers on Instagram, 4.35 million, that's the number of tickets sold for The Eras Tour, $1 billion, that's the tour's record shattering revenue, 26.1 billion, that's the number of Swift's global streams on Spotify last year, 200 million that's how much tour merch has been sold so far.

Just how popular is she? The only available gray T-shirt sizes remaining are in three XL and four XL. I know, I checked. I could go on and on and on, but I don't need to. Taylor knows. Taylor knows your social media interactions. Where you saw her on tour, how much merch you bought from her website, she knows the size of your T-shirt, the number of downloads you've made.

We're embarking on an election cycle that will be, A, the most expensive in history. And B, will see much of the money spent on micro targeting.

What's micro targeting? It's the use of online data to tailor pun intended advertising messages to individuals based on the identification of recipients personal vulnerabilities and interests. In order to target effectively, data is essential. And Taylor's got lots and lots of it.

And on a demographic that is exactly what the Biden team needs the most disproportionately female, young and passionate. With truly the touch of a button. Taylor Swift is uniquely situated to use the data at her disposal to impact the presidential race. Overall, most of Swift's social media following 61.5 percent female on TikTok specifically the fan base is more female, 80.8 percent and younger, 62 percent in the 18 to 24 age group.

According to polling by SSRS, as of October that's after the Kelce romance began, a majority of U.S. adults 59 percent identified as fans of Swift, 63 percent of women said so. Her fans are evenly divided 50- 50 between Democrats or Democrat-leaning Independents and Republicans or GOP-leaning Independents. Among her fans of voting age, the largest group 39 percent are 30 to 49, 46 percent reported a household income under $50,000. And in 2020, after Swift posted on social media that people should register to vote, nearly 65,000 Americans ages 18 to 29 did so in the first 24 hours. The next day, that number grew to more than 102,000, 70 percent of whom were below the age of 25.

When she posted again this September, she garnered another 35,000 registrations. This is not about a stage in a cornfield. This is about accessing a treasure trove of invaluable data. And that's what keeps the Trump team up at night in an era when most Americans are splintered into niche T.V. viewing.

Consider that last week's AFC Championship win by the Kansas City Chiefs with Swift's boyfriend, Travis Kelce, in the middle of key plays in the pop superstar rooting them on united the country. Insofar it was viewed by a record 55 million Americans.

So, what might be the value of a Taylor Swift endorsement? Joining me now is Craig Garthwaite. He's professor of strategy at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management. He coauthored the study that is perfect for our purposes, "Can celebrity endorsements affect political outcomes?"

[09:30:00]

Professor, thank you for being here.

The way that endorsements are courted by the candidates, the politicians, they surely think they matter. Do they?

CRAIG GARTHWAITE, PROFESSOR OF STRATEGY, NORTHWESTERN U. KELLOGG SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT: It all depends on the endorsement. I think it is hard to say they wouldn't matter, and when you see so many politicians looking for them.

We looked at Oprah Winfrey's endorsement of President Obama during the 2008 primary and found it had a very meaningful effect on the share of the vote that he was able to get and was ultimately one of the reasons why he was able to win the 2008 nominee and then become a two-term president.

SMERCONISH: So, Oprah Winfrey circa 2008, Taylor Swift 2024. You think that's as close as an apples to apples as we're going to get in terms of the stature that each has?

GARTHWAITE: I mean, I think, your comparisons as you talked about before they're very apt. If you think about Oprah in '08, she had just been one of the "Time" people of the year. She was one of the only people to be on "Time Person of the Year" in the 20th and 21st century. She shared that with Bill Gates and Nelson Mandela and John Paul II.

Look at Taylor Swift coming out of the "Time Person of the Year" this year, her tour, the sheer popularity that she has, her ability to move people to buy products by simply wearing them. She looks a lot like Oprah in '08. I think she's going to have a very large effect on enthusiasm in this election.

SMERCONISH: I'm going to put on the screen your conclusion because I want the audience to see it. I have actually read your analysis. Bottom line is you think Oprah's endorsement delivered a million votes to Barack Obama.

How did you do it? Explain the role of "O" magazine. GARTHWAITE: Yes. So, we used regional variation in the popularity of Oprah's magazine and her book club to identify where she was particularly popular and then use that to estimate her effect on the vote there.

It is important to note it's a little bit different here that this is the general election, not a primary. You know, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton were very similar candidates in terms of their policies.

Here they're very different, President Biden and former President Trump. And so, this is more about getting people enthusiastic to come out to the poll. So, your points on data, if she did do events, Oprah did a bunch of events for Obama. If you have got Taylor Swift out there, you know, saying, "you're the problem, Donald Trump, it is you," like that -- that's going to change the nature of why people want to show up to the polls.

SMERCONISH: Right. I mean you made this clear that she was very hands- on. She, Oprah, had never been politically active like this in the past when she got involved for then-Senator Barack Obama in 2008. So, it is one thing if it is a simple endorsement via a text, but that's not what Oprah did. Oprah was out on the campaign trail, appearing in swing states.

GARTHWAITE: Yes, and then you get people to come to those events, you get people signed up, you get people enthused. If you imagine going to swing states and you have a joint event between Taylor Swift and Joe Biden, people are going to show up. And they're not showing up for President Biden, who doesn't appear to be drawing that level of excitement from young voters. They're going to show up to see Taylor Swift the way they show up everywhere to see Taylor Swift.

And campaigns want people to turn out to these events, that's why they have them. And so, she could if she chooses to be very powerful in this election but it needs to go beyond simply saying, hey, you should go vote for Biden. We would be having these kinds of events the way that we saw Oprah Winfrey do all throughout the '08 primary season.

SMERCONISH: OK. So, the nuttiness of all of this doesn't interest me, all of the NFL teams that would have had to have taken a dive just so the Chiefs could be elevated, just so Taylor Swift could endure. That doesn't interest me.

The data though does interest me because as you heard me layout with the metrics as part of your introduction, with the touch of a finger she gets to reach people in a way that the campaigns would be dying to have that influence.

GARTHWAITE: Yes. Both she has the ability to reach them and they're actually going to listen, right? I mean, I can't tell you how many texts you probably get and I get from various candidates reaching out to me that I just never want to see. I think her fans would be very intrigued by what she has to say. So, she both has the direct contact and the fact that they want to listen to what she has to say. SMERCONISH: Quick final thought. You are a professor of strategy. You are in the Kellogg School of Business at Northwestern. I guess the issue is, does she want to sell sneakers to Republicans?

GARTHWAITE: The famous Michael Jordan quote, right? That even Republicans buy shoes. I don't know from a business standpoint this would be a good move for her. You said it is about evenly divided. It's a very contentious issue.

That said, I think, she is at the point where she's financially stable enough. That if she wanted to sort of influence the election on a personal level, she has the ability to do it. And I think that, you know, she has to make a decision about what is more important to her, being involved politically or being involved in business?

[09:35:03]

SMERCONISH: Right. There's an expression for that. It is something you, money, and she certainly possesses it. Thank you, professor. Appreciate you being here.

GARTHWAITE: I believe -- I believe I can't finish that phrase. Yes, thank you.

SMERCONISH: I want to know what you think. Go to my Web site at Smerconish.com. OK. Now you know why this is the poll question today. Could Taylor Swift determine the outcome of the presidential race?

What's the number? Like 40,000 votes in three states determined, swung the last election. Could she have that kind of influence?

More social media reaction. From the world of YouTube, I believe. What do we have?

If Taylor Swift makes that much of an impact on the American election for 2024, I feel very sorry for the future.

Right but, Mar, I just explained. Like 40,000 -- I think the literal number was 44,000 in the last cycle in three states could have determined the outcome of the election in a different way. Could she have that kind of influence by registering people in her prime demo to vote? It is conceivable. It is conceivable.

Still to come, gang, here is what is coming up. What is more responsible for the rise in mental health issues among America's young people, social media or how parents have curtailed their kids' independence? Maybe both. We have got the data. We have got the research with Dr. Jean Twenge coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:40:36]

SMERCONISH: Why at this late date are the heads of social media platforms still denying their platforms' roles in causing the teen mental health crisis? This week, Meta's Mark Zuckerberg was one of five tech leaders to testify at a Senate hearing about the protection of children from online sexual exploitation. In a dramatic moment Zuckerberg turned to face and apologized to dozens of parents holding up photos of their teens whose deaths they blamed on social media. But in a prepared statement he still maintained that his platforms, Facebook and Instagram, did not bear any direct responsibility.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK ZUCKERBERG, FOUNDER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, META: With so much of our lives spent on mobile devices and social media, it is important to look into the effects on teen mental health and well- being. I take this very seriously. Mental health is a complex issue and the existing body of scientific work has not shown a causal link between using social media and young people having worse mental health outcomes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: In response, GOP Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri quoted the company's own in-house study that had been leaked by whistleblower Frances Haugen to the "Wall Street Journal." But Zuckerberg didn't budge from his position.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO): Here is a quote from your own study. Quote -- "We make body image worse for one in three teen girls." Here's another quote, "Teens blame Instagram" -- this is your study -- "for increases in rate of anxiety and depression. This reaction was unprompted and consistent across all groups." That's your study.

ZUCKERBERG: Senator, we try to understand the feedback and how people feel about the services. We can improve them.

HAWLEY: Wait a minute, your own -- your own study says that you make life worse for one in three teenage girls, you increase anxiety and depression.

ZUCKERBERG: That's not what it says.

HAWLEY: That's what it says, and you are here testifying to us in public that there is no link. You have been doing this for years full speed ahead, while internally you know full well your product is a disaster for teenagers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Jean Twenge joins me now. She is the author of "iGen" and "Generations," and a professor of psychology at San Diego State University. Dr. Twenge, great to have you back.

I remember when we first spoke when "iGen" came out in 2017. We had the dialogue on my radio show and here. Then you were hesitant to use the word causation. You spoke more in terms of correlation. What has changed since your book came out? JEAN TWENGE, AUTHOR, "iGEN" AND "GENERATIONS": Yes, so that was in 2017, and since then we have seen a lot more studies. Zuckerberg's statement about not knowing about causation is simply wrong at this point. There are many studies showing that there is a causal link.

So, these are done like drug trials. There's treatment group and a control group and it is random who ends up in which one. And a treatment group, you give up social media or cut back on social media versus the control group continuing normal use, and those who have cut back or given up social media after two or three weeks are happier and less depressed.

And there's also specific studies on Instagram. You show teen girls and young women those perfect bodies on Instagram, the influencers, and they have worse body image after seeing that compared to a control group.

SMERCONISH: You're part of a very important collaboration. I'm going to put it on the screen and have you explain what this is. It is yourself. It is Jonathan Haidt. By the way, I finished last night his new forthcoming book directly on this subject. It is tremendous. And Zack Rausch.

What is it that the three of you have done? What am I showing the world now in this collaborative Google doc?

TWENGE: Yes, so a few years ago we put our heads together and decided, you know, we need to compile all of the research in this area, that experimental research I mentioned as well as the correlational research on tens of thousands of teens. Many countries know that the more hours a day a teen spent on social media, the more likely it is that they're going to be depressed.

There's also longitudinal studies there following people over time. Plus, we have another Google doc on the teen mental health crisis.

[09:45:01]

That, for example, teen depression doubled between 2011 and 2019. It's not due to the pandemic. This increase started eight years before the pandemic. Probably not a coincidence, right at the time that social media started to become much more commonly used among teens. Also, around the time Facebook bought Instagram, and smartphones started to have front-facing cameras. So, these image-based sites became so much more popular.

SMERCONISH: You know that some say, hey, it is COVID, it is the economy, it is climate change, it is school shootings. So, you, Dr. Twenge, a year ago published -- I will put this up on the screen. You published an analysis of 13 other possible explanations. And then with data you ruled them all out, although there's one that's tantalizing. That's alternative number six.

I am putting that up on the screen right now. That's the, "It's because children and teens have less independence." Of the 13 that get bandied about, this one you thought might have some merit. And I guess you actually read these together, a different parenting style and the age of technology. Explain.

TWENGE: Yes. First, I want to point out that one reason a lot of those other 12 explanations fail is that they're focused just on the U.S. Things like, you know, the political climate or school shootings, but it turns out that the increase in depression and loneliness among teens is worldwide. It shows up in international data, country after country. Very little happened until 2012, and then depression and anxiety and loneliness go through the roof.

So that explanation around independence, it is true that teens now, compared to previous generations, are less likely to get their driver's license by the end of high school, they're less likely to date, they're less likely to have a paid job, they go out without their parents a lot less than previous generations did when they were in high school. This is how gen Z lives.

And it is not just about parenting style. This is a huge cultural trend across all ages, that we just simply take longer to grow up and longer to grow old. It is called the slow life strategy.

SMERCONISH: OK. So, take my final --

TWENGE: Yes.

SMERCONISH: Take my final 30 seconds. Go back to where we began. Why doesn't Zuckerberg get it?

Surely, he knows your book. Your book is the seminal book on the subject. Surely, he has seen what you and Haidt have put together and the Google doc and the collaboration. Why -- why does he stand that ground?

TWENGE: Because this is their business. This is how they make money.

If they decided, if Zuckerberg decided, OK, I want to keep kids safe, we're going to raise the minimum age to being on Instagram to 16 and actually verify age, they know what will happen. All of the young users will go to TikTok and other platforms.

And they make an enormous amount of money off of teens, even off of the 12 and under, kids who aren't supposed to be on there at all under the law. They are making money on our kids' time and attention and on the backs of their mental health.

SMERCONISH: Thank you, Dr. Twenge.

TWENGE: Thank you.

SMERCONISH: Social media reaction. That sounds odd to this conversation. Let's see what the world of Twitter has said.

No. I question the parents, why did you let them watch or use social media in the first place -- OK, Magna, let me respond to that -- sorry but it was your child.

Because -- how do I say this in a short time period and having just finished Jonathan's book last night? Because if you are the parent who says, I'm not going to allow my son or my daughter to have access to social media, you've now made them the social outcast, right? Because not all parents are going to be able to do that and consequently, the few who do aren't going to be social interacting behind closed doors with their thumbs with the other kids because that's how prevalent it has become.

So, you can't just say, oh, it is the parents. It is not just the parents because the parents who try to do what you have advocated are going to ostracize their own kids' socially.

So, gang, still to come, more of your best and worst social media comments, and the final results for now of today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Could Taylor Swift determine the outcome of the presidential election?

Sign up for the free daily newsletter while you are there. You will get great work from editorial cartoonists like Pulitzer Prize winner Jack Ohman.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:54:19]

SMERCONISH: Results so far for today's poll question, 50 -- oh, pretty close. I like it. Thirty thousand plus have voted. Could Taylor Swift determine the outcome of the presidential election?

The no votes, 52. The yes votes, 48. Keep in mind that tight margin from four years ago and the strength that she has in terms of data, as I explained earlier.

Social media reaction, Catherine. What do we have that has come in during the course of the program today?

On today's poll question, I wanted to say no, but I voted yes for only one reason. Joe Biden won the 2020 popular vote by 7 million, but 44 -- well, that's the point I made -- could she turn out 250 to 500,000? Says, George Christo.

She probably could. That is the argument, that says she could determine the outcome of the election.

[09:55:01]

More social media, what do we have that came in during the course of today's program?

I think endorsements may be occasionally more effective in getting out the vote as opposed to flipping my vote.

I think that's true. Although, I must say I remember -- I remember here in Philadelphia on the eve of -- what would it have been? Of the 2016 campaign. I remember the rally that was -- the rally that had Bon Jovi and the Boss, and still the Dems lost that race.

You tuned in and seen a million people and you would have thought, there's no way they can lose this election. So, I question the power of endorsements. I don't question the power of data.

One more if we've got time for it, Catherine. I think that we do. Let's see.

Smerconish. Parents, get yourselves off social media and parent your children. Go outside, hike, play ball, go to the beach. The list is endless.

You know, Crazy Hockey Grandma, I know all the books on this because I've read them all, Lenore Skenazy, "Free-Range Kids." You know what the original book on your issue was, "Last Child in the Woods," by Richard Louv.

It was about 15 years ago. It was tremendous. And it's all about the value of organic -- that's not the word. He uses play. Like just get out and build stuff in your backyard and have fun. I'll see you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)