Want to know the secret to reaching your goals? Whoop is a world class wearable that accurately tracks your key health and fitness data. Get personalized feedback on how to improve your sleep, monitor and manage your stress levels to ensure that you feel at your best every day. With Whoop, you'll get the data and coaching you need to build better habits. Visit join dot whoop.com to start your free trial today. Welcome to the Tucker Carlson show. We bring you stories that have not been showcased anywhere else. And they're not censored, of course, because we're not gatekeepers. We are honest brokers here to tell you what we think you need to know and do it honestly. Check out all of our content@tuckercarlson.com. dot here's the episode. I'm so glad you're back here.

I'm so glad to see you.

You are not far away. It's kind of weird. Work together. We live near each other. It's all, in many places amazing. How are you enjoying your new life?

Pretty well. It's good. It's been an adjustment. I've had an energetic few months.

I knew you would. I knew you would. Okay. So I just have to ask you, because you're, I was in television a long time also, but you were in the news side of television, preparing interviews and packages and every day for decades. And given your extensive knowledge of that, I'm just a little bit confused by how the media, people in our business, former business, could look at the last debate with Biden and Trump and say, I just can't believe that there's something wrong with him, that he's neurologically compromised or ill or senile or whatever, that he's not operating the way that he used to. How could this be news to people who've interviewed him before?

Well, I think this is a real opportunity to gather more data and to take an investigative lens and look at this issue of President Biden and his decision to seek reelection. We've got some data points already. We have the debate that you've just referenced that people were so surprised at his demeanor. And we now have this ABC interview and the full transcript. I think it's a moment where other media organizations who've done interviews with the president over the last couple of years would release the full transcripts from those interviews. I think it makes sense because we'd have broader data points to assess. Was this a one off, as the White House says, or were there indications of decline earlier on? Were they obvious and apparent, or were they subtle and missed and if they were obvious, why was it that they seemed to end up on the cutting room floor? I think that having this broader data set for an independent review would really inform the public discussion about the president's decision to stay in the race.

And there's a lot of data to look at. I mean, I've known Biden, watched Biden, been around Biden a lot for over 30 years. And I remember my reaction in 2019 when he decided to run once again for president for the fourth time. I think I thought, that's not the guy I know. I mean, he's just completely different. And then his sister told a friend of mine actually were very upset because hes in cognitive decline. Hes got some neurological illness and we dont want him to run for president. So I immediately said that on Fox News.

So you reported that at the time?

Absolutely. Yeah. And then I showed the tape, like, look at this guy, and was attacked, of course, and ignored. So that was five years ago. I wasnt shocked by his performance, the debate especially. But then other journalists were, they seem to be, were they pretending or like, I don't understand how someone who did an interview with him like two years ago wouldn't have been aware that there was something wrong.

Well, I think it's an opportunity to provide this broader data set so there can be this independent review by the public.

What would that data look like?

Well, let's look at what the transcripts show. Do they show someone who is very consistent, very focused, very deliberate in their answering of questions? Or does it show someone who's maybe struggling to tremendous responsibility when you sit down with the president of the United States, probably the ultimate newsmaker, to ask questions that are of interest to your news organization but also to others. Right. And then finally, I think a transcript allows you to stand behind the edit that you either post online or that you broadcast. Right. Because then the public can see the sections of the interview that you condensed or you made edits for clarification.Right. So I know that in, I haven't thought about this enough, but I know that in 2015 or 2016, the New York Times editorial board sat down with Trump and they released a full, apparently unedited transcript, which was chaotic. His speaking style tends to be a little discursive.That's a of the abandoned cars in downtown Manhattan belonged to people who had been killed in the towers. And I stopped this woman, and I asked her what she was doing, and she said, my sister wasn't the windows on the world at the top of the World Trade center. She didn't survive. And I want to have something to bury for my family. So the ash is what I'm collecting. And that was the moment that I realized that so much of the ash that was spread around the city was really people. People and the buildings. And that kind of tactile feel to the reporting is the kind of reporting that really impacts people and stays with them. And I don't know whether it's the technology or whether it's sort of the immediacy of all these deadlines, but the ability to do that is much harder now than it used to be.No. And I think that's really smart. And technology gives you the illusion that all the information is on Google or a text away when actually talking to people makes all the difference. Huh. So one phenomenon that I noticed, well, that I actually didn't notice until I was in middle age.But, Cameron, you're in middle age.That's what they claim.Okay.Actually, I'm way past middle age. I'm not going to live to, I'm not going to math 100. So I guess I'm in late life now. But there are beat reporters, people who, covering federal agencies, particularly in Washington, who become captive to those agencies, to their sources, not in a literal sense. They're not held in the basement and chains, but they're, I mean, they are sort of puppets of the people they cover. Like, I really noticed that I'm thinking of one specific person I'm not going to name, but I would just say a female national security reporter in Washington. And I would watch these stories come out and be like, well, that's a lie. You know, it's a lie. And you're doing it on behalf of the people who feed you these lies. Have you seen a lot of that?I think that the danger is that people become sort of so friendly with the press offices that work in these big agencies that they find it hard over time to really challenge them.That was never a problem for you.I noticed.We worked together for people who don't know Catherine. Eric, one thing I've always loved about you, I don't even know who you vote for, and I mean that. But I did notice that a lot of the flacks didn't like you. So I always thought that was a.Good sign you want to have the ability to really operate outside the ring. I used to say that one of the advantages to doing reporting, as long as I've done it, is that you start to build a network of contacts. So that that's really where youre a, your stories are coming from, and that the public affairs office and a major government entity is really the last stop for you. Right. That's where you're trying to get some response. And I really believe in giving these offices ample time to respond. I did a story recently where we engaged with the department of the army and the National Guard for two weeks. I mean, we really gave them time because we wanted to understand their position and what had happened in a particular case. But sometimes the danger is that people become too close. That's why I, I think it makes sense in some cases to really rotate reporters so that you don't spend so long on a certain beat that you start to lose your contacts outside of that circle.That's exactly. Or you become a tool of lies, which some Pentagon reporters have become. I would say one in particular. But what's the mechanism for pulling that person back and putting that person on another beat, or for fixing that?Listen, I've never been a manager, but it just seems to me, when I worked overseas, I saw this with some and try to make it better, but they don't. So you're saying we've had such a similar experience. You, like you're in this little world, which you think is a much bigger world than it actually is. I'll speak for myself. And then you get ejected from that world and you're shocked. But then you thank God for it because, wow, there's fresh air and sunlight. And then you look around and you realize that all these smaller organizations or individuals are having a huge effect and you didn't even know that. It's amazing. I just love the whole thing. But one of the problems is it's pretty easy, it's pretty hard to take down a big news organization because they have a well staffed legal department. Pretty easy to take down an individual with lawfare, right? This is a concern.Yeah. One of the things I'd like to talk about is the Press act. The Press act is a piece of legislation that's in the Senate right now. It passed unanimously in the House. And the Press act is a federal shield law for reporters. It would allow them to protect confidential sources. And there are just very few exceptions, what I would call common sense exceptions for imminent violence or threats to critical infrastructure. And I've said that I think the protection of confidential sources is the hill to die on because if you don't have that ability, a credible assurance that you're going to protect your source as an investigative reporter, your toolbox is empty. I mean, you really have nothing to offer. And, you know, and others, I can't say a lot about it, but I'm in the middle of a major case where I was asked to disclose confidential source information. I refused to disclose.Who asked you to disclose?It's part of a privacy act lawsuit. I'm a witness in the case, and.This is a private entity.There's a plaintiff. They're suing government agencies, including the FBI, and they want to understand the source of sources for my reporting. A series of stories, national security stories, in 2017. And this is all public.So just remind me, who's suing a.Chinese american scientist and she's suing the FBI? The Justice Department, Defense Department, I believe, Homeland Security as well. They're like, four or five different agencies. And the plaintiff wants to understand how I got information about her and her.So you're not being sued?No, I'm not. I'm just a witness.It's just the same thing happened to me. They grabbed all my text messages. I was not named in the suit, but a judge said I had to divulge. So they're trying to violate, among other things, your privacy, but also they're trying to violate the protection that we all assumed was real, that confidential sources had.I want to be very careful because I don't want to litigate the case, the case here. But the issue is the forced disclosure of confidential source information.And so that means you, as a reporter, talk to people. They tell you stuff on the condition of anonymity. I'm not gonna tell anybody that we spoke, but tell me the truth about what you know. Correct.Right.And this is something that journalists deal with constantly.If you don't have that credible pledge of confidentiality, as an investigative journalist, you really have very little to offer.Yeah, I've done it, like, three times today already. No, but that's just. That's your life. You know, you're talking to people constantly about stuff, and. But everyone knows you're not going to rat them out. Right.The question, it's in the appellate court right now in Washington. And the question is when the need for that information overrides the First Amendment and the reporter's privilege. I haven't lost a night's sleep over my decision to protect confidential sources, but that doesn't mean I don't feel a tremendous burden and responsibility with this case.Tell us about the burden.Well, it's so much bigger than just my individual case. It's not just about me. It's not about just a single series of stories. It's not about one media outlet. Whatever the courts decide, and I have respect for the legal process and what's unfolding. Whatever they decide is going to impact every working journalist in the United States. Yeah. And the public and for the next generation. And that's why, you know, the press act is an opportunity to really strengthen press freedom and press protections at a time, as you mentioned, that there's this explosion of smaller and independent outlets, and they can't, you know, they can't withstand the legal is it true? And who is really losing in that equation? Is the country less safe as a result or not? I don't know the answer to all of that yet, but that's a very legitimate story to persist.Also, how does a bankrupt come country, which ours is, pay for all these services? I don't. Yeah, there are many questions. I totally agree, but. So you're focused on the question, is the federal government violating its own laws, federal employees?Yes.And to the extent that you've reported it out, are you closer to an answer?I think based on our reporting so far, that it really tips that way. It does appear that way. And so my question is, where's, you know, who's been disciplined, who's been suspended, who's been fired, who's been demoted? And I'm not sure the answer is really anyone except the people who blew the whistle on it, really. Don't make me give the story away.No, I won't stop.I want to stop you right now. Like, I'm, like, so shocked.I mean, you know, but I think.But that's the kind of, to me, that's the kind of story you want to be doing, right? I just think it's the thing that has always encouraged me about the consumers of news in this country is that they really understand this idea of accountability. They want to see it. They expect it, they demand it. And when you do it, I think it can be very gratifying to kind of shine a light, it sounds like so old fashioned, but to shine a light on an issue that really is worthy of that and is sort of screaming out for coverage.I've had many people ask me this over the years, but one channel will do a story or one newspaper will do a story, and then every other outlet will do exactly the same story. And sometimes it's like a really boutique story. It's a story of limited, obvious importance, but everyone does the same story. How do these, like, who decides that? How does, you know, where does that come from?I mean, this comes from the executives or the show producers.But have you noticed that I don't know how many news organizations there are in the United States in a country of 350 million people? There are a lot. They all do in a given week. They do a suite of maybe 20 stories. Themes, you know, variations on a theme, perhaps. But, but I, I mean, why?You'd think that I really, I wish I could answer that question, but you've noticed this, right? I mean, when you look at the rundowns, let's say for an evening news broadcast, you'll see a lot of the same stories. Now that may be a function of the fact that they have such limited time to tell the story. Was it 18 or 19 minutes or 20? For sure.But it's that the topics are the same. It's just interesting. I'm not suggesting coordination, but I do think it's. I don't know what it is. I think it's a conspiracy of like minded temperament. They all are kind of the same people.I just. I don't know.Huh. But you'll concede there are a lot of stories that they could be doing that they're not.Yeah, I think so. That's the appeal of being independent, is that you can tell some of the stories that maybe you couldn't tell before.Is it weird not to have a boss?Yeah, it's a big change. After nearly four decades of working for major media outlets, it's a huge change. I've had a lot of change in the last four months, five months. A lot.Do you miss being scolded?I miss the structure. I'm very used to the structure and structure that has resources that you didn't realize that you needed until you went to do it yourself. I'm sure you understand who've been there. Yeah, you've been there. Right. But I really like working with a small team and as a group deciding what is it that we're going to pursue next and how can we structure this story, that it has an impact and what kind of reporting do we need to be doing and at what point do we engage with government agencies? How do we keep moving the story forward after we do it? I just find that just kind of exhilarating and refreshing all at the same time. And in a marketplace that's really just exploding, where you're setting your own boundaries and your own rules. Right? You're saying, okay, I've got almost four decades of experience. This is what I believe journalism is. This is how I'm going to execute it. These are my standards, these are my expectations, and I'm going to be true to those. I'm going to follow it through. That's the exciting part of it. And then having a public that responds to it, which I'm so grateful for.People like honesty in a world full of lies, I think.Do you feel that people are looking for credible, reliable information in a way that I never maybe seen in my lifetime? Working as a journalist.So maybe what you're saying is that as a business, journalism is like more discredited than it's ever been and more disliked. But individual journalists who decide to tell the truth are, I don't know.I don't know if, I don't know if I would go that far. And I'm not sure how comfortable I am really commenting on the whole profession that way. I just sort of come back to my, I come back to my own, you know, my own work. I wrote something recently for the Free Press, which is really an amazing operation. Barry Weiss has really built it into this sort of, you know, engaging, driving thing. You know, it's like, it's like a great source for information. I wrote something on, on the press act and, you know, that it's the protection of sources is the hill to die on. And it was such a great experience to work with them and to see the reach of that story and to take an issue that I felt needed to kind of, you know, poke up through the noise and get some attention because all of our futures, our careers rest on that basic principle. So to me, that's an example of, you know, an independent media outlet which is, really has a lot of impact and made a difference.How of the people that you worked with 30 years ago were any still around in the business?Oh, I'm trying to think. A lot of them are retired now. I went to a reunion, an ABC London reunion. I want to say it was maybe seven years ago. Six or seven. It was before, just before I went to CB's and a lot of people were retired. A lot of people had passed. A lot of them were already gone.Is that weird?Yeah, it's sad, but I learned so much from them and I think that, not to sound too sentimental, but I think you carry that on. I think one of the greatest things you can do at a certain point in your career is to share your experience and to share the skillset that you have. And I really enjoy doing that, especially with younger journalists.How long are you going to do it?I talk about this with our kids. How long am I going to do this and when will I retire? And, you know, they all have the same verdict, which is like, oh, mom, like, you need to keep working as long as you can work because you really, if we had you loose in the house all the time, it would just be crazy. And you love, I mean, I just love it. I feel fortunate to have found something I feel so passionate about. Maybe you feel.Oh, of course I do.Maybe you feel the same way, of course, and I can't. And sort of I'm surprised even by the evolution of where I am today. And I'm surprised that I'm fighting in the courts to be protecting confidential sources. But if there's something that folks who are listening and watching this can take away is that, you know, I came out of February, so it was a tough time, there's no question about it. But I had a lot of clarity. And sometimes crisis gives you clarity. And the idea of a free press and free speech, these really became my North Star. They really became the driving force of what I'm going to do in this next chapter.Yeah, I couldn't agree more. And it's weird to wake up and see things you took for granted under threat. Did you ever think that free speech in the United States would be open to question?No, I wouldn't have anticipated the situation that I'm in now. That's for sure.Well, we're rooting for you fervently.Thank you.Katherine heritage, thank you very much.It's so good to see you. Thanks for having me.Great to see you. Thanks for listening to Tucker Carlson show. If you enjoyed it, you can go to tuckercarlson.com to see everything that we have made the complete library tuckercarlson.com dot.

tremendous responsibility when you sit down with the president of the United States, probably the ultimate newsmaker, to ask questions that are of interest to your news organization but also to others. Right. And then finally, I think a transcript allows you to stand behind the edit that you either post online or that you broadcast. Right. Because then the public can see the sections of the interview that you condensed or you made edits for clarification.

Right. So I know that in, I haven't thought about this enough, but I know that in 2015 or 2016, the New York Times editorial board sat down with Trump and they released a full, apparently unedited transcript, which was chaotic. His speaking style tends to be a little discursive.

That's a of the abandoned cars in downtown Manhattan belonged to people who had been killed in the towers. And I stopped this woman, and I asked her what she was doing, and she said, my sister wasn't the windows on the world at the top of the World Trade center. She didn't survive. And I want to have something to bury for my family. So the ash is what I'm collecting. And that was the moment that I realized that so much of the ash that was spread around the city was really people. People and the buildings. And that kind of tactile feel to the reporting is the kind of reporting that really impacts people and stays with them. And I don't know whether it's the technology or whether it's sort of the immediacy of all these deadlines, but the ability to do that is much harder now than it used to be.No. And I think that's really smart. And technology gives you the illusion that all the information is on Google or a text away when actually talking to people makes all the difference. Huh. So one phenomenon that I noticed, well, that I actually didn't notice until I was in middle age.But, Cameron, you're in middle age.That's what they claim.Okay.Actually, I'm way past middle age. I'm not going to live to, I'm not going to math 100. So I guess I'm in late life now. But there are beat reporters, people who, covering federal agencies, particularly in Washington, who become captive to those agencies, to their sources, not in a literal sense. They're not held in the basement and chains, but they're, I mean, they are sort of puppets of the people they cover. Like, I really noticed that I'm thinking of one specific person I'm not going to name, but I would just say a female national security reporter in Washington. And I would watch these stories come out and be like, well, that's a lie. You know, it's a lie. And you're doing it on behalf of the people who feed you these lies. Have you seen a lot of that?I think that the danger is that people become sort of so friendly with the press offices that work in these big agencies that they find it hard over time to really challenge them.That was never a problem for you.I noticed.We worked together for people who don't know Catherine. Eric, one thing I've always loved about you, I don't even know who you vote for, and I mean that. But I did notice that a lot of the flacks didn't like you. So I always thought that was a.Good sign you want to have the ability to really operate outside the ring. I used to say that one of the advantages to doing reporting, as long as I've done it, is that you start to build a network of contacts. So that that's really where youre a, your stories are coming from, and that the public affairs office and a major government entity is really the last stop for you. Right. That's where you're trying to get some response. And I really believe in giving these offices ample time to respond. I did a story recently where we engaged with the department of the army and the National Guard for two weeks. I mean, we really gave them time because we wanted to understand their position and what had happened in a particular case. But sometimes the danger is that people become too close. That's why I, I think it makes sense in some cases to really rotate reporters so that you don't spend so long on a certain beat that you start to lose your contacts outside of that circle.That's exactly. Or you become a tool of lies, which some Pentagon reporters have become. I would say one in particular. But what's the mechanism for pulling that person back and putting that person on another beat, or for fixing that?Listen, I've never been a manager, but it just seems to me, when I worked overseas, I saw this with some and try to make it better, but they don't. So you're saying we've had such a similar experience. You, like you're in this little world, which you think is a much bigger world than it actually is. I'll speak for myself. And then you get ejected from that world and you're shocked. But then you thank God for it because, wow, there's fresh air and sunlight. And then you look around and you realize that all these smaller organizations or individuals are having a huge effect and you didn't even know that. It's amazing. I just love the whole thing. But one of the problems is it's pretty easy, it's pretty hard to take down a big news organization because they have a well staffed legal department. Pretty easy to take down an individual with lawfare, right? This is a concern.Yeah. One of the things I'd like to talk about is the Press act. The Press act is a piece of legislation that's in the Senate right now. It passed unanimously in the House. And the Press act is a federal shield law for reporters. It would allow them to protect confidential sources. And there are just very few exceptions, what I would call common sense exceptions for imminent violence or threats to critical infrastructure. And I've said that I think the protection of confidential sources is the hill to die on because if you don't have that ability, a credible assurance that you're going to protect your source as an investigative reporter, your toolbox is empty. I mean, you really have nothing to offer. And, you know, and others, I can't say a lot about it, but I'm in the middle of a major case where I was asked to disclose confidential source information. I refused to disclose.Who asked you to disclose?It's part of a privacy act lawsuit. I'm a witness in the case, and.This is a private entity.There's a plaintiff. They're suing government agencies, including the FBI, and they want to understand the source of sources for my reporting. A series of stories, national security stories, in 2017. And this is all public.So just remind me, who's suing a.Chinese american scientist and she's suing the FBI? The Justice Department, Defense Department, I believe, Homeland Security as well. They're like, four or five different agencies. And the plaintiff wants to understand how I got information about her and her.So you're not being sued?No, I'm not. I'm just a witness.It's just the same thing happened to me. They grabbed all my text messages. I was not named in the suit, but a judge said I had to divulge. So they're trying to violate, among other things, your privacy, but also they're trying to violate the protection that we all assumed was real, that confidential sources had.I want to be very careful because I don't want to litigate the case, the case here. But the issue is the forced disclosure of confidential source information.And so that means you, as a reporter, talk to people. They tell you stuff on the condition of anonymity. I'm not gonna tell anybody that we spoke, but tell me the truth about what you know. Correct.Right.And this is something that journalists deal with constantly.If you don't have that credible pledge of confidentiality, as an investigative journalist, you really have very little to offer.Yeah, I've done it, like, three times today already. No, but that's just. That's your life. You know, you're talking to people constantly about stuff, and. But everyone knows you're not going to rat them out. Right.The question, it's in the appellate court right now in Washington. And the question is when the need for that information overrides the First Amendment and the reporter's privilege. I haven't lost a night's sleep over my decision to protect confidential sources, but that doesn't mean I don't feel a tremendous burden and responsibility with this case.Tell us about the burden.Well, it's so much bigger than just my individual case. It's not just about me. It's not about just a single series of stories. It's not about one media outlet. Whatever the courts decide, and I have respect for the legal process and what's unfolding. Whatever they decide is going to impact every working journalist in the United States. Yeah. And the public and for the next generation. And that's why, you know, the press act is an opportunity to really strengthen press freedom and press protections at a time, as you mentioned, that there's this explosion of smaller and independent outlets, and they can't, you know, they can't withstand the legal is it true? And who is really losing in that equation? Is the country less safe as a result or not? I don't know the answer to all of that yet, but that's a very legitimate story to persist.Also, how does a bankrupt come country, which ours is, pay for all these services? I don't. Yeah, there are many questions. I totally agree, but. So you're focused on the question, is the federal government violating its own laws, federal employees?Yes.And to the extent that you've reported it out, are you closer to an answer?I think based on our reporting so far, that it really tips that way. It does appear that way. And so my question is, where's, you know, who's been disciplined, who's been suspended, who's been fired, who's been demoted? And I'm not sure the answer is really anyone except the people who blew the whistle on it, really. Don't make me give the story away.No, I won't stop.I want to stop you right now. Like, I'm, like, so shocked.I mean, you know, but I think.But that's the kind of, to me, that's the kind of story you want to be doing, right? I just think it's the thing that has always encouraged me about the consumers of news in this country is that they really understand this idea of accountability. They want to see it. They expect it, they demand it. And when you do it, I think it can be very gratifying to kind of shine a light, it sounds like so old fashioned, but to shine a light on an issue that really is worthy of that and is sort of screaming out for coverage.I've had many people ask me this over the years, but one channel will do a story or one newspaper will do a story, and then every other outlet will do exactly the same story. And sometimes it's like a really boutique story. It's a story of limited, obvious importance, but everyone does the same story. How do these, like, who decides that? How does, you know, where does that come from?I mean, this comes from the executives or the show producers.But have you noticed that I don't know how many news organizations there are in the United States in a country of 350 million people? There are a lot. They all do in a given week. They do a suite of maybe 20 stories. Themes, you know, variations on a theme, perhaps. But, but I, I mean, why?You'd think that I really, I wish I could answer that question, but you've noticed this, right? I mean, when you look at the rundowns, let's say for an evening news broadcast, you'll see a lot of the same stories. Now that may be a function of the fact that they have such limited time to tell the story. Was it 18 or 19 minutes or 20? For sure.But it's that the topics are the same. It's just interesting. I'm not suggesting coordination, but I do think it's. I don't know what it is. I think it's a conspiracy of like minded temperament. They all are kind of the same people.I just. I don't know.Huh. But you'll concede there are a lot of stories that they could be doing that they're not.Yeah, I think so. That's the appeal of being independent, is that you can tell some of the stories that maybe you couldn't tell before.Is it weird not to have a boss?Yeah, it's a big change. After nearly four decades of working for major media outlets, it's a huge change. I've had a lot of change in the last four months, five months. A lot.Do you miss being scolded?I miss the structure. I'm very used to the structure and structure that has resources that you didn't realize that you needed until you went to do it yourself. I'm sure you understand who've been there. Yeah, you've been there. Right. But I really like working with a small team and as a group deciding what is it that we're going to pursue next and how can we structure this story, that it has an impact and what kind of reporting do we need to be doing and at what point do we engage with government agencies? How do we keep moving the story forward after we do it? I just find that just kind of exhilarating and refreshing all at the same time. And in a marketplace that's really just exploding, where you're setting your own boundaries and your own rules. Right? You're saying, okay, I've got almost four decades of experience. This is what I believe journalism is. This is how I'm going to execute it. These are my standards, these are my expectations, and I'm going to be true to those. I'm going to follow it through. That's the exciting part of it. And then having a public that responds to it, which I'm so grateful for.People like honesty in a world full of lies, I think.Do you feel that people are looking for credible, reliable information in a way that I never maybe seen in my lifetime? Working as a journalist.So maybe what you're saying is that as a business, journalism is like more discredited than it's ever been and more disliked. But individual journalists who decide to tell the truth are, I don't know.I don't know if, I don't know if I would go that far. And I'm not sure how comfortable I am really commenting on the whole profession that way. I just sort of come back to my, I come back to my own, you know, my own work. I wrote something recently for the Free Press, which is really an amazing operation. Barry Weiss has really built it into this sort of, you know, engaging, driving thing. You know, it's like, it's like a great source for information. I wrote something on, on the press act and, you know, that it's the protection of sources is the hill to die on. And it was such a great experience to work with them and to see the reach of that story and to take an issue that I felt needed to kind of, you know, poke up through the noise and get some attention because all of our futures, our careers rest on that basic principle. So to me, that's an example of, you know, an independent media outlet which is, really has a lot of impact and made a difference.How of the people that you worked with 30 years ago were any still around in the business?Oh, I'm trying to think. A lot of them are retired now. I went to a reunion, an ABC London reunion. I want to say it was maybe seven years ago. Six or seven. It was before, just before I went to CB's and a lot of people were retired. A lot of people had passed. A lot of them were already gone.Is that weird?Yeah, it's sad, but I learned so much from them and I think that, not to sound too sentimental, but I think you carry that on. I think one of the greatest things you can do at a certain point in your career is to share your experience and to share the skillset that you have. And I really enjoy doing that, especially with younger journalists.How long are you going to do it?I talk about this with our kids. How long am I going to do this and when will I retire? And, you know, they all have the same verdict, which is like, oh, mom, like, you need to keep working as long as you can work because you really, if we had you loose in the house all the time, it would just be crazy. And you love, I mean, I just love it. I feel fortunate to have found something I feel so passionate about. Maybe you feel.Oh, of course I do.Maybe you feel the same way, of course, and I can't. And sort of I'm surprised even by the evolution of where I am today. And I'm surprised that I'm fighting in the courts to be protecting confidential sources. But if there's something that folks who are listening and watching this can take away is that, you know, I came out of February, so it was a tough time, there's no question about it. But I had a lot of clarity. And sometimes crisis gives you clarity. And the idea of a free press and free speech, these really became my North Star. They really became the driving force of what I'm going to do in this next chapter.Yeah, I couldn't agree more. And it's weird to wake up and see things you took for granted under threat. Did you ever think that free speech in the United States would be open to question?No, I wouldn't have anticipated the situation that I'm in now. That's for sure.Well, we're rooting for you fervently.Thank you.Katherine heritage, thank you very much.It's so good to see you. Thanks for having me.Great to see you. Thanks for listening to Tucker Carlson show. If you enjoyed it, you can go to tuckercarlson.com to see everything that we have made the complete library tuckercarlson.com dot.

of the abandoned cars in downtown Manhattan belonged to people who had been killed in the towers. And I stopped this woman, and I asked her what she was doing, and she said, my sister wasn't the windows on the world at the top of the World Trade center. She didn't survive. And I want to have something to bury for my family. So the ash is what I'm collecting. And that was the moment that I realized that so much of the ash that was spread around the city was really people. People and the buildings. And that kind of tactile feel to the reporting is the kind of reporting that really impacts people and stays with them. And I don't know whether it's the technology or whether it's sort of the immediacy of all these deadlines, but the ability to do that is much harder now than it used to be.

No. And I think that's really smart. And technology gives you the illusion that all the information is on Google or a text away when actually talking to people makes all the difference. Huh. So one phenomenon that I noticed, well, that I actually didn't notice until I was in middle age.

But, Cameron, you're in middle age.

That's what they claim.

Okay.

Actually, I'm way past middle age. I'm not going to live to, I'm not going to math 100. So I guess I'm in late life now. But there are beat reporters, people who, covering federal agencies, particularly in Washington, who become captive to those agencies, to their sources, not in a literal sense. They're not held in the basement and chains, but they're, I mean, they are sort of puppets of the people they cover. Like, I really noticed that I'm thinking of one specific person I'm not going to name, but I would just say a female national security reporter in Washington. And I would watch these stories come out and be like, well, that's a lie. You know, it's a lie. And you're doing it on behalf of the people who feed you these lies. Have you seen a lot of that?

I think that the danger is that people become sort of so friendly with the press offices that work in these big agencies that they find it hard over time to really challenge them.

That was never a problem for you.

I noticed.

We worked together for people who don't know Catherine. Eric, one thing I've always loved about you, I don't even know who you vote for, and I mean that. But I did notice that a lot of the flacks didn't like you. So I always thought that was a.

Good sign you want to have the ability to really operate outside the ring. I used to say that one of the advantages to doing reporting, as long as I've done it, is that you start to build a network of contacts. So that that's really where youre a, your stories are coming from, and that the public affairs office and a major government entity is really the last stop for you. Right. That's where you're trying to get some response. And I really believe in giving these offices ample time to respond. I did a story recently where we engaged with the department of the army and the National Guard for two weeks. I mean, we really gave them time because we wanted to understand their position and what had happened in a particular case. But sometimes the danger is that people become too close. That's why I, I think it makes sense in some cases to really rotate reporters so that you don't spend so long on a certain beat that you start to lose your contacts outside of that circle.

That's exactly. Or you become a tool of lies, which some Pentagon reporters have become. I would say one in particular. But what's the mechanism for pulling that person back and putting that person on another beat, or for fixing that?

Listen, I've never been a manager, but it just seems to me, when I worked overseas, I saw this with some and try to make it better, but they don't. So you're saying we've had such a similar experience. You, like you're in this little world, which you think is a much bigger world than it actually is. I'll speak for myself. And then you get ejected from that world and you're shocked. But then you thank God for it because, wow, there's fresh air and sunlight. And then you look around and you realize that all these smaller organizations or individuals are having a huge effect and you didn't even know that. It's amazing. I just love the whole thing. But one of the problems is it's pretty easy, it's pretty hard to take down a big news organization because they have a well staffed legal department. Pretty easy to take down an individual with lawfare, right? This is a concern.Yeah. One of the things I'd like to talk about is the Press act. The Press act is a piece of legislation that's in the Senate right now. It passed unanimously in the House. And the Press act is a federal shield law for reporters. It would allow them to protect confidential sources. And there are just very few exceptions, what I would call common sense exceptions for imminent violence or threats to critical infrastructure. And I've said that I think the protection of confidential sources is the hill to die on because if you don't have that ability, a credible assurance that you're going to protect your source as an investigative reporter, your toolbox is empty. I mean, you really have nothing to offer. And, you know, and others, I can't say a lot about it, but I'm in the middle of a major case where I was asked to disclose confidential source information. I refused to disclose.Who asked you to disclose?It's part of a privacy act lawsuit. I'm a witness in the case, and.This is a private entity.There's a plaintiff. They're suing government agencies, including the FBI, and they want to understand the source of sources for my reporting. A series of stories, national security stories, in 2017. And this is all public.So just remind me, who's suing a.Chinese american scientist and she's suing the FBI? The Justice Department, Defense Department, I believe, Homeland Security as well. They're like, four or five different agencies. And the plaintiff wants to understand how I got information about her and her.So you're not being sued?No, I'm not. I'm just a witness.It's just the same thing happened to me. They grabbed all my text messages. I was not named in the suit, but a judge said I had to divulge. So they're trying to violate, among other things, your privacy, but also they're trying to violate the protection that we all assumed was real, that confidential sources had.I want to be very careful because I don't want to litigate the case, the case here. But the issue is the forced disclosure of confidential source information.And so that means you, as a reporter, talk to people. They tell you stuff on the condition of anonymity. I'm not gonna tell anybody that we spoke, but tell me the truth about what you know. Correct.Right.And this is something that journalists deal with constantly.If you don't have that credible pledge of confidentiality, as an investigative journalist, you really have very little to offer.Yeah, I've done it, like, three times today already. No, but that's just. That's your life. You know, you're talking to people constantly about stuff, and. But everyone knows you're not going to rat them out. Right.The question, it's in the appellate court right now in Washington. And the question is when the need for that information overrides the First Amendment and the reporter's privilege. I haven't lost a night's sleep over my decision to protect confidential sources, but that doesn't mean I don't feel a tremendous burden and responsibility with this case.Tell us about the burden.Well, it's so much bigger than just my individual case. It's not just about me. It's not about just a single series of stories. It's not about one media outlet. Whatever the courts decide, and I have respect for the legal process and what's unfolding. Whatever they decide is going to impact every working journalist in the United States. Yeah. And the public and for the next generation. And that's why, you know, the press act is an opportunity to really strengthen press freedom and press protections at a time, as you mentioned, that there's this explosion of smaller and independent outlets, and they can't, you know, they can't withstand the legal is it true? And who is really losing in that equation? Is the country less safe as a result or not? I don't know the answer to all of that yet, but that's a very legitimate story to persist.Also, how does a bankrupt come country, which ours is, pay for all these services? I don't. Yeah, there are many questions. I totally agree, but. So you're focused on the question, is the federal government violating its own laws, federal employees?Yes.And to the extent that you've reported it out, are you closer to an answer?I think based on our reporting so far, that it really tips that way. It does appear that way. And so my question is, where's, you know, who's been disciplined, who's been suspended, who's been fired, who's been demoted? And I'm not sure the answer is really anyone except the people who blew the whistle on it, really. Don't make me give the story away.No, I won't stop.I want to stop you right now. Like, I'm, like, so shocked.I mean, you know, but I think.But that's the kind of, to me, that's the kind of story you want to be doing, right? I just think it's the thing that has always encouraged me about the consumers of news in this country is that they really understand this idea of accountability. They want to see it. They expect it, they demand it. And when you do it, I think it can be very gratifying to kind of shine a light, it sounds like so old fashioned, but to shine a light on an issue that really is worthy of that and is sort of screaming out for coverage.I've had many people ask me this over the years, but one channel will do a story or one newspaper will do a story, and then every other outlet will do exactly the same story. And sometimes it's like a really boutique story. It's a story of limited, obvious importance, but everyone does the same story. How do these, like, who decides that? How does, you know, where does that come from?I mean, this comes from the executives or the show producers.But have you noticed that I don't know how many news organizations there are in the United States in a country of 350 million people? There are a lot. They all do in a given week. They do a suite of maybe 20 stories. Themes, you know, variations on a theme, perhaps. But, but I, I mean, why?You'd think that I really, I wish I could answer that question, but you've noticed this, right? I mean, when you look at the rundowns, let's say for an evening news broadcast, you'll see a lot of the same stories. Now that may be a function of the fact that they have such limited time to tell the story. Was it 18 or 19 minutes or 20? For sure.But it's that the topics are the same. It's just interesting. I'm not suggesting coordination, but I do think it's. I don't know what it is. I think it's a conspiracy of like minded temperament. They all are kind of the same people.I just. I don't know.Huh. But you'll concede there are a lot of stories that they could be doing that they're not.Yeah, I think so. That's the appeal of being independent, is that you can tell some of the stories that maybe you couldn't tell before.Is it weird not to have a boss?Yeah, it's a big change. After nearly four decades of working for major media outlets, it's a huge change. I've had a lot of change in the last four months, five months. A lot.Do you miss being scolded?I miss the structure. I'm very used to the structure and structure that has resources that you didn't realize that you needed until you went to do it yourself. I'm sure you understand who've been there. Yeah, you've been there. Right. But I really like working with a small team and as a group deciding what is it that we're going to pursue next and how can we structure this story, that it has an impact and what kind of reporting do we need to be doing and at what point do we engage with government agencies? How do we keep moving the story forward after we do it? I just find that just kind of exhilarating and refreshing all at the same time. And in a marketplace that's really just exploding, where you're setting your own boundaries and your own rules. Right? You're saying, okay, I've got almost four decades of experience. This is what I believe journalism is. This is how I'm going to execute it. These are my standards, these are my expectations, and I'm going to be true to those. I'm going to follow it through. That's the exciting part of it. And then having a public that responds to it, which I'm so grateful for.People like honesty in a world full of lies, I think.Do you feel that people are looking for credible, reliable information in a way that I never maybe seen in my lifetime? Working as a journalist.So maybe what you're saying is that as a business, journalism is like more discredited than it's ever been and more disliked. But individual journalists who decide to tell the truth are, I don't know.I don't know if, I don't know if I would go that far. And I'm not sure how comfortable I am really commenting on the whole profession that way. I just sort of come back to my, I come back to my own, you know, my own work. I wrote something recently for the Free Press, which is really an amazing operation. Barry Weiss has really built it into this sort of, you know, engaging, driving thing. You know, it's like, it's like a great source for information. I wrote something on, on the press act and, you know, that it's the protection of sources is the hill to die on. And it was such a great experience to work with them and to see the reach of that story and to take an issue that I felt needed to kind of, you know, poke up through the noise and get some attention because all of our futures, our careers rest on that basic principle. So to me, that's an example of, you know, an independent media outlet which is, really has a lot of impact and made a difference.How of the people that you worked with 30 years ago were any still around in the business?Oh, I'm trying to think. A lot of them are retired now. I went to a reunion, an ABC London reunion. I want to say it was maybe seven years ago. Six or seven. It was before, just before I went to CB's and a lot of people were retired. A lot of people had passed. A lot of them were already gone.Is that weird?Yeah, it's sad, but I learned so much from them and I think that, not to sound too sentimental, but I think you carry that on. I think one of the greatest things you can do at a certain point in your career is to share your experience and to share the skillset that you have. And I really enjoy doing that, especially with younger journalists.How long are you going to do it?I talk about this with our kids. How long am I going to do this and when will I retire? And, you know, they all have the same verdict, which is like, oh, mom, like, you need to keep working as long as you can work because you really, if we had you loose in the house all the time, it would just be crazy. And you love, I mean, I just love it. I feel fortunate to have found something I feel so passionate about. Maybe you feel.Oh, of course I do.Maybe you feel the same way, of course, and I can't. And sort of I'm surprised even by the evolution of where I am today. And I'm surprised that I'm fighting in the courts to be protecting confidential sources. But if there's something that folks who are listening and watching this can take away is that, you know, I came out of February, so it was a tough time, there's no question about it. But I had a lot of clarity. And sometimes crisis gives you clarity. And the idea of a free press and free speech, these really became my North Star. They really became the driving force of what I'm going to do in this next chapter.Yeah, I couldn't agree more. And it's weird to wake up and see things you took for granted under threat. Did you ever think that free speech in the United States would be open to question?No, I wouldn't have anticipated the situation that I'm in now. That's for sure.Well, we're rooting for you fervently.Thank you.Katherine heritage, thank you very much.It's so good to see you. Thanks for having me.Great to see you. Thanks for listening to Tucker Carlson show. If you enjoyed it, you can go to tuckercarlson.com to see everything that we have made the complete library tuckercarlson.com dot.

and try to make it better, but they don't. So you're saying we've had such a similar experience. You, like you're in this little world, which you think is a much bigger world than it actually is. I'll speak for myself. And then you get ejected from that world and you're shocked. But then you thank God for it because, wow, there's fresh air and sunlight. And then you look around and you realize that all these smaller organizations or individuals are having a huge effect and you didn't even know that. It's amazing. I just love the whole thing. But one of the problems is it's pretty easy, it's pretty hard to take down a big news organization because they have a well staffed legal department. Pretty easy to take down an individual with lawfare, right? This is a concern.

Yeah. One of the things I'd like to talk about is the Press act. The Press act is a piece of legislation that's in the Senate right now. It passed unanimously in the House. And the Press act is a federal shield law for reporters. It would allow them to protect confidential sources. And there are just very few exceptions, what I would call common sense exceptions for imminent violence or threats to critical infrastructure. And I've said that I think the protection of confidential sources is the hill to die on because if you don't have that ability, a credible assurance that you're going to protect your source as an investigative reporter, your toolbox is empty. I mean, you really have nothing to offer. And, you know, and others, I can't say a lot about it, but I'm in the middle of a major case where I was asked to disclose confidential source information. I refused to disclose.

Who asked you to disclose?

It's part of a privacy act lawsuit. I'm a witness in the case, and.

This is a private entity.

There's a plaintiff. They're suing government agencies, including the FBI, and they want to understand the source of sources for my reporting. A series of stories, national security stories, in 2017. And this is all public.

So just remind me, who's suing a.

Chinese american scientist and she's suing the FBI? The Justice Department, Defense Department, I believe, Homeland Security as well. They're like, four or five different agencies. And the plaintiff wants to understand how I got information about her and her.

So you're not being sued?

No, I'm not. I'm just a witness.

It's just the same thing happened to me. They grabbed all my text messages. I was not named in the suit, but a judge said I had to divulge. So they're trying to violate, among other things, your privacy, but also they're trying to violate the protection that we all assumed was real, that confidential sources had.

I want to be very careful because I don't want to litigate the case, the case here. But the issue is the forced disclosure of confidential source information.

And so that means you, as a reporter, talk to people. They tell you stuff on the condition of anonymity. I'm not gonna tell anybody that we spoke, but tell me the truth about what you know. Correct.

Right.

And this is something that journalists deal with constantly.

If you don't have that credible pledge of confidentiality, as an investigative journalist, you really have very little to offer.

Yeah, I've done it, like, three times today already. No, but that's just. That's your life. You know, you're talking to people constantly about stuff, and. But everyone knows you're not going to rat them out. Right.

The question, it's in the appellate court right now in Washington. And the question is when the need for that information overrides the First Amendment and the reporter's privilege. I haven't lost a night's sleep over my decision to protect confidential sources, but that doesn't mean I don't feel a tremendous burden and responsibility with this case.

Tell us about the burden.

Well, it's so much bigger than just my individual case. It's not just about me. It's not about just a single series of stories. It's not about one media outlet. Whatever the courts decide, and I have respect for the legal process and what's unfolding. Whatever they decide is going to impact every working journalist in the United States. Yeah. And the public and for the next generation. And that's why, you know, the press act is an opportunity to really strengthen press freedom and press protections at a time, as you mentioned, that there's this explosion of smaller and independent outlets, and they can't, you know, they can't withstand the legal is it true? And who is really losing in that equation? Is the country less safe as a result or not? I don't know the answer to all of that yet, but that's a very legitimate story to persist.Also, how does a bankrupt come country, which ours is, pay for all these services? I don't. Yeah, there are many questions. I totally agree, but. So you're focused on the question, is the federal government violating its own laws, federal employees?Yes.And to the extent that you've reported it out, are you closer to an answer?I think based on our reporting so far, that it really tips that way. It does appear that way. And so my question is, where's, you know, who's been disciplined, who's been suspended, who's been fired, who's been demoted? And I'm not sure the answer is really anyone except the people who blew the whistle on it, really. Don't make me give the story away.No, I won't stop.I want to stop you right now. Like, I'm, like, so shocked.I mean, you know, but I think.But that's the kind of, to me, that's the kind of story you want to be doing, right? I just think it's the thing that has always encouraged me about the consumers of news in this country is that they really understand this idea of accountability. They want to see it. They expect it, they demand it. And when you do it, I think it can be very gratifying to kind of shine a light, it sounds like so old fashioned, but to shine a light on an issue that really is worthy of that and is sort of screaming out for coverage.I've had many people ask me this over the years, but one channel will do a story or one newspaper will do a story, and then every other outlet will do exactly the same story. And sometimes it's like a really boutique story. It's a story of limited, obvious importance, but everyone does the same story. How do these, like, who decides that? How does, you know, where does that come from?I mean, this comes from the executives or the show producers.But have you noticed that I don't know how many news organizations there are in the United States in a country of 350 million people? There are a lot. They all do in a given week. They do a suite of maybe 20 stories. Themes, you know, variations on a theme, perhaps. But, but I, I mean, why?You'd think that I really, I wish I could answer that question, but you've noticed this, right? I mean, when you look at the rundowns, let's say for an evening news broadcast, you'll see a lot of the same stories. Now that may be a function of the fact that they have such limited time to tell the story. Was it 18 or 19 minutes or 20? For sure.But it's that the topics are the same. It's just interesting. I'm not suggesting coordination, but I do think it's. I don't know what it is. I think it's a conspiracy of like minded temperament. They all are kind of the same people.I just. I don't know.Huh. But you'll concede there are a lot of stories that they could be doing that they're not.Yeah, I think so. That's the appeal of being independent, is that you can tell some of the stories that maybe you couldn't tell before.Is it weird not to have a boss?Yeah, it's a big change. After nearly four decades of working for major media outlets, it's a huge change. I've had a lot of change in the last four months, five months. A lot.Do you miss being scolded?I miss the structure. I'm very used to the structure and structure that has resources that you didn't realize that you needed until you went to do it yourself. I'm sure you understand who've been there. Yeah, you've been there. Right. But I really like working with a small team and as a group deciding what is it that we're going to pursue next and how can we structure this story, that it has an impact and what kind of reporting do we need to be doing and at what point do we engage with government agencies? How do we keep moving the story forward after we do it? I just find that just kind of exhilarating and refreshing all at the same time. And in a marketplace that's really just exploding, where you're setting your own boundaries and your own rules. Right? You're saying, okay, I've got almost four decades of experience. This is what I believe journalism is. This is how I'm going to execute it. These are my standards, these are my expectations, and I'm going to be true to those. I'm going to follow it through. That's the exciting part of it. And then having a public that responds to it, which I'm so grateful for.People like honesty in a world full of lies, I think.Do you feel that people are looking for credible, reliable information in a way that I never maybe seen in my lifetime? Working as a journalist.So maybe what you're saying is that as a business, journalism is like more discredited than it's ever been and more disliked. But individual journalists who decide to tell the truth are, I don't know.I don't know if, I don't know if I would go that far. And I'm not sure how comfortable I am really commenting on the whole profession that way. I just sort of come back to my, I come back to my own, you know, my own work. I wrote something recently for the Free Press, which is really an amazing operation. Barry Weiss has really built it into this sort of, you know, engaging, driving thing. You know, it's like, it's like a great source for information. I wrote something on, on the press act and, you know, that it's the protection of sources is the hill to die on. And it was such a great experience to work with them and to see the reach of that story and to take an issue that I felt needed to kind of, you know, poke up through the noise and get some attention because all of our futures, our careers rest on that basic principle. So to me, that's an example of, you know, an independent media outlet which is, really has a lot of impact and made a difference.How of the people that you worked with 30 years ago were any still around in the business?Oh, I'm trying to think. A lot of them are retired now. I went to a reunion, an ABC London reunion. I want to say it was maybe seven years ago. Six or seven. It was before, just before I went to CB's and a lot of people were retired. A lot of people had passed. A lot of them were already gone.Is that weird?Yeah, it's sad, but I learned so much from them and I think that, not to sound too sentimental, but I think you carry that on. I think one of the greatest things you can do at a certain point in your career is to share your experience and to share the skillset that you have. And I really enjoy doing that, especially with younger journalists.How long are you going to do it?I talk about this with our kids. How long am I going to do this and when will I retire? And, you know, they all have the same verdict, which is like, oh, mom, like, you need to keep working as long as you can work because you really, if we had you loose in the house all the time, it would just be crazy. And you love, I mean, I just love it. I feel fortunate to have found something I feel so passionate about. Maybe you feel.Oh, of course I do.Maybe you feel the same way, of course, and I can't. And sort of I'm surprised even by the evolution of where I am today. And I'm surprised that I'm fighting in the courts to be protecting confidential sources. But if there's something that folks who are listening and watching this can take away is that, you know, I came out of February, so it was a tough time, there's no question about it. But I had a lot of clarity. And sometimes crisis gives you clarity. And the idea of a free press and free speech, these really became my North Star. They really became the driving force of what I'm going to do in this next chapter.Yeah, I couldn't agree more. And it's weird to wake up and see things you took for granted under threat. Did you ever think that free speech in the United States would be open to question?No, I wouldn't have anticipated the situation that I'm in now. That's for sure.Well, we're rooting for you fervently.Thank you.Katherine heritage, thank you very much.It's so good to see you. Thanks for having me.Great to see you. Thanks for listening to Tucker Carlson show. If you enjoyed it, you can go to tuckercarlson.com to see everything that we have made the complete library tuckercarlson.com dot.

is it true? And who is really losing in that equation? Is the country less safe as a result or not? I don't know the answer to all of that yet, but that's a very legitimate story to persist.

Also, how does a bankrupt come country, which ours is, pay for all these services? I don't. Yeah, there are many questions. I totally agree, but. So you're focused on the question, is the federal government violating its own laws, federal employees?

Yes.

And to the extent that you've reported it out, are you closer to an answer?

I think based on our reporting so far, that it really tips that way. It does appear that way. And so my question is, where's, you know, who's been disciplined, who's been suspended, who's been fired, who's been demoted? And I'm not sure the answer is really anyone except the people who blew the whistle on it, really. Don't make me give the story away.

No, I won't stop.

I want to stop you right now. Like, I'm, like, so shocked.

I mean, you know, but I think.

But that's the kind of, to me, that's the kind of story you want to be doing, right? I just think it's the thing that has always encouraged me about the consumers of news in this country is that they really understand this idea of accountability. They want to see it. They expect it, they demand it. And when you do it, I think it can be very gratifying to kind of shine a light, it sounds like so old fashioned, but to shine a light on an issue that really is worthy of that and is sort of screaming out for coverage.

I've had many people ask me this over the years, but one channel will do a story or one newspaper will do a story, and then every other outlet will do exactly the same story. And sometimes it's like a really boutique story. It's a story of limited, obvious importance, but everyone does the same story. How do these, like, who decides that? How does, you know, where does that come from?

I mean, this comes from the executives or the show producers.

But have you noticed that I don't know how many news organizations there are in the United States in a country of 350 million people? There are a lot. They all do in a given week. They do a suite of maybe 20 stories. Themes, you know, variations on a theme, perhaps. But, but I, I mean, why?

You'd think that I really, I wish I could answer that question, but you've noticed this, right? I mean, when you look at the rundowns, let's say for an evening news broadcast, you'll see a lot of the same stories. Now that may be a function of the fact that they have such limited time to tell the story. Was it 18 or 19 minutes or 20? For sure.

But it's that the topics are the same. It's just interesting. I'm not suggesting coordination, but I do think it's. I don't know what it is. I think it's a conspiracy of like minded temperament. They all are kind of the same people.

I just. I don't know.

Huh. But you'll concede there are a lot of stories that they could be doing that they're not.

Yeah, I think so. That's the appeal of being independent, is that you can tell some of the stories that maybe you couldn't tell before.

Is it weird not to have a boss?

Yeah, it's a big change. After nearly four decades of working for major media outlets, it's a huge change. I've had a lot of change in the last four months, five months. A lot.

Do you miss being scolded?

I miss the structure. I'm very used to the structure and structure that has resources that you didn't realize that you needed until you went to do it yourself. I'm sure you understand who've been there. Yeah, you've been there. Right. But I really like working with a small team and as a group deciding what is it that we're going to pursue next and how can we structure this story, that it has an impact and what kind of reporting do we need to be doing and at what point do we engage with government agencies? How do we keep moving the story forward after we do it? I just find that just kind of exhilarating and refreshing all at the same time. And in a marketplace that's really just exploding, where you're setting your own boundaries and your own rules. Right? You're saying, okay, I've got almost four decades of experience. This is what I believe journalism is. This is how I'm going to execute it. These are my standards, these are my expectations, and I'm going to be true to those. I'm going to follow it through. That's the exciting part of it. And then having a public that responds to it, which I'm so grateful for.

People like honesty in a world full of lies, I think.

Do you feel that people are looking for credible, reliable information in a way that I never maybe seen in my lifetime? Working as a journalist.

So maybe what you're saying is that as a business, journalism is like more discredited than it's ever been and more disliked. But individual journalists who decide to tell the truth are, I don't know.

I don't know if, I don't know if I would go that far. And I'm not sure how comfortable I am really commenting on the whole profession that way. I just sort of come back to my, I come back to my own, you know, my own work. I wrote something recently for the Free Press, which is really an amazing operation. Barry Weiss has really built it into this sort of, you know, engaging, driving thing. You know, it's like, it's like a great source for information. I wrote something on, on the press act and, you know, that it's the protection of sources is the hill to die on. And it was such a great experience to work with them and to see the reach of that story and to take an issue that I felt needed to kind of, you know, poke up through the noise and get some attention because all of our futures, our careers rest on that basic principle. So to me, that's an example of, you know, an independent media outlet which is, really has a lot of impact and made a difference.

How of the people that you worked with 30 years ago were any still around in the business?

Oh, I'm trying to think. A lot of them are retired now. I went to a reunion, an ABC London reunion. I want to say it was maybe seven years ago. Six or seven. It was before, just before I went to CB's and a lot of people were retired. A lot of people had passed. A lot of them were already gone.

Is that weird?

Yeah, it's sad, but I learned so much from them and I think that, not to sound too sentimental, but I think you carry that on. I think one of the greatest things you can do at a certain point in your career is to share your experience and to share the skillset that you have. And I really enjoy doing that, especially with younger journalists.

How long are you going to do it?

I talk about this with our kids. How long am I going to do this and when will I retire? And, you know, they all have the same verdict, which is like, oh, mom, like, you need to keep working as long as you can work because you really, if we had you loose in the house all the time, it would just be crazy. And you love, I mean, I just love it. I feel fortunate to have found something I feel so passionate about. Maybe you feel.

Oh, of course I do.

Maybe you feel the same way, of course, and I can't. And sort of I'm surprised even by the evolution of where I am today. And I'm surprised that I'm fighting in the courts to be protecting confidential sources. But if there's something that folks who are listening and watching this can take away is that, you know, I came out of February, so it was a tough time, there's no question about it. But I had a lot of clarity. And sometimes crisis gives you clarity. And the idea of a free press and free speech, these really became my North Star. They really became the driving force of what I'm going to do in this next chapter.

Yeah, I couldn't agree more. And it's weird to wake up and see things you took for granted under threat. Did you ever think that free speech in the United States would be open to question?

No, I wouldn't have anticipated the situation that I'm in now. That's for sure.

Well, we're rooting for you fervently.

Thank you.

Katherine heritage, thank you very much.

It's so good to see you. Thanks for having me.

Great to see you. Thanks for listening to Tucker Carlson show. If you enjoyed it, you can go to tuckercarlson.com to see everything that we have made the complete library tuckercarlson.com dot.