Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former Head of Israeli Defense Intelligence and ELNET Forum of Strategic Dialogue Chair Amos Yadlin; Interview with Former White House Antitrust Adviser and Columbia University Law Professor Tim Wu; Interview with The Atlantic Staff Writer Derek Thompson; Interview with Folk Singer Joan Baez. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired January 17, 2025 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
PAULA NEWTON, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
One step closer after Netanyahu's security cabinet approves the ceasefire hostage deal. I speak with former head of Israeli military intelligence,
Amos Yadlin, about this critical moment.
And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT-ELECT: I have a warm spot in my heart to TikTok.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: -- the trouble with TikTok. Columbia law professor Tim Wu joins me on the fate of the wildly popular app.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DEREK THOMPSON, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: Every single category you could possibly think of, demographically speaking, is spending less time in
face to face socializing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: -- "The Antisocial Century." The Atlantic's Derek Thompson tells Michel Martin how America faces an epidemic of solitude and what can be
done to reverse it.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOAN BAEZ, FOLD SINGER: I was ready to kind of deal with whatever came my way and not expect that everything was going to be wonderful.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: -- folk legend Joan Baez as Americans take a new interest in the singer and her relationship with Bob Dylan, we look back at her
extraordinary story.
And a very warm welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Paula Newton in New York sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
It is of course an agonizing wait in Gaza and for Israeli hostage families as a ceasefire proposal moves closer and closer thankfully to reality. Now,
the deal meant to go into effect on Sunday will bring a 42-day respite to the fighting and release dozens of hostages who have spent more than a year
now in Hamas captivity. It won't, however, guarantee a permanent end to the war.
Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's far right flank is insisting on a resumption of that fighting, even as the outgoing U.S. administration
urges the Israeli government and Hamas to work towards a second phase of the ceasefire.
So, how will all of this play out, and after 15 months, what further security aims could more fighting actually achieve? Amos Yadlin is a former
head of Israeli military intelligence and he joins the program now live from Tel Aviv. It is really good to see you and have you with us as we
continue to wait late breaking developments there out of Israel over the next few days.
Listen, we know that 33 Israeli hostages and more than a thousand Palestinian prisoners are to be released, and that's the first stage over
42 days. The IDF is supposed to withdraw from certain civilian centers, but there's so much we do not know. How many are alive? How many will they
transfer? Will this unfold the way it did in November 2023? How are you expecting all of this to unfold in the coming days?
AMOS YADLIN, FORMER HEAD OF ISRAELI DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AND CHAIR, AND ELNET FORUM OF STRATEGIC DIALOGUE: I think we all have to remember that
the hostages are civilians, innocent civilians, most of them were taken from their home by terrorists. They put into a tunnels, no connection with
the world, no Red Cross visiting. They haven't seen light for more than a year. Tortured, raped, starved. And those who are exchanged are sentenced
terrorists. So, let's -- don't make it as an equal kind of a deal. It's terrorists that blackmail a country.
However, in Israel, 85 percent of the population want our daughters and sisters and sons to come back from this terror hell. And Israel is willing
to pay for it. So, the -- as you've said, the deal has two stages, as a matter of fact, three. But what is important is the second stage, because
the first one was agreed, agreed on every parameter, how many terrorists for each hostage, how many -- what will be the Israeli redeployment in
territorial terrorists, and all the all the other parameters.
[13:05:00]
On the second stage, to bring back all the hostages, negotiation will start on the 16th day of the ceasefire. And this is a crucial moment because many
in Israel, me included, want all the hostages back and we are willing to pay for it. As Hamas already understood that they took the Palestinian case
backward years and their hope that there will be convergence of other seven fronts against Israel is now go on the other way. Hezbollah is destroyed,
Assad regime collapsed, and so on and so forth. So, there will be tough negotiation in the future, but we want our people back.
And then, in the third stage, people will speak about reconstruction of Gaza. Reconstruction of Gaza has to do only if Gaza will be demilitarized
and Hamas will not control it anymore. And this is a tough negotiation.
NEWTON: You are articulating some very, very difficult things to come. I do want to deal, though, with stage two. You know, there have been some
discussions about whether or not any stage two to this, which is crucial, was actually built. to fail.
I do want to quote here Haaretz' Amos Harl, who's a military analyst who said in editorial, "At stage two there will be 65 hostages in the Gaza
Strip, more than half of whom are apparently no longer alive. Multiple difficulties could arise here. Will Hamas keep its word and return
everyone? Will the organization succeed in locating all of the bodies of the dead hostages? And even more strikingly, do the parties. Netanyahu on
one side, Hamas leader in Gaza, Mohammed Sinwar, the brother, by the way, of Yahya Sinwar on the other, have a vested interest in keeping their
promises to the U.S."
What do you believe the prospects are of keeping this deal intact through stage two? And I want to emphasize something that you know so well, right,
we keep this grounded in humanity. There are families waiting for their loved ones they know will only come home in stage two.
YADLIN: We are all with the families. The families deserve all the support, the sympathy, the hugging from -- and they are getting it from the
Israeli public. Netanyahu has a problem. Netanyahu has two right-wing parties, extreme right-wing parties, that really doesn't care. And they
want a decisive and absolute victory, which, and this is the paradox, cannot be achieved as long as we care about the hostages in Gaza.
So, the IDF cannot be decisive enough, and the terrorists may kill these hostages. So, even if you don't have a heart and you don't have a moral
compass, from operational and strategic point of view, it is -- there is a good reason to reach the second stage and to bring all the hostages back
home.
So, I hope that Netanyahu that look into the new administration in Washington is an administration that will help him to continue the war, he
got exactly the opposite message. You need to end the war. And ending the war is what will bring all the hostages back home. And then --
NEWTON: And yet, that does bring -- but it does bring us to what Netanyahu apparently told the security cabinet today, that he received guarantees
from negotiators that if this does fall apart, that, you know, the Trump administration will say that, look, you can resume your fighting in Gaza.
At this point in time, how helpful is that? We haven't even completed stage one.
YADLIN: Yes, I think it's important that Hamas will know that the Trump administration that was very positive in advancing the deal can change the
attitude if, A, in the blame game it will be a very apparent that Hamas is to blame. And then, the Trump administration can allow the Israelis to do
things that Biden administration was unable to give Israel these tools, the tools of having much more strict humanitarian aid, that not going to Hamas
and helping them to survive, and maybe recognizing some territorial changes on the border in Gaza or the West Bank.
[13:10:00]
This is a very serious leverages vis-a-vis Hamas. So, I do hope that Netanyahu will be able to tell his right-wingers, this is a moral,
strategic, and operational need of Israel, to bring the hostages. Yes, we are praying in ending the war. But Hamas is not going anywhere.
And I -- for knowing Hamas, sooner or later, they will fire rockets at Israel, they may try to rebuild their military. And by the way, there is a
huge effective diplomatic tool. And Henry Kissinger was the one that used it a lot. And it was used in Lebanon as well. It's a side agreement and
side letter for Israel not a deal with Hamas, agreement with the U.S. administration, what Israel will be allowed to do if Hamas is rebuilding
its military force or not leaving the Gaza Strip.
NEWTON: And I understand that you believe that that would help Hamas. Stay in line. I just want to get to some other issues here, though, because as
you know, and you've heard this expression before, many Israelis, you know, say that their army is the most moral army in the world.
But former defense minister, a man I know you know well, Moshe Bogie Ya'alon, he certainly described what's going on in the north of Gaza, his
words, ethnic cleansing. Christiane recently spoke to a leading expert on genocide about this and other war crimes, Omer Bartov. He now believes
genocide is in fact taking place. I want you to listen to him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OMER BARTOV, PROFESSOR OF HOLOCAUST AND GENOCIDE STUDIES, BROWN UNIVERSITY: By now, we have a population that is being completely debilitated with vast
numbers of people suffering -- those who are alive, suffering from skin diseases, from intestinal diseases, lack of food, lack of water. There's
been systematic destruction of desalination plants, not enough supply of water coming in from Israel, no energy. And so, it looks like the goal is
to make Gaza uninhabitable for its population.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: You heard his words. You are a former IDF general yourself. Are you comfortable with the way the IDF, and I'm going to pinpoint the
Netanyahu government here, the way they have conducted themselves in the last 15 months?
YADLIN: OK. I don't know who spoke because I cannot see your screen, but no doubt that Israel is not doing a genocide in Gaza. And there are a lot
of difficulties, humanitarian difficulties in Gaza. But it has to do because of Hamas.
Hamas could have finished this war 15 months ago. If they would return the hostages, as they are doing today, this catastrophe. And I'm not denying
that there is a humanitarian catastrophe. However, we are the only country in the world that during war supply food, fuel and all humanitarian help to
its enemy and who it's go to, not to organizations that care about people, not to human -- to the Red Cross, it's going to Hamas.
NEWTON: But General Yaldin, though, that was Omer Bartov. He is, you know, Israeli himself. He is an expert on genocide. And I ask you, I know how you
have confronted these issues in decades past. Was it even in the --
YADLIN: I'm saying that war is an awful phenomenon. However, Israel is behaving according to the international law. And once again, I don't know
who you -- who the clip that you put in your program, who is he?
NEWTON: Omer Bartov.
YADLIN: So, I cannot reflect -- who? What his name?
NEWTON: Omer Bartov. He is a genocide expert. He spoke to Christiane.
YADLIN: Is he Israeli or he is --
NEWTON: He is. He is indeed, but continue.
YADLIN: -- Hamas --
NEWTON: He is indeed, but continue.
YADLIN: OK. I'm saying, and I -- that Israel is fighting according to the international law, that the war is an awful phenomenon. People -- innocent
people are killed, but everybody has to remember who started this war, who fighting it against civilians, who takes civilians, puts them in tunnels,
rapes them, kills them in front of their kids, and behead parents in front of their girls and boys, and who is refusing to end the war in the last 15
months, and could stop the war if they return the hostages.
[13:15:00]
So, there is catastrophe in Gaza, but none of the fighting armies in this century and the last century supply food to its enemy. So, genocidal idea
may be in the extreme right of Israel, it is not the policy of the IDF I can promise you.
NEWTON: And we shall leave it there for now. General, thanks so much for joining us. I do appreciate it.
Now, to some major news from Washington, the Supreme Court ruled that a controversial ban on TikTok may take effect this weekend, rejecting an
appeal from the popular app that claimed a forced shutdown violates the First Amendment.
Now, U.S. lawmakers say the massively popular app is a national security risk because of its ties to China, and they want it sold to a new owner.
Now, incoming President Donald Trump says what happens with the app now is ultimately with him. And interestingly, he's invited the TikTok CEO to
attend the inauguration as his honored guest.
Tim Wu is a longtime tech and antitrust scholar and worked on competition policy on President Biden's National Economic Council, that was until 2023.
And he joins the program now from New York. Good to have you here as we continue to parse the Supreme Court decision.
In a way, though, you know, news events have kind of already taken over here. It did rule that the ban could take effect this weekend. Do you
believe the Supreme Court really ruled properly in this decision right now?
TIM WU, FORMER WHITE HOUSE ANTITRUST ADVISER AND LAW PROFESSOR, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: I do think they got it right. It was a unanimous decision. You
know, they centered on the fact that it was ultimately not a form of censorship, they felt, but they were telling TikTok, we need you to get a
different owner because Chinese is a strategic adversary of the United States. And this gives a lot of access to data and in particular. So, yes,
I do think it was right on the merits.
NEWTON: But what does the TikTok law -- you know, and it's called protecting Americans from foreign adversary-controlled applications. What
does it actually say? And I want to get into the heart of this because, again, this was presented to Congress and then to the Supreme Court as a
matter of national security.
WU: Yes, I mean, it says a couple things. First of all, it says that there are national security risks from applications that can ship American data
and then can manipulate content national security risk. It instructs the app stores and certain content providers not to provide access to the
applications. They name TikTok and ByteDance and the thing. And it basically instructs them to find a new owner and gave a bunch of deadlines,
the last of which is expiring this this Sunday.
So, it is an effort to say, listen, we're not trying to say TikTok or social media is bad itself, we're trying to say, you know, having the
Chinese state have what amounts to spyware embedded in 140 million U.S. phones is a security problem.
NEWTON: And do you think -- what I'm about to ask you about actually reveals what this is all about, because China has said that, look,
ByteDance, TikTok, it is not for sale. CNBC reports that Frank McCourt has formally offered to buy TikTok, and that's together with entrepreneur Kevin
O'Leary. And yet, no one seems to be taking anyone up on that offer. Why do you think that is?
WU: I think China, why should they sell it? It's an incredibly valuable strategic asset. And so, they're -- I can't see any reason they'd want to
sell. Obviously, they had the Supreme Court decision. There was an outside chance that the law got struck down under the First Amendment. You know,
why would you want to sell? It's useful. So, I think that's why there's been an impasse.
NEWTON: But doesn't that tell us all we need to know? I mean, China -- some people would say it's saving face, right? They don't want to look weak
if they in fact do endorse a sale or force into a sale of TikTok. But on the other hand, they know it is a significant tool they can use.
WU: Yes, I mean, they don't -- well, that's a good point. And, you know, they don't need the money. Also, I think there's a sense that -- yes, I
mean, this isn't like a normal kind of owner who's like, yes, a billion dollars means anything to the nation of China. So -- or, you know, maybe a
hundred billion or whatever it is.
You know, I think that they're also interested, frankly, in kind of the confusion and a sense that, you know, it's obviously not going to be
popular to take down this app. So, maybe they think that it's a good chance to sort of humiliate or put President Trump in this terrible situation.
Because, you know, he has said -- he had once said that he wanted to ban TikTok. Now, he's turned around and saying he wants to try and save them.
So, you know, if I were China, I'd just sit here and watch and eat some popcorn.
[13:20:00]
NEWTON: It is -- for its own propaganda purposes, it is pretty much the U.S. government doing a lot of work for them right now. Our correspondent,
Pam Brown, in fact, spoke to President-Elect Trump. You know, he told her that he had a great call with Chinese President Xi Jinping and that they
spoke about TikTok.
Now, listen, given everything that we know about Donald Trump, the fact that he at first wanted to ban this. He's saying that he will settle us.
Can you see -- and I know how closely you've looked at this. Can you see a way where everyone is made happy here, given the national security
concerns?
WU: Maybe. Not -- OK. There's no way everyone's going to be happy. I mean, I think China has the upper hand right now because they're just in a
situation they can provoke chaos. And as you said, Trump has multiple different ideas going on here at once. He doesn't want to make people
unhappy right at the beginning. He loves TikTok itself because he's on there. And, you know, he loves adulation and attention. The other hand,
he's supposedly tough on China.
So, how could you do a deal that, you know, kind of makes us all come together? I guess the most straightforward thing is to sell it, maybe sell
it to one of his friends or someone he thinks is an ally. And that would make them happy and keep it running.
The challenge is I don't think the Chinese government will hand over the algorithm under any condition. So, it's not that easy to figure out. Like
there's no simple -- or it would have happened already. If there was an easy answer, it would have happened.
NEWTON: And that is such a fair point. I know I've spoken to a couple of business owners, entrepreneurs who are on TikTok, they say it is that
algorithm that they want. And they seem to be not upset about things like the U.S. solicitor general, Elizabeth Prelogar, arguing that, look,
TikTok's immense data set gives China, and this is her words, a powerful tool for harassment, recruitment, and espionage.
Can you really, you know, bring us the backstory of all that? Because some people might say to you, come on, Professor, really? Does it really give
them that?
WU: I don't know if they're using it, but I think it certainly gives them that. I mean, and like, let's get into it. So. You know, having TikTok on
your phone gives the TikTok app access not only to everything you're doing and all your contacts, but also a lot of information about who your friends
are and what -- and, you know, all their contact lists and, you know, maybe who you're communicating with, maybe. So, it is a major privacy threat and
it's kind of amazing we've put up with it.
I mean, in a way, it's brilliant. It's the ultimate Trojan horse. Here's this thing that has a bunch of dancing cats. Everybody loves it. Everyone
installs it. They don't want to get rid of it. But to me, it's got to be one of China's most useful strategic assets. Even if they don't even use
it, if they need to, they've got it. And that's why it's put the U.S. in such a terrible situation.
NEWTON: And you don't think it's hyperbole to say that they could and would, you know, weaponize it if they need to. And I remind everyone about
the controversy to this hour about Taiwan and China's stand on Taiwan and the U.S. stand on Taiwan.
WU: I don't think it's hyperbole at all. And I think that, you know, nations -- whatever they say in public, nation states are very strategic.
And, you know, kind of -- as we've said, they don't care about money. They don't care about, you know, some of the things we're talking about. They
care about a long-term strategic battle with the United States.
And if you have, you know, something embedded in 140 million American cell phones, that is just a strategic asset. There's no other word for it. You
know, if we had The New York Times publishing every day in in China and everyone was reading it, that's a strategic asset. When we had Radio Free
Europe, you know, when you're -- when Russians and Soviets in the Soviet Union were listening to American radio, that was a strategic asset. You
know, this is a long-term struggle and those things all count in the ongoing contest between nations.
NEWTON: What do you say about how TikTok has handled this? I mean, the CEO, Shou Zi Chew, will attend Donald Trump's inauguration. Apparently,
he's going to have a place of honor there. They flooded D.C. apparently with lobbyists, and this has all seemed to work.
I mean, do you believe China is just sitting back and saying, mission accomplished here? And why? What hold does this have? I know it has huge
cultural influence in the United States and around the world, but isn't this a win for TikTok, their lobbying worked
WU: Well, their lawsuit didn't work. Let's just be clear about that. I think they thought they were going to win. And their lobbying has not been
effective against Congress, and Congress passed this law by an overwhelming bipartisan majority. So, I'd say it's mixed.
But yes, their campaign has been effective, really, at least effective in attracting some support. But they haven't managed to get in deeper. In
fact, they're most effective -- I guess the biggest success has been the wooing of Donald Trump. And in some ways it's kind of amazing that he's
totally reversed positions on this and is now inviting the head of -- I mean, I guess that has to be a triumph, inviting the head of TikTok to sit
up there during inauguration as if he's a hero when he's actually a foreign asset.
[13:25:00]
NEWTON: Yes. And also promising to solve this problem of TikTok when -- and -- when you've already pointed out it's incredibly difficult. Just to
add to this, though, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, they'll all be with Donald Trump when he's inaugurated. I do want you to listen, though,
to President Biden, and I'm sure you've heard this already, we'll remind our viewers, his warning about all this. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, U.S. PRESIDENT: I want to warn the country of some things that give me great concern. This is a dangerous -- and that's a dangerous
concentration of power in the hands of a very few ultra-wealthy people, and the dangerous consequences if their abuse of power is left unchecked.
Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic
rights and freedoms, and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: You know, I'm really curious, Professor, to hear your thoughts on this. It was quite striking to hear this in the middle of a speech, and
with someone who has years of Russia experience and has lived there, the word oligarchs obviously really stands out.
WU: Yes, I mean, I think that President Biden is very consistent about that, and we were worried about that in the White House, is the move of the
United States to a very different kind of country. You know, you mentioned Russia, one in which you have ultra-wealthy individuals not really in power
who exercise disproportionate influence, and suddenly, it looks like the tech leaders, the tech billionaires are sort of lining up to be that
person, I can see why they want to do it.
But, you know, there's a long time ago -- I mean, for a long time, tech wanted nothing to do with Washington, they just said stay away. The new
trend is to say, OK, we want to be like best friends with the White House for all these reasons and be there, I mean, even be part of government in
the case of Elon Musk in this random kind of quasi-White House office DOGE.
So, you know, yes, it's a very disturbing development and I am afraid of the United States becoming a place where you have the most powerful
executives and industries allied with government. That's a very dangerous form of government.
NEWTON: Yes, quite a sobering opinion you have just given us of that as we continue to see this unfold in the coming days and weeks. Professor Tim Wu,
thank you. Really appreciate it.
WU: Thank you. I always like coming here.
NEWTON: Now, we were just talking, right, TikTok and other social media platforms, we should add, have faced scrutiny from health experts for
increasing loneliness, particularly among teenagers. Now, as U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy nears the end of his second term as the nation's
doctor, his parting prescription is to foster a stronger sense of community.
Now, data from his department show Americans are hanging out in person less and less, and with each passing year. That is the focus, in fact, of Derek
Thompson's latest piece for The Atlantic. It is "The Antisocial Century. He joins Michel Martin to discuss what can be done.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Derek Thompson, thanks so much for talking with us.
DEREK THOMPSON, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: It's great to be here. Thank you.
MARTIN: So, your new piece, cover story for The Atlantic, is called "The Antisocial Century." You say that this self-imposed solitude might just be
the most important social fact of 21st century America. Why do you say that?
THOMPSON: So, for 60 years, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has asked Americans how they spend their day, how they spend their week, you know,
how much time you spend sleeping, how much time you spend eating food. And what they found is that in the last 20 years in particular, the number of
Americans who -- or the amount of time that Americans spend in face-to-face socializing has declined for every single demographic.
So, it's not just young people or young adults or middle-aged people or old people, it's all ages. It's not just black or white, it's all ethnicities.
It's not just college graduates or people who didn't go to college, it's every single category of education attainment. Every single category you
could possibly think of, demographically speaking, is spending less time in face-to-face socializing than they did 20 years ago, or really than they
did 60 years ago.
And that's why the headline finding here is that we are spending, Americans are spending, more time alone than in any period for which we have
trustworthy data.
MARTIN: You also noticed something, and you actually open your piece with something that you noticed in your own town, why don't you just tell that
story?
THOMPSON: Sure. So, as I was writing this article, my wife and I and my baby daughter, we went out to a Mexican restaurant here in Chapel Hill. And
we get in, you know, around 5:00, our daughter eats dinner early and there's no one in the restaurant, but there's a bar and there are like nine
paper bags, large paper bags on that bar, along with a sign that says bar seating closed.
[13:30:00]
And I thought, that's interesting. They closed the bar to become this sort of like depot for takeaway food. And over the next half hour, like five,
10, 12 people walked into the restaurant, saying nothing to anybody in the restaurant, grab a bag and leave. And I thought, this is crazy. Business is
booming for this restaurant, but no one's sitting down in chairs and no one's talking to each other because takeaway has exceeded tables as the
main business of this restaurant.
So, I did some research and I found out that, in fact, according to the National Restaurant Association, 74 percent of all traffic to restaurants
in 2023 was for off premises sales. That is, takeaway and delivery. And that was like a, oh, my God. What an incredible metaphor for this
antisocial century that I'm trying to write about, the bar, the place where you should be having conversations with the strangers or friends in your
community has been closed and turned into a silent depot where people come and without saying a word to each other, just grab food so they can eat
back at their house where, by the way, they're spending more time than in any other period for which we have good data.
So, once I saw that scene, I thought, well, it's over. Obviously, this is going to be the first 1,000 words of the essay.
MARTIN: Now, obviously, COVID, you know, COVID played a role here. A lot of us were forced to spend time alone, or at least not going to places we
were used to going. But you say this goes beyond COVID, that this is a trend that started long before the COVID pandemic.
THOMPSON: Yes, I think it's a 60-year-old trend that was briefly accelerated by the pandemic. But there's some information that suggests
that we spent more time alone in 2023 than we did in 2021 when all the vaccines rolled out. So, this is something that is bigger than COVID. Even
if, of course, people are going to hear solitude and think, well, I spent that year basically in lockdown or in relative isolation.
So, when I roll back the clock to the middle of the 20th century and think, how did this happen, especially starting in the 1950s and 1960s? You know,
Robert Putnam wrote a famous book called "Bowling Alone," where he researched this question in depth, a book of hundreds of pages of graphs
and research. And the most compelling information to me, the most compelling point that he made to me about the causes of the antisocial
century is that in the 1950s, 1960s, you saw the emergence of several really important technologies that changed our all of our lives.
First, you had the car, which privatized our lives, allowed us to drive away from cities towards suburbs. We spent more time alone in homes in our
backyards. Then the 1950s and 1960s, you have the popularization of the television. And the car privatized our lives. I think the television
privatized our leisure.
There's some evidence suggesting that between the 1960s and 1990s the typical American got about six extra hours of leisure time per week. So,
what do we do with that extra 300 hours per year? You can ask yourself or ask a friend, if you had an extra 300 hours per year, what would you do at
that time? Would you learn a new language? Would you learn a new instrument? Would you play sports? It turned out that people spent almost
all that time watching television. Nothing wrong with a little bit of TV, but 300 extra hours of TV a year is a lot of TV.
MARTIN: OK. So, this obviously invites the question, is this bad? And you suggest that it's not great. So, what's wrong with people spending more
time alone? Because a lot of people say well, this is me time. I'm just kind of refreshing myself.
THOMPSON: Yes, it's bad. But let me be clear about exactly why it's bad. I'm the father of a 17-month-old. So, I know as well as anyone how precious
and frankly, how close to heaven one night alone away from the screaming baby can be. I mean, it is the next thing to God. That said, as with any,
you know, therapeutic, the dose matters.
There's a difference between spending one night alone between saying, I feel great about not being around people today, I need to recharge, and
spending more time alone year after year after year and decade after decade after decade. That's what we're talking about. We're talking about a kind
of overdose on solitude.
And there's research suggesting that if you ask people, how much time do you spend with folks and how much time do you spend alone? The people who
spend more time alone tend to be much less happy. And there's one study that found that a 5 percent reduction in socializing time reduced happiness
as much as a 10 percent reduction in income. If you think how happy would you be if your boss suddenly said, I'm going to, you know, slash your
salary by 10 percent, that's the effect of just a few years of increased alone time in America.
So, I think quiet is blessedness. And I think that alone time can be a true salve for the soul, but the amount of socialized -- social isolation that
people are experiencing in America today, I think is bad for us as individuals and I think it's bad for us as a community.
[13:35:00]
MARTIN: I want to quote something you wrote in the piece. You said that solitude and loneliness are not the same. You quote the sociologist, Eric
Klinenberg. He said, it's actually a very healthy, emotional response to feel some loneliness. But how should we think about this difference?
Because, you know, some of the great -- gosh, some of the great moral thinkers, religious leaders, all spent time in quiet contemplation, you
know, alone, Jesus, John the Baptist, Moses, Buddha, the Buddha, you know, they all -- these figures all spent sort of time sort of thinking alone.
But you said that there's something that goes beyond that. You call it sort of antisocial. It's not kind of pro-social. It's antisocial.
THOMPSON: I want to make two points because what you're saying about Jesus and John the Baptist, you know, was really galvanizing to me. The first
point is on loneliness. I think loneliness can be healthy. Loneliness is the experience difference between the amount of social connection that you
have and the amount of social connection that you want to have.
So, many times we feel like at the end of a week or a few weeks like, oh, I'm feeling kind of lonely. I want to reach out to a friend. I want to see
someone. I want to get a drink. That's a wonderful, healthy feeling. What we're experiencing instead. I'm afraid, with decade after decade of rising
aloneness is the opposite of loneliness. Loneliness is the instinct to be around people. But for many, in particular young people today, I see
there's the instinct to be with yourself, to have me time followed by me time followed by me time. That's not responding to loneliness. That is
something else.
The second thing I want to say is that, as I was finishing this piece, I was watching a video that the author, David Foster Wallace, made where he's
talking about the death of quiet in America and how people just can't be by themselves and be quiet anymore. And I think that to a certain extent, the
phone contaminates our quiet.
You know, if Jesus went away for, you know, his days in the desert and had the phone on him, he was constantly check me back on Roman Twitter, I don't
think he would have all the revelations that he had because he'd be sucked in to the crowd think. I mean, I'm being a little bit facetious here, but
there's -- it's important for solitude to be truly quiet.
But at one thing I think that these phones do is that they make our time in crowds feel a little bit more alone because we can always just pull out our
palms and look down into our palms and be away from the crowd. But also, they make our solitude more crowded. We can be home alone, wanting to just
recharge, wanting to have great thoughts or look inside of ourselves, and we can't help but pull out of our -- pull out our phones and dip into
social media and become contaminated by crowd think.
So, I think there's a huge difference between the kind of quite solitude that can be truly replenishing and the kind of solitude that most people
experience when they're on their couches flick, flick, flicking on social media.
MARTIN: But why is it that -- you know, we say this all the time, we're social beings, right? So, I'm just wondering how it happened that we just -
- were these conscious choices that people have been making for themselves or have their sort of social circumstances dictated this and they've --
we've adapted to it.
THOMPSON: You know, Eric Klinenberg, the sociologist who you've quoted, told me at one point during my reporting that we do choose, but we don't
choose the set of options that we have. And I think that our built environments in this case shape our choices. I think that it's meaningful
that while, you know, we've been talking, I think, rightly about the ways that our inner lives have changed with the rise of televisions and
smartphones, there's been physical world changes too as we drive out to the suburbs, we live further away from people, the amount of social
infrastructure that's been built in this country in the last 50 years clearly declined from its peak, maybe the 1950s and 1960s. So, there's
built environment changes that are really important.
But I also think that maybe, you know, people are -- don't fully recognize what they're choosing when they make decisions about their life. You know,
when we stay at home and we watch Netflix or we order Chipotle, and God knows who hasn't done that. I watch Netflix all the time. I order, you
know, food to eat here at home all the time. When we make those choices, we aren't calculating in that moment, here's the hours we're not spending with
other people. Here's them other hours we're not spending with other people.
So, what I wanted to do with this essay is to hold up a mirror to America and to say, here are the choices that you're making every day to surround
yourself with entertainment, to be in your home longer, and our homes are more convenient, more comfortable than they used to be. Here's a set of
choices that we're making, and here's the bill that's come due. And the bill that's come due is historic amounts of alone time in ways I think are
changing our personality and changing our politics.
So, I don't know that people are fully cognizant of the costs of the choices that they're making. My hope is that this helps them to see the
receipt, the bill, so to speak of those choices.
MARTIN: But what about other costs that you see as being the price of all this aloneness? What are some of the other consequences that you see?
[13:40:00]
THOMPSON: Right. So, you're talking about individual costs there. I mean, we have lots of really good data that suggests that young people have fewer
friends than they used to have, go out with those friends less than they used to. And I think that's a major problem.
I also think that politically, this is creating major problems. You know, I talked to a Brown University researcher and author, Mark Dunkelman, I mean,
it's really compelling point that if you think about it in kind of an ironic way, in the age of the phone, our families are tighter than they
used to be. You know, I text my wife all the time, which people are in touch with their kids, maybe more than they used to be. So, that inner ring
of family is very, very tight.
And then you can think of an outer ring of tribe where I'm very in touch with people who share my ideas about, you know, aloneness or economics or
politics, whether it's on Twitter or on e-mail or via group text. So, in a way, you have this weird situation where the inner ring of family is
strengthened and the outer ring of tribe is strengthened.
But there's a middle ring, which is the village. And these are the people we live next to, they're our neighbors, the people in our towns, and we
don't know them as well as we used to. And the reason I think that matters is that while family teaches us love, and while the tribe teaches us
loyalty or ideology, I think the village teaches us tolerance. I think it is instructive of tolerance to be around people that you're not related to,
that you disagree with about things because you learn that when you -- that you can disagree with people while still seeing them as fully human.
And in the absence of a strong village-based culture in this country, I think you get politicians like Donald Trump, who are an all tribe, no
village avatar of politics, and I also think that you have parties that don't understand each other and want nothing to do with each other.
There's some polls suggesting that like Republican teenagers say that we'll never date a Democrat and Democratic teenagers are even more likely to say
they'll never date a Republican. That's a world where we have tight families and tight tribes, and we don't know each other at the level of the
village.
MARTIN: One of the things you said earlier is that we were talking about the difference between solitude and loneliness is that loneliness is a wish
for company. And it makes me wonder, why don't these people go out and do something?
THOMPSON: It's a great big question. I don't have a perfect answer, but I have a theory. I think that we're disevolved to live in this attention
environment. We're constantly stimulated by novelty and entertainment. And if we're on the internet and we're in some, you know, political messaging
area, outrage and outgroup animosity, you open up your phone and you're immediately bombarded with this stimulus that gets your dopamine going.
And I don't think that we've spent enough time in this new attentional ecosystem to learn what to do with it. And many times, I think people find
themselves so overwhelmed by the amount of dopamine and cortisol that they get going biochemically when they're on their phones on their computers,
but it's somewhat exhausts them.
And so, when they put their phone down or they close their computer, maybe a friend reaches out or says like, do you want to get a drink? They're
like, no, I'm exhausted. I don't want to get a drink. I'm totally pooped. I mean, I'd spend all this time feeling angry and feeling at the cortisol
rushing through my veins. No, I kind of want to just stay home.
And so, I think it's possible that we are tragically sapping our relationship with other people because we're dumping all of our dopamine in
our screens, we're wasting our dopamine having these low rent versions of social interactions through our screens when we could have a much higher
quality experience if we sometimes found a way to put these things down.
But to the question, why don't we put these things down? It's because we're disevolved to know what to do with these things. They're so good at
capturing one part of what makes us human, which is our sensitivity to novelty in our environment, that we forget this other part of being human,
which is being there for each other.
MARTIN: What's the answer to this besides put your phone down and go out and do something?
THOMPSON: Go out and just hanging out. I mean, the strange thing about the prescription to this disease is that it is simultaneously the easiest
answer in the world and the hardest answer in the world. It's easy because the antidote to loneliness is free and obvious, it's being with other
people.
The problem is that being with other people can be a collective action problem. It's hard to be with other people if the folks around you aren't
hanging out with each other. It's hard to start a new ritual like, you know, dinner parties for your friends, if your friends never go out to
dinner parties. So, it is a collective action problem and it's difficult to solve, but I'm optimistic that we can solve it.
Now, the difference between culture and say science is like science is a story that tends to move in one direction, drugs get a little better and
then a little better and then a little better. Culture is this. Culture is progress and backlash and progress and backlash. And what's the coolest
type of genes, are they skinny or roomy or skinny or roomy? That's culture.
[13:45:00]
We've had decades now of an antisocial century, but they were preceded by decades of a very social century. In the early 1900s, we had rising rates
of marriage and fertility and union membership and all different kinds of club associations. We had a moral revolution in this country, and we can
have another moral revolution in this country, but I think it begins with the observation with a self-diagnosis that we're doing this to ourselves.
This is a disease we're giving ourselves. That's the bad news. But the good news is that we all have the cure. We know how to be with other people and
we can just do it more.
MARTIN: Derek Thompson, thanks so much for talking with us.
THOMPSON: Thank you.
MARTIN: And let's get together.
THOMPSON: I love it.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEWTON: And finally, for us, to a musician who has brought millions of fans together. Bob Dylan set the world ablaze when he went electric in
1965. So, what's going to happen now that he's gone TikTok? The Nobel laureate joined the social media giant this week, just days before it's set
to be banned. It's all part of a current resurgence due to the new biopic, "A Complete Unknown."
And while people are going for Dylan, many of them are also rediscovering the folk legend, Joan Baez. The Rock and Roll Hall of Famer has been
performing, listen to this, for more than half a century, often mixing her soaring vibrato with powerful protest anthems.
Now, when she was on her final global tour in 2018, Baez made some time to speak with Christiane Amanpour in London about her music, her life on the
road, and how the Parkland protests for gun control inspired her.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Joan Baez, welcome to the program.
JOAN BAEZ, FOLK SINGER: Thank you very much for having me.
AMANPOUR: Tell me what it actually takes to be on the road for six weeks. I mean, how much more difficult it is at your age to get your voice ready
to be on stage?
BAEZ: Well, it's just that. This muscle in here is not flexible the way it used to be. So, if you just picture a tennis player and somebody says why
don't you play the way you used, well, spending all that time keeping the muscle toned up. So, it takes a lot of effort and time.
AMANPOUR: I want to play a little excerpt of one of your most famous songs. It's "Diamonds and Rust" and we're going to play it and then we'll
talk about it.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
AMANPOUR: You talk about the muscle that created that voice. It's one of the purest, one of the truest notes in music history. And many have
described it like that. Do you miss that voice? Do you still have that?
BAEZ: I do not have it. And I do miss it. I had to come to terms with what I do have. And that took me -- actually, it took me several years because I
was ready - I didn't like the sound coming out. I didn't like any of it. And then, I saw ear, nose and throat guy. I thought maybe I've got a pimple
on my vocal cords, they take it off and I'll be fine. He said, no, this is you, this is it.
So, the first half was accepting what I had to work with, was what I had there. And then, he suggested a vocal therapist. So, this woman, in two
sessions, gave me so many new tools that the fun came back. You know, I wanted to be able to walk out on stage and enjoy myself. And so, that
started coming back and that was a real treasure, you know.
AMANPOUR: So, this is "Whistle Down the Wind". This is some of the new stuff.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
AMANPOUR: OK. So, it does sound different. What did you do differently? How have you had to re-engage, re-employ your vocal cords and your muscles?
BAEZ: You reinvent. It's really reinvent, yes, because this is now a much more honest voice that reflects 60 years on the road. If you ask me, I like
the results of what we got on the album.
AMANPOUR: And you have said that for about a quarter of a century, I mean, literally 25 years, you didn't write a word, a lyric until the election of
Donald Trump.
BAEZ: Yes.
AMANPOUR: And you found Donald Trump inspiring on many levels, not just that he got you to write again, but also the activism, which is so dear to
your heart. Seems to have had a whole new flourishing.
[13:50:00]
BAEZ: Well, I think, in the past week, it's had the biggest bump that it has since the million-woman march. It's come out of nowhere. It's honest.
It's huge. I mean, we never heard the CEO of the National Rifle Organization out there defending himself and making, well, politically
stupid remarks.
The kids are not really interested in that talk at all. And they suddenly have this momentum and they have people wanting to support them and be with
them. They're making sense. Maybe we kind of have written off that generation and saying, well, they always think about themselves. And some
of them, yes. But this is astounding.
AMANPOUR: I'm going to play a little bit of what Emma Gonzalez said.
BAEZ: Please.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EMMA GONZALEZ, STUDENT, STONEMAN DOUGLAS HIGH SCHOOL: They say that tougher gun laws do not decrease gun violence. We call BS. They say a good
guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun. We call BS. They say guns are just tools like knives and are as dangerous as cars. We call BS. They say
that no lives could have been able to prevent the hundreds of senseless tragedies that have occurred. We call BS. That us kids don't know what
we're talking about, that we're too young to understand how the government works. We call BS.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BAEZ: I've got my makeup on. She makes me cry every time I see that. Just astounding.
AMANPOUR: They've really put themselves out there, these kids. You did that when you were 15. I mean, one of your first acts, if not the first
act, was refusing to salute the flag. You were 15 years old. Why was that?
BAEZ: Because my family became Quaker when I was about eight. And in Quaker-ism, the most important thing is to put a human being before the
nation state and you don't get to kill people for any reason.
But looking around, the main reason that we're fighting each other is we have partitioned ourselves into these nation states. And so, as a symbol of
that, I wouldn't salute anybody's flag. That didn't matter. I mean, in the States, if you don't salute the flag, they just -- they can't believe it.
And I was immediately labeled a communist and whatever else they could possibly say to denounce me.
AMANPOUR: You stayed true to what you believed in despite the prevailing winds, despite getting knocked around frequently. How hard is it going to
be for them to stay firm on this issue, of all issues, in today's climate of all climates?
BAEZ: The climate may help them stay strong. Sure, I mean, I would want to talk to them about when there's a dip, when you feel as though it's not
going to work, when you get discouraged and all of that stuff and how to try to stay on track because that will happen and how to keep from
infighting with each other, I mean, three people leading this right now. They're going to have problems. You have to be prepared for that.
For me, what always prepared it was Gandhian non-violence because then I was ready to kind of deal with whatever came my way and not expected
everything was going to be wonderful.
AMANPOUR: And it is extraordinary -- I can't believe I'm sitting here. And you actually were at the 1963 March on Washington, there with Dr. King and
all the others who were there, and you sang. And I believe you were with Bob Dylan at that time. You went together. Did you sort of steer him into
activism?
BAEZ: Well, he didn't become an activist. He wrote the songs. And I think he had been in the South and the deep South a little before all of this
happened, doing some things that, I think, he really didn't want to do, be present and visible for the marches and the demonstrations. So, he wrote
our background music.
AMANPOUR: I mean, everybody always wants to talk to you and ask you and focus on your relationship with him. I mean, it just seemed to be the most
perfect union in terms of voice, in terms of politics.
BAEZ: We don't know what the perfect unions look like.
AMANPOUR: Because it ended up not being, right?
BAEZ: Well, it never does. Anybody, you're there for a while. Then you're gone. And how did it work out? And I think, right now, I think each of us -
- we don't -- I don't see him, but I've heard him say lovely things about me and I will certainly say lovely things about him. So, whatever went
wrong back there doesn't really matter.
AMANPOUR: What was Dr. King like? So many people, people who've never met him, obviously, talk about him as a demigod. But you have a much more
personal view of him. And you said he was actually -- had a wicked sense of humor as well.
BAEZ: He was very funny. And he knew he couldn't afford to be funny on camera. So, he saved it all for offstage. And, yes, a lot of laughter, a
lot of eating southern food, a lot of hanging out, and then he'd have to get serious again. Go preach.
AMANPOUR: And what do you want to tell everybody when you go out on your final hard-slog tour? What are you hoping to get and to give?
[13:55:00]
BAEZ: I will sing. I'll try to bring beauty to the world as best I can. I will tell people they should happily choose denial 80 percent of the time
and then figure out what they're going to do with the 20 percent where they could be of use to somebody. Going to reintroduce empathy, compassion,
kindness, intelligence. All of these things to take that 20 or 15 percent of your life and do that on any level.
I mean, when a kid says, or somebody says, well, what can I do? It's what I can't tell you what to do, but I'd say follow your heart, where -- you
know, any compassionate news is giving you, listen to it and act upon it.
AMANPOUR: Well, that's a very good note to end on. And a masterclass. Joan Baez, thank you very much indeed.
BAEZ: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEWTON: A masterclass, indeed. That's it for us. I want to thank you for watching. Goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
