Latest / The Fourcast / Fired for Charlie Kirk comments: press freedom in Trump's America

Transcript

Fired for Charlie Kirk comments: press freedom in Trump's America · The Fourcast

• 0:00
  This isn't a time where we should be silent.
• 0:03
  We need journalism. We need freedom of speech.
• 0:06
  If you don't have the right to speak, all your other rights are
• 0:10
  at risk. It was considered disrespectful,
• 0:13
  you know, to not mourn for someone who thought the Civil
• 0:16
  Rights Act was a mistake. This is Charlie Kirk's own
• 0:20
  words. It's a it's a scary time.
• 0:22
  The Washington Post said that your post was unacceptable.
• 0:25
  It was gross misconduct. Were they justified in claiming
• 0:28
  that you violated their social social media policy by
• 0:31
  disparaging someone according to his race?
• 0:34
  I've left those posts up that everyone can judge for
• 0:37
  themselves. Hello and welcome to the
• 0:42
  Forecast. My guest today is at the centre
• 0:44
  of a storm about journalistic freedom and free speech.
• 0:48
  Karen Atia, an award-winning columnist at the Washington
• 0:51
  Post, was fired earlier this month after post she made on
• 0:54
  social media following the death of right wing commentator
• 0:57
  Charlie Kirk. In the days that followed, she
• 1:00
  took to her sub stack to explain why she believes she was pushed
• 1:03
  out. It sparked a debate about how
• 1:05
  journalists should cover polarizing figures, the
• 1:08
  boundaries of opinion writing and whether newsrooms are really
• 1:11
  safe spaces for robust debate. Karen Atia, thank you very much
• 1:15
  for joining me. I just want to look at the the
• 1:18
  broader, the context. First, you were fired.
• 1:22
  Then the MSNBC political analyst Matthew Dowd, who also described
• 1:27
  Charlie Kirk as a divisive figure.
• 1:30
  He went Jimmy Kimmel, too, of course.
• 1:32
  He's now been reinstated. I mean, our fears of a kind of
• 1:35
  slide into autocracy or McCarthyism justified, do you
• 1:39
  think? It definitely feels like we're
• 1:42
  in this brink sort of moment or, or at the very least, if I'm
• 1:47
  being generous about it, playing on the edge of having a Free
• 1:54
  Press or not, right? And even before this moment, I
• 1:58
  mean, we've been in a climate in America where press freedom
• 2:02
  rankings in America had actually been slipping, where even under
• 2:07
  the first Trump administration, we were seeing rhetoric coming
• 2:11
  out of the White House about fake news.
• 2:14
  We were seeing journalists being attacked at political rallies,
• 2:19
  these sort of things. So in some ways what we're
• 2:22
  seeing now is a sort of a hyper focus on, you know, on on the
• 2:29
  individual firings and things like that.
• 2:31
  And obviously we'll get to that in my case.
• 2:32
  But we have been operating in an environment where there have
• 2:37
  been threats that have been increased lawsuits against media
• 2:44
  outlets, right. So it's been, it's been several
• 2:48
  years really of this slide when it comes to, you know, political
• 2:53
  pressure on a journalistic houses not even speaking about,
• 2:57
  you know, economic pressures that the journalism industry has
• 3:00
  always, you know, had to deal with.
• 3:03
  And and, you know, Jimmy Kimmel returned and got record ratings,
• 3:07
  or at least the highest for a decade, I think it was.
• 3:10
  What do you read into that? Is there a kind of public
• 3:11
  outrage that's building? What?
• 3:13
  What do you think of that? I mean, I think in general,
• 3:16
  people, there's a certain effects that happens when, you
• 3:20
  know, your authorities tell you can't do something or shouldn't
• 3:22
  see something. And then, you know, you're able
• 3:25
  to to sort of see there's a certain probably thrilled to be
• 3:28
  able to, you know, see what Jimmy Kimmel would have said
• 3:32
  about his situation. So I think there's that.
• 3:35
  But I don't want to miss the fact that the president that
• 3:38
  Trump still rails against ABC, it still threatens to sue them,
• 3:43
  was not happy that Jimmy Kimmel was back on and expressed that.
• 3:48
  So as much as you know, this seems like a bit of a victory,
• 3:53
  this has not changed the fundamentals of the climate that
• 3:55
  we're in. But does it show that media
• 3:58
  owners are have found some courage and are prepared to sort
• 4:02
  of face down the pressure from the Trump administration, the
• 4:05
  fact that he's been reinstated? So many people threatened to
• 4:08
  cancel their subscriptions. I mean, they were threatened by,
• 4:11
  I don't know if it was courage or fear of losing money, right?
• 4:15
  So on the merits of it all, he should never should have been
• 4:19
  cancelled, you know, in the 1st place.
• 4:21
  But obviously the threat that they were going to lose a lot of
• 4:26
  subscriptions again during a very challenging media
• 4:29
  environment time, at least to me, speaks that this was more
• 4:33
  about economics than it was about courage.
• 4:38
  Well, and of course you have not been rehired.
• 4:41
  Do you think that suggests that women and women of colour are
• 4:44
  held to a different standard? 1000% they are.
• 4:48
  You know, obviously you know me and Jimmy Kimmel, I was not on
• 4:52
  national television every night. You know, I'm not a famous multi
• 4:57
  millionaire like like Jimmy Kimmel, right?
• 5:00
  I was a print columnist. My work was behind pens and and
• 5:05
  words and, and the Internet. So I I, you know, just in levels
• 5:08
  of straight up fame, like I I wasn't it's it's different at
• 5:14
  the same time. Yeah, you know, I think that
• 5:16
  there's a my posts compared to what Jimmy Kimmel said.
• 5:22
  We're very much in the line of me doing my job and I, I, I
• 5:28
  think already, you know, already there's a, there's a certain
• 5:31
  thought that, you know, OK, women, black women crossing the
• 5:35
  line and all of that. But I think it really still
• 5:39
  though speaks to and and probably why people are still
• 5:42
  following my cases is it's a litmus test case for journalism
• 5:47
  in in America right now and particularly for opinion
• 5:50
  journalism, at least as it's what's left of it in the
• 5:54
  mainstream media. Right, well, let's look at
• 5:57
  exactly why you did get fired and your Blue Sky post quoting
• 6:02
  Charlie Kirk's remark that some prominent black women and I
• 6:05
  quote, do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be
• 6:09
  taken really seriously. You have to go steal a white
• 6:12
  person's slot. That's what he said.
• 6:14
  I mean, after all that has happened, how would you
• 6:16
  characterise those remarks by Charlie Kirk now?
• 6:22
  Yeah, so even those remarks and, you know, in actuality, he was
• 6:28
  specifically talking about Supreme Court Justice Kachandi,
• 6:31
  Ron Jackson, Joy Reid, Michelle Obama.
• 6:34
  So he was specifically going after professional or or very,
• 6:38
  you know, highly well known black women.
• 6:42
  But he had generally had other comments and speaking about how
• 6:45
  black women in particular calling it moronic and this
• 6:48
  theme of questioning whether or not he should listen to them,
• 6:53
  whether or not they deserve their spots, whether or not they
• 6:56
  they were DEI. This was a common sort of
• 6:59
  characterization that he had of of black women.
• 7:01
  But in actuality, that is not the reason that the Post gave
• 7:06
  for why I was fired, even though that's what the narrative was,
• 7:10
  that's not actually true. What the Post cited as my quote
• 7:18
  UN quote gross misconduct was talking about white men and
• 7:24
  political violence in America. And for me, you know, talking
• 7:29
  specifically about the rhetoric that we have, the empty cliches,
• 7:34
  the this is not who we are. That is actually what the
• 7:38
  majority of my blue sky comments were about.
• 7:41
  Very sort of matter of fact commentary.
• 7:45
  Let me let me come back to the let me come back to the post
• 7:48
  reasons for dismissing you as they set it out.
• 7:51
  But I, I just want to the fact that you got this e-mail setting
• 7:55
  out the reasons for your job, you know, being you're being
• 8:00
  sacked. What?
• 8:01
  What do you think when you got that e-mail?
• 8:05
  Right. I got an e-mail without even a
• 8:07
  conversation. I mean, I guess to put
• 8:09
  everything in context, you know, I've been at the Post for 11
• 8:12
  years. I actually spent on the majority
• 8:14
  of my time at the Post as an editor, as a building platforms
• 8:19
  for other writers to be able to speak.
• 8:21
  Probably the most notable of those writers was Jamal
• 8:24
  Khashukshi, who was murdered in 2018.
• 8:28
  So I think just for as on a personal sort of professional
• 8:31
  level, you know, after having eleven years built these
• 8:35
  platforms, won all these award cards, done so much for for
• 8:40
  journalism and and for the Washington Post to be fired.
• 8:44
  Like I never even really belonged.
• 8:46
  There was I can't lie, I was painful and and confusing.
• 8:52
  I was. So they didn't.
• 8:52
  Even attempt attempt to call you.
• 8:55
  There is one missed call I had and then two minutes later
• 8:59
  e-mail with a subject line notice of termination and that
• 9:02
  was it. The Washington Post said that
• 9:05
  your post was unacceptable. It was gross misconduct.
• 9:07
  You showed poor judgement and endangered the physical safety
• 9:12
  of colleagues. I mean, were they justified in
• 9:15
  claiming that you violated their social media policy by not being
• 9:19
  respectful or or by disparaging someone according to his race?
• 9:25
  Absolutely not. I mean, it's, it's almost absurd
• 9:29
  and laughable the you know, the, the charges they're trying to
• 9:32
  level against me and in the, in the letter, I mean so much.
• 9:37
  So that's why, you know, I've left those posts up that
• 9:39
  everyone can judge for themselves.
• 9:42
  For me, again, my commentary and my training as as a journalist
• 9:46
  is particularly when there's a highly emotional events,
• 9:50
  particularly when there's violent events that happen, is
• 9:53
  to exercise caution and restraint.
• 9:56
  So my commentary is very much limited to talking about America
• 10:02
  generally and our gun violence problem generally.
• 10:04
  Again, remember, it was not just Charlie Kirk shooting that
• 10:09
  happened that day. There was also shooting and
• 10:11
  killing of children in Colorado just a couple weeks before that.
• 10:16
  The CDC, the Center for Disease Control had been shot up
• 10:19
  hundreds of times a couple months.
• 10:22
  There was the assassinations of Democratic lawmakers or
• 10:26
  shootings in so there. So I was taking the totality of
• 10:30
  that and also reminding America, I suppose, and just noting that
• 10:36
  white men had been the perpetrators of all of these
• 10:40
  shootings and. Those shootings, Yeah, in in in
• 10:43
  a political context. I suppose what the post was
• 10:45
  concerned about was your post on Blue Sky talking about refusing
• 10:50
  to tear my clothes and smear ashes on my face in performative
• 10:53
  mourning for a white man that espoused violence.
• 10:56
  I mean, in that moment where it was a very febrile atmosphere,
• 11:01
  wasn't it? There was a lot of distress on
• 11:04
  on different sides of the political spectrum.
• 11:06
  You know, Jimmy Kimmel, for example, has acknowledged that
• 11:09
  his intervention was ill timed. Do you, standing back now, in
• 11:14
  retrospect, think, well, maybe the time wasn't right to make
• 11:18
  that kind of comment? Yeah, the comment that you read
• 11:21
  wasn't even the full comment. The comment was refusing to tear
• 11:24
  my clothes. And again, it's the performative
• 11:29
  aspect of it. Smear ashes in my face and mourn
• 11:34
  someone who disparaged black women, marginalized people.
• 11:39
  I said the full quote is refusing to do that is not the
• 11:43
  same as violence or condoning violence.
• 11:46
  I actually was responding to someone who said that I was not
• 11:49
  sufficiently giving enough space to curt and demanding almost
• 11:55
  that I perform a certain script or something and accusing me of
• 12:00
  that being the same as violence. So I said refusing to perform
• 12:04
  these scripts is not the same thing as being violent.
• 12:09
  And talking about performing your journalistic duty, do you,
• 12:12
  are you clear in your mind that it was your duty to make those
• 12:16
  comments rather than something more measured, more impartial?
• 12:20
  I mean, if you had your time over you would make the same
• 12:23
  post, would you? I think overall, you know, it's
• 12:29
  like as a journalist, right, understanding, I mean, I think
• 12:33
  even the sort of questioning is still kind of with a
• 12:37
  presupposition or supposing that a certain side's feelings is
• 12:43
  more important than another side's feelings, right?
• 12:46
  For plenty of people, yes, Charlie Kirk was a very
• 12:49
  important figure, was a Christian leader to a lot of
• 12:52
  people. To a lot of people, including
• 12:54
  people that I know very personally.
• 12:56
  He put them on watch lists that put their lives in danger.
• 13:00
  He said the Civil Rights Act was a mistake.
• 13:03
  He said that he wondered if he could trust being on a plane
• 13:07
  with a black pilot, Right. So for me to overly perform for
• 13:15
  a man and ignore, you know, the feelings of those people that he
• 13:20
  had literally put their lives in danger and victimized, that
• 13:25
  would not have been journalistically responsible of
• 13:27
  me either. It only would have been
• 13:29
  journalistically responsible if we say that those people and
• 13:31
  what they think would been targeted by this man do not
• 13:36
  matter. And I was just not going to do
• 13:38
  that. And so going back to my initial
• 13:40
  question about his remark about black women, prominent black
• 13:44
  women not having the brain processing power to be taken
• 13:47
  seriously, how do you view those remarks now the same way you did
• 13:51
  then it would just tell us what you think about those remarks.
• 13:56
  Yeah, you know, it's just it's this is the this is what this
• 13:59
  person viewed as supposedly acceptable civil debate is to
• 14:04
  insult and demean groups of people, right.
• 14:09
  I mean, I haven't changed how I think about those remarks then
• 14:12
  or how I think about them now, except for in the case of my
• 14:16
  firing, you know, and and the post termination letter
• 14:20
  references me sort of disparaging or just respecting
• 14:25
  Kurt. And again, all of my posts, I
• 14:26
  said violence was wrong. I said political violence was
• 14:29
  wrong. I said that this murder was
• 14:30
  wrong. I was shocked when this
• 14:32
  happened. And you can see me saying wow,
• 14:34
  Oh my gosh. And you were making this broader
• 14:38
  point about the normalisation of gun violence in America.
• 14:41
  You've said America is is sick. Do you think that part of the
• 14:44
  sickness is this appetite for political violence on both left
• 14:48
  and right? I mean, you know, the, the, the
• 14:50
  vice president, JD Vance has erroneously said that it's a
• 14:53
  bigger problem on the left. But do you think there is a
• 14:56
  problem across the political spectrum here?
• 15:01
  Yeah, let's look at this objectively.
• 15:02
  It is just objectively true that political violence, if you count
• 15:06
  political violence as, you know, gun crime, actual sort of
• 15:11
  physical violence, that the there's a bigger problem on the
• 15:14
  right. Those are just facts.
• 15:16
  So much so whether or not, you know, the administration wants
• 15:19
  us to know those facts as evidenced by the the instance
• 15:23
  that they have ordered the Department of Justice to scrub
• 15:29
  their own research about right wing domestic extremist violence
• 15:37
  being predominantly right wing. We there is just it's just the
• 15:41
  fact that there is an asymmetry. You know, as much as right, the
• 15:46
  right has been trying to find sort of leftist, you know,
• 15:51
  amorphous motives or something in the atmosphere or maybe, you
• 15:54
  know, even Tyler Robinson, you know, might have had some idea
• 15:59
  theology, all of these things. The facts have been that over
• 16:04
  the decades it has been right wing white supremacist terrorism
• 16:08
  that has been the number one domestic threat to the UN United
• 16:11
  States. And that is just the facts.
• 16:15
  I wonder whether one of the reasons for your firing was this
• 16:19
  broader context of the Washington Post under its owner
• 16:22
  Jeff Bezos, shifting the opinion pages to, and I quote,
• 16:26
  advocating for free markets and personal liberties.
• 16:29
  I will say at least, you know, obviously personally, the
• 16:33
  Washington Post that fired me is not the Washington Post that I
• 16:37
  joined 11 years ago. This is not the same place as
• 16:42
  the one that stood behind me and Jamal Khashoggi when we were
• 16:45
  advocating for press freedom and when we were advocating and when
• 16:49
  we were building sections full of diverse writers across the
• 16:54
  political spectrum, across the cultural spectrum.
• 16:57
  That was The Washington Post that I knew and that I loved and
• 17:02
  that I felt was an honor and a privilege and a pleasure to be a
• 17:06
  part of. We're seeing an A narrowing, a
• 17:10
  more insular sort of society in general.
• 17:13
  And, you know, we're seeing more censorship, I suppose.
• 17:19
  And so now today, yeah, you know, obviously the posts that
• 17:24
  fired me without cause, without conversation, without even, you
• 17:27
  know, a fear hearing is not the post that I joined.
• 17:30
  And that was under Bezos. I joined under Bezos.
• 17:33
  So I've never, but he and the paper have.
• 17:38
  And do you think, is there a legitimate argument that The
• 17:43
  Washington Post had to shift because half the country voted
• 17:46
  for Trump? And, you know, there's this
• 17:48
  criticism that both Washington Post and The New York Times were
• 17:51
  kind of elite bubbles. They needed to represent the
• 17:54
  country better. What do you say to that?
• 17:57
  I think this idea of representation is interesting
• 18:01
  given the fact that I was the last black staff columnist in
• 18:07
  the opinion section. Meaning in a city that is almost
• 18:12
  majority black or has been majority black for its entire
• 18:16
  existence now to have absolutely no black opinion writers of
• 18:21
  either political persuasion, right is more of the acute
• 18:28
  representational emergency right now, right?
• 18:34
  What's at stake there? I mean, it is astonishing that
• 18:36
  you were the last staff black staff opinion writer.
• 18:42
  Right. Well, it seems that they did not
• 18:45
  care about that. And in a city where they're
• 18:52
  literal National Guard troops marching around the city,
• 18:57
  there's a feeling of the city being occupied.
• 18:59
  There's a, an actual sort of Supreme Court ruling saying that
• 19:04
  it's OK to racially profile black and brown people, right?
• 19:09
  And, and now the Washington Post has taken out its entire line of
• 19:16
  full time black opinion writers who have the freedom and who
• 19:19
  have the latitude, who have the leeway, even under the social
• 19:21
  media policy to be able to advocate, to be able to say
• 19:26
  something that is happening is wrong, to be able to speak about
• 19:28
  the harms to the community. The fact that that sort of
• 19:31
  journalistic line of defense has been taken out at the Washington
• 19:34
  Post means that the communities here are even more at risk
• 19:40
  because of that. And what?
• 19:42
  What does that say about America and the kind of power structures
• 19:45
  in America today? We are definitely moving into
• 19:50
  and I teach on, on race and and media and history.
• 19:53
  We're moving into a time that seems to more resemble the 1920s
• 20:02
  than it does anything else. Back to a time when there was or
• 20:07
  even you know, the early 1900s where you know, Woodrow Wilson
• 20:11
  was re segregating the workforce when there had been advancements
• 20:15
  of for a black people and brown people and getting employment,
• 20:20
  getting education, then seeing. The progress being wiped out,
• 20:25
  right? We're seeing this staggering
• 20:27
  numbers of, of particularly black employees, but employees
• 20:30
  leaving the federal workforce. We're seeing rollbacks on
• 20:34
  affirmative action. We're seeing definitely this
• 20:36
  sort of almost explicitly kind of racist regime here.
• 20:47
  And this is all while, you know, that the government is is pretty
• 20:50
  much fully under Republican control.
• 20:53
  And it's a it's a scary time. I mean, what, what can I say?
• 20:57
  It's, it's a it's a scary time. It's a, it's a tragic time for
• 21:02
  all of those generations that worked so hard for civil rights
• 21:05
  progress. I mean, again, the idea that it
• 21:09
  was considered for me disrespectful, you know, to not
• 21:13
  mourn over the top properly for someone who thought the Civil
• 21:17
  Rights Act was a mistake. This is Charlie Kirk's own
• 21:21
  words. The fact that he's perhaps
• 21:25
  representing a large swath of America who believe people like
• 21:27
  me should not have the right to vote and participate in public
• 21:31
  life is where we're at in 2025. I know you're pursuing A
• 21:35
  grievance against the Post. Does does that mean that you
• 21:39
  take them to court? You're suing them.
• 21:42
  What that means is that very specifically is we've requested,
• 21:45
  requesting information from the POST specific to my firing and
• 21:50
  requesting, you know, basically under the Labour agreement, the
• 21:54
  manner in which I was fired and you know, that I did not
• 21:57
  actually violate the social media policy.
• 22:01
  And this is what we are. We are basically challenging
• 22:06
  them right now with my colleagues in the guilds.
• 22:10
  Just reflecting back on what you said about the fact that you
• 22:13
  were the last remaining black full time opinion columnist on
• 22:17
  the paper, do you feel in America at the moment that women
• 22:20
  on the left, women of colour, are fearful?
• 22:23
  Yeah, for sure, because it's not just, you know, it's not just me
• 22:27
  as a black person, but you know, also in terms of, you know,
• 22:32
  women also losing their jobs, also losing their positions and,
• 22:36
  and things like that. We're dealing with a political
• 22:41
  culture on the right that has openly said that they believe
• 22:44
  women should be submissive and and should belong back basically
• 22:49
  in the in the kitchen, right? We're seeing attacks on women's
• 22:55
  ability to have autonomy over their reproductive choices,
• 22:59
  right? So yeah, there's definitely also
• 23:02
  a feeling of precariousness if you're a woman, and especially
• 23:08
  if you're a woman of colour for sure.
• 23:11
  And have you had threats to your own safety since your dismissal
• 23:15
  from the post? I have, I've had to up my own
• 23:21
  security, you know, and it's, you know, for everything that
• 23:28
  the Post is saying about me endangering supposedly the
• 23:32
  security of of their staff, they said that without evidence.
• 23:37
  I'm the one who's getting threats about people offering to
• 23:41
  pay assassins basically to come after me.
• 23:44
  So you know what they did actually puts my physical safety
• 23:47
  in danger. Is this online threats people
• 23:50
  specifically making that threat online?
• 23:52
  Threats, things like that. I mean, are you nervous talking
• 23:57
  to me now? Because you know, you, you've
• 23:59
  sort of put yourself out there, you're not going to back down.
• 24:02
  You're fighting the post. Do you feel nervous about about
• 24:05
  speaking out? I mean, I understand.
• 24:08
  I understand that this is a different climate, but I also
• 24:12
  understand how important it is for me to still speak out.
• 24:15
  I mean, there's this Zora Neale Hurston quote.
• 24:17
  You know, if you're silent about your pain, they'll kill you and
• 24:20
  say you enjoyed it. So there's that on a personal
• 24:24
  level. And then on a broader level, I
• 24:26
  know it's important. There are so many people with,
• 24:30
  who are, have lesser profiles than I do or who aren't as known
• 24:34
  perhaps who are perhaps facing similar battles.
• 24:38
  And I, I think for me, you know, courage is contagious.
• 24:41
  I, I wanna, I, I, this isn't a time where we should be silent.
• 24:47
  We need journalism. We need freedom of speech, and
• 24:51
  it's only freedom of speech if you continue to use it, if you
• 24:54
  continue to exercise it. Don't silence yourself ahead of
• 24:57
  time. I suppose so.
• 25:00
  I know how I guess I know how important it is for people to,
• 25:03
  to see me do this to, to fight back and to not accept this,
• 25:09
  particularly as I, this wasn't, I didn't deserve sort of what
• 25:13
  happened to me at The Washington Post.
• 25:16
  I spent my entire career having the backs of other writers.
• 25:20
  I spent my entire career, you know, I believe deeply in how
• 25:27
  important it is to have journalism and, you know, for
• 25:31
  people to be informed, for people to speak, for people to
• 25:33
  even reflect on their own culture, their own society.
• 25:38
  I'm an American. Like, I should be able to speak
• 25:40
  about what I think about my own society.
• 25:43
  All right? I don't understand why that
• 25:46
  should be seen as a threat. I guess.
• 25:50
  Yes, I know history, you know, and it always has been a threat.
• 25:53
  But for me, this is just a fundamental, basic human right.
• 25:57
  And I I believe that if you don't have the right to speak,
• 26:00
  all your other rights are at risk.
• 26:03
  So as well as doing interviews like this, how will you be
• 26:06
  ensuring that your voice is now heard?
• 26:11
  Well, people can find me on social media, obviously.
• 26:15
  Yeah. And I'll be writing on sub
• 26:16
  stack. My sub stack is called the
• 26:19
  Golden Hour. I also teach a class on race and
• 26:22
  media since it seems that there's so much attack on
• 26:25
  speaking about race and media and, you know, international
• 26:29
  affairs. So I teach an online course
• 26:32
  called Race and Media and International Affairs, which I
• 26:34
  will start in a few weeks. Yeah.
• 26:36
  So I'll be writing on sub stack on the Golden Hour and I'm in my
• 26:39
  rogue radical professor era, I suppose with Resistance study
• 26:44
  series. So I'll be writing and teaching
• 26:47
  anyway. Karen Atia, thank you very much.
• 26:52
  Thank you so much for having me. That's it for the forecast this
• 26:55
  week, but thank you very much for joining us.