Speaker 1: It's great to welcome to the program
today, host of the Don Lemon Show, Don lemon, who we were recently talking about,
because there's a lot going on. Don, this is so timely, and I'm so glad to have
the opportunity to talk to you about it. Speaker 4: I'm so glad to be on your
program. Thank you for doing this, David. Speaker 1: So to start with the context here, the
last 72, 96 hours, you're launching a new show, launching the show with this extremely interesting
interview with Elon Musk. And in just the hours after the filming of the interview, not even
the release, it is revealed that the contract you had with X, the platform formerly known as
Twitter, was being canceled by Elon Musk. Now, I may not be using the right terminology
and you'll tell us that. So let's start there. What was the plan in terms of what
you were going to be doing with X, and the circumstances of how you even sat down with Elon?
Speaker 4: Your terminology is correct. Oh, that's contract cancel. That's a quote from
Elon Musk from a text that he sent to my representatives. So the terms of the contract were
I was going to be doing a show on my own anyway, which was which is produced by my production
company LM in which is Limited Media Network, but we can call it element. So we were going to post
on, you know, every streaming platform including iHeartRadio, Spotify, YouTube and what have you.
X wanted a distribution deal on top of that, on top of the three episodes that we ran every
week. I think they wanted ten videos per month, which were exclusive to them, which had to be
maybe 10 to 12 minutes, exclusive to them for 24 hours. And then after that it would run
everywhere on all streaming platforms. So that was it. The show was not produced by X,
and they had nothing to do with it. They did not get to see it. All we were doing was giving
them some extra exclusive content for 24 hours, and that was it. That was our release.
Speaker 1: So of course, you're free to post whatever you produce on X anyway. But the
point is that that exclusive 24 hour embargoed content, that's the part that's been canceled
because of the way the interview went. That's the only reason, as far as you understand.
Speaker 4: Well beyond not just that part, but in the contract. There were incentives for
growth on the platform. Platform. There were incentives for not incentives. There were promises
of amplification, amplification. You know, if I brought, advertisers back to the platform
that there were incentives there because, as you know, there were struggling, a lot of
advertisers left the platform because it had become it was becoming so toxic and so right wing
conspiracy theorists. And so there were there were multiple incentives for different things. And yes,
there was, you know, there was money on top of it, right. There was a financial incentive in there,
financial incentives. So one would assume that all of that is canceled right now.
Speaker 1: There was a rumor that it included a Cybertruck. Is that true?
Speaker 4: That's all. Listen, that's all nonsense. I'm not going to let the distraction
clearly a distraction from X, to try to, you know, they're trying to distract from the
interview. The interview is what's important. That's all nonsense. And I don't even want to,
you know, feed into that because I think they're they're intentionally trying to distract from
Elon Musk's performance or just the interviews to get people talking about something else.
Speaker 1: Not exactly the most practical car in Manhattan, anyway, I would say. But
but, okay, so so I understand that now. So that that part is all canceled. Now, did
anyone try to stop the publication of the interview itself in this interim few days?
Speaker 4: I'm not sure what was happening behind the scenes. They did ask us. They were very
concerned about the interview. And let me just preface and I'll answer your question. We told
them this was not a gotcha interview. We don't understand why he so upset. Was it uncomfortable
at times? Absolutely. But many interviews are uncomfortable at times. That's what journalists
do, right? We hold people accountable. And being held accountable is not always comfortable. So, we
went back and forth and once we spoke to, some of the well, at least one person that they they asked
us to see the interview before it aired, which, as you know, is a big no no, we do not do that.
Yep. So I'm not sure if behind the scenes that they were trying to, you know, stop the interview
from running. I do know that we had some issues with the platform this morning that we had never
had before when trying to post the interview, but, it ended up posting, so and listen,
there are also questions about suppression on the platform that I think people should
be journalists should be digging into. Yeah. Speaker 1: Were you asked before about what you
were or weren't going to talk about or given restrictions, asked for questions in advance
or any other stuff that publicist sometimes do? Speaker 4: No, I know that publicist do that.
And that is that may be okay in the entertainment world. I don't work in the entertainment world, so
I will give people an idea of the the questions. Right. The topics that we're going to cover, that
we would like to cover in the interview, but never questions and no restrictions. And I say that in
the beginning of the show, if you if you watch it, I say, as with all of my interviews, there were no
restrictions, nothing was off limits. And that's how I conduct interviews. So, you know, I let
them know that, David, I let them know that before I joined the platform, I told them that I had
questions about joining the platform, that I was reticent, that I really didn't want to do it. I
turned them down several, several times. They kept pursuing me and and they kept sweetening the deal,
offering incentives. And I said, okay, if I join this platform, number one, I want to do it because
you have a huge audience. There are, I think, some 550 million users a week on Twitter or X or
whatever you want to call it. So that's a huge audience. I also said, I don't think that that
platform should be ceded to extremist extremists and conspiracy theorists. So if I can get in there
and I can fight it out and I can be, excuse me authentic, and I can get my point across, and I
might even have to call out the person who owns the platform. And I said, if I can do that, then
I'm okay. And I said, yes, you can do it. And I think he would actually welcome that. And I said,
okay, great. Well, let's move ahead and try to work this out. And we did. And when I did exactly
what they wanted me to do on the platform, they cancel the contract. Now, if I can go on and tell
you something that I've noticed because I've been in traditional media for a long time. Yeah, right.
Everyone's in silos. This streaming part of it, of this business. The streaming part is really
dominated by conservatives. They do quite well, usually do better than people who are centrists
or left leaning. And so I just think that they are in such a silo. Elon Musk and others like him
are in such a silo that they don't hear different points of view, and they don't like to be
questioned about it. And when someone does question them and and when they are presented
with facts, it's very uncomfortable. And they decide to take their toys and go home because
they really can't deal with it. They no one has ever told them the truth. They just keep hearing
their own points of view, their own conspiracy theories from people who love them all the time.
Speaker 1: Well, that's one aspect to it. I wonder if the other aspect is, though, that maybe
Elon assumed that because you stand to benefit financially from the platform, you just wouldn't
ask him real questions. Like maybe that was because he comes off as unprepared to even. As I
said when I analyzed the interview, he could have had some very simple talking points to rebut your
questions. We would all be we would all react by saying he's not really answering it, but at least
it would have passed the sniff test of this guy's coming off terribly unprepared, etc. I wonder if
he just assumed no one would ever bite the hand that might feed them, for lack of a better term.
Speaker 4: Well, two. Right. Two things. Elon Musk. Is running the company. Make no
mistake about it. My deal, every aspect, every point of my deal went through Elon Musk. So
there was no question in my mind unless someone didn't inform him about what I was going to
do and how I was going to be on the platform. So if Elon Musk thought that he bought me, or
that I was going to pull punches because he, you know, was, you know, I had a deal with him
and a distribution agreement, then he was quite wrong. The entire reason they wanted me to do this
is for my point of view and to be who I am. So, I don't know. But I think here's the interesting
part. I think he came off better in the interview than he thinks. I think he actually had some
good answers to questions, especially about his ketamine use. Yeah. About depression. He you know,
I understood some of what he was saying about, about the platform and hate speech and what
have you. And there's a lot of stuff on the platform and in mainstream media there, you know,
you don't have so many people using it every day, and you have 20, 30 stories. And that way you
can sort of monitor you can monitor them a little bit and, monitor them more. I understood
that, but, if he thought that I was, you know, he bought and paid for me, he was quite wrong.
And I think anyone who, thinks that if they hire me or use my services in some way would
be quite wrong at the end of the day. David, I am a journalist, and that's what I do.
Speaker 1: There were moments during the interview where he would mention that he's very
short on time, and that there's a room full of people waiting to hear from him, and that this
is sort of like a favor because you are going to be on X and it's all like, not something he
would normally do. What are the like? What was this room? How much time were you told you
had versus him insisting he's short on time? It felt manipulative as I looked at it.
Speaker 4: You mean on his part. But he was trying to manipulate me. Yes, yes.
So, the the only thing that they want. And I said there were no restrictions.
They wanted at least an hour. And we said, well, that's great because we don't want sound
bites. So that is one thing that they wanted, right? I could have gone ten minutes. But they
said they would like to have at least an hour. They didn't say an hour. And it's up. They said at
least an hour. And we were like, great, we'll go as long as we want because we want to have a great
interview. We don't want just sound bites. So yes, I think towards the end, which wasn't, I thought,
I thought we were just right in the middle. Right. But it was the end for him starting to get
increasingly more uncomfortable because I kept presenting it with facts and he couldn't really,
you know, answer for them. About di, you know, as it relates to medical schools and, you know,
the airline industry, etc., etc. and he just kept saying, well, let's wait until this airs and then
see what the the comments will be on Twitter or on X. And I and I said to him, comments aren't facts,
they're not evidence. And so that he didn't like that he did not like being presented with facts.
Speaker 1: Do you worry at all now that the interview is out? Your channel is live, which
we're linking to. You're doing a bunch of interviews about this. Do you have any concerns
at all that they may try some kind of legal action with regards to the interview? And I ask that with
with the same perspective as you, that he comes off kind of like a prick, but not as terribly as
maybe like as you're pointing out, some of his answers are fine. It's just his opinion about
a number of issues, like it's not really that damaging based on what's known about the guy.
Speaker 4: No, sir. And I said to him, well, not to him, but to, you know, his his management
team or someone who says he doesn't care what people say and think about him. He certainly does
care what people think and say about him. And I don't think he comes off that. I think I don't
think he comes off terribly are unlike what we think Elon Musk is like in the interview. Right?
I just think sitting there, David. And answering questions from someone like me who has a different
perspective and a different worldview was just too much discomfort for him to deal with. And he did
not. He's not used to answering questions at all. He's not used to being held accountable. And I
just think that was it for him. And, you know, I think more of it was I think more of it. Was this
just the sitting in the interview and answering questions rather than the finished product. And
we kept saying, why don't you wait till it airs? You want to wait till it airs and you want to
cancel the contract, that's fine. But you don't even know what it's going to look like. You don't
even know what the what the final product is. And I would just. I defy anyone, including Elon Musk,
to take a look at that entire interview and tell me why that isn't exactly what they need on that
platform, and why isn't it what he said he wanted from me on the platform? I was not disrespectful.
I did not raise my voice. I thought the questions were fair. I dug in as a journalist does and it's
uncomfortable for people I followed up. And that's it. Have a great day. I'll see you next time.
Speaker 1: I think my biggest takeaway from all of this, and I said this last week when we talked
about it, is that and I didn't say this as a criticism of you. A lot of the questions weren't
really that hard, but by the standards that in many in the United States have become accustomed
to, it's considered controversial or adversarial. Whereas like in my birth country of Argentina, if
you watch interviews with with lawmakers there or in Europe or other places, not doing what you
did would be considered a disservice. Like what you did would be assumed that is what you're going
to do. And when it goes too far, you could argue, is if you get into personal stuff that's
not germane to the subject of the interview, or if you lie about the premise of the interview
and then sandbag with something else. Okay, maybe that's going too far, but in much of
the world that has journalism, it would be expected that you ask the sorts of questions
that you ask and the standards that many have become accustomed to, I think is the problem.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Well, when you said that not being critical of me, I welcome it. You can
criticize me. That's the whole point of it. Again, I'm a journalist, I fix it. We can. We're
supposed to talk about these things. If I watch something that you did, David and I
disagree with it. I would tell you. I would be respectful about it. David, on this point, I
didn't this I didn't agree with you. You know, did you ever think about it this way? And we
would just have a dialog, right? That's how it's supposed to be. Sure. Right? So if you criticize
me, that doesn't matter. I agree with you. That was intentional. That the questions weren't
that complicated because we wanted everyone to understand what we were doing. We wanted
we wanted him to do the talking so that people could get could get to understand him. And it was
actually supposed to be an interview, but more of a conversation that we were. So it was just
simple questions, you know, why do you say die is, you know, are you saying that white male pilots
are inherently more intelligent than women or, pilots of color? It's like, wait, what? And then
he couldn't understand why he said, no, I just think it's that we are. It would be a shame if we
lowered the medical standards. And I said, well, but there's no evidence that that's happening. And
by, you know, tweeting what you were tweeting and saying, what you're saying, this is what you're
this is what you're insinuating, that people of color and women are less professional, less
skilled, and less intelligent. He that he could not understand that at all. So the questions
were simple. Intentionally letting him talk more than I did. That was intentional. And also
keeping a moderated tone was intentional because I didn't want to come off as if I was badgering
him. Right. I'm just asking you questions. And the first interview, David, as you know. The first
interview, especially with someone you're working with or someone you know. The first interview
can't be like, hey, let's sit around and talk like we're having beers. Like we got to get some
things off of our chat. Yeah, right. Why are you doing this? You're responsible. You're the owner
of one of the biggest social media platforms. The biggest information platforms in the world. You
have satellites flying, all flying in and out in space. You have you're responsible for a huge
portion of the auto industry, for innovation, for science, all kinds of things. Why are you
putting this information out into the universe if it is not true? Don't you think that there should
be a standard when it comes to what you put out there at the standards that that there should
be some moderation of hate speech, of lying, of misinformation, of conspiracy theories.
You don't think you have a responsibility for that? That's we had to get that off of our
chest before we can say, okay, now let's have a beer and chat like Rose, right?
Speaker 1: Which I'm guessing didn't end up happening, by the way.
Speaker 4: No, but I would have. Here's the point. I've had some I've interviewed, as you
know, from presidents to convicts. Yep. From, you know, I would I would have a huge argument on
the set with Corey Lewandowski, who ran Trump's campaign. And then at after the show on CNN, we'd
go and have a beer. I still didn't I still didn't agree with him. Right. I thought what he was doing
was terrible, but I wanted to have a relationship with him so that I could kind of figure out who
he was. I didn't I wasn't friends with him, and I didn't necessarily like him. I'm just using
him as an example. Sure. But I would have gone with Elon Musk and had a beer and talked it out.
But I had to do my job in the moment. And that, you know, that other thing, that that's
something else. The next time we talk and maybe more of a conversation and maybe I would
actually get more out of him, but that first interview or conversation could not be that.
Speaker 1: We've been speaking with. Don lemon will be linking to the Don Lemon Show YouTube
channel, as well as the full interview with Elon Musk, which premiered this morning. Don, really
appreciate your time and your insights. And, I encourage people to check out the whole interview.
Speaker 4: David. Thank you. I watch your show religiously and I have to say, new to the
perspective that you have, the intelligence with which you bring forth the information. I think
it is much needed and I wish you great success, and I hope you come back on if I can be half as
successful as you in this streaming part of it, I would. I'll be happy. So thank thank.
Speaker 1: You. We continue to hear from Republicans who are former supporters of
President Trump, but aren't voting for him in 2024. I want to feature another one of
these for you. This is Mike from Pennsylvania, and what's interesting to me about these, number
one, we are, of course, considering these in the context of prominent Republicans like Mitt Romney,
Mike pence and others who are not endorsing Donald Trump in 2024. We talked about that earlier in
the show. And so the trickle down effect of that, the waterfall effect of that is relevant
and it's important. But beyond that, it's interesting to hear what it is that
for any one former Trump voter made them say no more. Let's listen to the story from Mike
from Pennsylvania, and see what he had to say. Speaker 2: Donald Trump is mentally unfit
for the office. My name is Mike. I live in southeastern Pennsylvania, just outside of
Philadelphia, and I am a former Trump voter. Donald Trump scares the hell out of. He does.
He really scares me to death. There's a lot of reasons that I don't support Donald Trump, but
really turned me was in 2017. I remember him saying to this roomful of billionaires,
I just say, do you guys a ton of money?
