If someone had told you on January 19th that a skinny young woman from L.A. would upstage the inauguration of our new President Joe Biden, dramatic performances by J.Lo and Lady Gaga, and even the joyful swearing-in of our first female VP, Kamala Harris, you might’ve been dubious. But the effervescent Amanda Gorman outshone all the stars with her wise words and soulful delivery. She tapped into the zeitgeist of America, addressed the “terrifying hour” of January 6th, and challenged us to “rebuild, reconcile and recover.” Gorman reminds us that there’s always light, if only we’re brave enough to see it, if only we’re brave enough tobe it.
When the world seems dark and our lives continue to be dislocated by the pandemic, I often think of Amanda Gorman, and listen to her poem, again and again. In watching her interviews with everyone from Trevor Noah to Anderson Cooper, I’m inspired by her poise, her wisdom and her optimism. Did you know that from age seven she’s been preparing to become president of the United States? That gives me hope.
This week, as Trump’s impeachment trial began in the U.S. Senate, and we’re forced to relive the horror of January 6th, I’m exploring these questions: How did our our country become so polarized and our politics so violent? And is there any hope for closing the divide? And what’s the role of empathy in the process? Is there a role for you and me?
I sought out the wisdom of three experts. And there is good news. My latest BBC report aims to do two things:
Help us understand how we got here: by exploring insights from psychology, anthropology and sociology.
Offer some tangible action we can all do to douse the fire and live more peacefully with people with whom we don’t agree.
Although Amanda Gorman was featured in my original draft, she didn’t make the final cut for the BBC (due to time constraints). Yet the words of her inauguration poem echoed the wisdom I gleaned from the experts: We must put our differences aside and focus on what unites us, our common aspirations. We must try to build bridges, and (as hard as it is sometimes) assume good intent. So I’d like to start this week’s Fresh Dialogues podcast by revisiting Gorman’s rousing performance at President Biden’s inauguration, before I share my report.
“We close the divide because we know, to put our future first, we must first put our differences aside. We lay down our arms so we can reach out our arms to one another. We seek harm to none and harmony for all…”
Here’s a transcript of the report which aired on the BBC (including some parts which didn’t make the final cut):
Trump: They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists, and some I assume are good people. Hillary Clinton: You could put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables: the racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it…”
Alison van Diggelen: That was Democratic party candidate Hillary Clinton during her presidential run in 2016 and before her, Donald Trump during his bid as the Republican candidate, when he made his infamous comments about undocumented Mexican immigrants.
Dan Fessler is a professor of anthropology at the University of California in Los Angeles. He’s convinced that provocative language leads to dehumanization and is a key driver of the polarization problem.
Dan Fessler: Any time that you hear any politician, or candidate for office, talking about “them and they,” describing a competing party in terms that homogenize it, that treat it as uniform: “those people over there.” When single labels are applied, alarm bells should go off and you should start to ask yourself whether the humanity of people with different ideas is being eroded. This is happening in the US and around the world. As soon as it becomes “us vs them” we slide down the road of seeing others in our society as less than human.
Alison van Diggelen: As an anthropologist, Dan Fessler frames the issue with a wide lens.
Dan Fessler: I try to understand contemporary human behavior in the context of the species’ long evolutionary history, characterized by both remarkable co-operation, and a very long history of inter-group conflict. That propensity is strongly selected for. So it’s easy for us to flip into a mindset that leads to dehumanization, that’s an inherent part of our human psychology.
The perception of “the other” has a class component to it, those with more education and those with less interact less, live in different geographical regions, and confront different challenges. It’s easy to conceptualize “the other” as homogeneous and less worthy.
Alison van Diggelen:Larry Diamond, a professor of political science and sociology at Stanford University agrees about the danger of dehumanization.
Larry Diamond: The polarization in the U.S. and other advanced democracies represents an empathy gap. We aren’t even trying to see the world through the eyes of people very different from ourselves and to understand their pain and anxiety.
Alison van Diggelen: In the US, people have always had different views on issues like tax rates, gun control and health care, and held opposing moral and religious positions. Racism has a deep history in the country, and has been fanned by recent events. But more recently the rising inequality and growing opportunity gap have also contributed to the toxic mix. And according to Larry Diamond a new level of inflammatory and divisive rhetoric combined with conspiracy theories has pushed polarization to new extremes.
Larry Diamond: We have to put a heavy stress on leaders, political leaders who give oxygen to this fire.
Trump (6 January, 2021): All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical left democrats which is what they are doing, and stolen by the fake news media. That’s what they’ve done….
Larry Diamond: Leaders who inspire it, give legitimacy to it, and who led these people falsely and cynically to believe that their candidate had won this election when they hadn’t.
Trump: We will stop the steal.
Alison van Diggelen: Larry Diamond identifies partisan news media and social media as further amplifying the resentment and political polarization.
Larry Diamond: The technological disruption is super charging these people in terms of disinformation, rumor, conspiracy theories… The human brain is wired to be receptive to shocking rumors [ you can go all the way back to witch hunts…] but social media connects people on a larger scale and diffuses and magnifies these conspiracy theories and facilitates misinformation at a pace and scale we’ve never seen.
Alison van Diggelen:Rachel Kleinfeld is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. She points to psychological research on our susceptibility to fake news and conspiracy theories.
Rachel Kleinfeld: We all want to believe what we want to believe, so strongly – it’s an idea called motivated cognition. In experiments with rats, they found when you hear a confirmation of your belief, it’s like getting a hit of dopamine, getting a drug. So people really want to confirm their own beliefs. They seek out information that confirms their beliefs, they hear it faster, they see it more quickly on a page. Amazing when you got through this research…
Alison van Diggelen: So what might it take to heal the deep divisions in the United States?
President Joe Biden (January 20, 2021): This is our historic moment of crisis and challenge, and unity is the path forward. And, we must meet this moment as the United States of America.
Alison van Diggelen: This is part of President Joe Biden’s inauguration speech on the 20th of January.
President Joe Biden: Let us listen to one another. Hear one another. See one another. Show respect to one another. Politics doesn’t have to be a raging fire destroying everything in its path. Every disagreement doesn’t have to be a cause for total war.
Alison van Diggelen: Larry Diamond believes Biden’s call for more listening and mutual respect is achievable. He’s encouraged by the results of an experiment called “America in One Room.” In 2019, his team from Stanford gathered a diverse group of five hundred US citizens for three days at a resort in Texas. They were given non-partisan factual information and neutral moderators led discussions about political issues. Living together, having meals and talking together helped them see one another in a whole new light.
Larry Diamond: We had African Americans who said they’d never got to know a white person socially before, a white suburban housewife who’d say I’ve never met an undocumented immigrant before. Once you meet people and see they’re human beings too and that you share some common aspirations and emotions with them, the instinct to demonize them is immediately de-escalated….We did achieve a reductions in emotional polarization and animus.
Alison van Diggelen: The researchers also recorded significant changes of opinion. The most polarizing policy proposals, from both the left and the right, generally lost support, and the more centrist proposals gained popularity. Could this experiment be replicated and made part of a national discourse? Diamond hopes that the experiment can be expanded across America using online video conferencing, to help build empathy between people who view each other as enemies.
Larry Diamond: We now have the (technological) ability to scale this up with automated moderators that ensure equal participation in the conversation…There’s no reason why, if we have the funding and sense of civic purpose why we can’t organize open minded, mutually respectful conversations among millions of Americans in the coming years.
Alison van Diggelen: And evolutionary psychologist Dan Fessler points out that if we want to close the divide and build bridges, it’s important to start with the right assumptions.
Dan Fessler: The first step is to recognize the other person or group is not inherently bad. Someone can be a good person and see the world differently than you do. If we begin with the premise that this is a reasonable person who is moral, and is motivated by things they believe in, then the question becomes: how can I understand what they believe in and where can I find things we agree on?
That’s not to be naive and to suppose there aren’t people out there who do wish to harm and exploit others, there are, but that should be your last conclusion, not your starting premise when you interact with someone with whom you disagree.
Alison van Diggelen: And Rachel Kleinfeld offers this advice for healing rifts with relatives, friends and neighbors. For example, what if you’re liberal and live next door to a (fervent) Trump supporter?
Rachel Kleinfeld: Focus on the things you have in common and try to rebuild neighborly ties. No one wants bad relationships with their neighbors. For whatever reason, they might have been a racist, someone who simply liked the tax breaks or really believes that abortion is wrong and they liked getting the judges that would support that view. You don’t know why they voted for Trump, but you do know that when it snows they have to clear their driveway just like you do, then you can commiserate and build some bonds over those things.
REPORT ENDS
And finally, another reason I’m optimistic today is an interview I did this week with Harvard professor, Marshall Ganz. He shared some valuable wisdom about how to turn anger and outrage into constructive action. It’s something he knows a lot about. If you’re not familiar with his work, check out his Research Page or his Wikipedia page. As well as working with Cezar Chavez to help secure decent working conditions for farm workers, he’s credited with creating the successful grassroots organizing model and training for Barack Obama’s winning presidential campaign in 2008.
Once again, thanks to the BBC’s talented Andrew Luck-Baker who did a herculean job editing my original draft, and thanks also to the experts who were so generous with their time: Dan Fessler, Larry Diamond, Rachel Kleinfeld and Marshall Ganz. I look forward to sharing more of Marshall’s insights with you next month.
And I’d like to give the last word to Amanda Gorman, because as she reminded us in her recent interview with Michelle Obama, “I am not lightning that strikes once. I am the hurricane that comes every single year, and you can expect to see me again soon.”
Just in case you need reminding, here’s our call to action from Amanda Gorman:
“When day comes we step out of the shade, aflame and unafraid, the new dawn blooms as we free it. For there is always light, if only we’re brave enough to see it. If only we’re brave enough to be it.”
This month, the modern space race is really firing up. Three of the world’s most exciting entrepreneurs are vying for supremacy in space exploration: Elon Musk of SpaceX, Jeff Bezos of Blue Origin and Richard Branson of Virgin Galactic.
Last week, I joined Rob Young on the BBC World Service to explore: who’s most likely to win today’s space race; and what’s motivating them?
Richard Branson is focused on taking tourists into space. His Virgin Galactic company offers sub-orbital space flight for a cool $250,000 a ticket. He plans to be one of Virgin’s first “citizen astronauts” later this year.
Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos have much more ambitious goals – to establish colonies in space. But that’s where their missions diverge: Bezos wants to create a colony on the moon and on multiple giant space stations orbiting the Earth. He just released detailed plans for Blue Origin’s “Lunar Lander.”
“We will go back to the moon,” Bezos says, “This time to stay!”
But Musk has even loftier goals. He famously told me, “I want to die on Mars, just not on impact!”
Musk envisions a thriving colony on Mars. To fund that mission, he has created a booming SpaceX business, launching private satellites into space, as well as offering rocket-courier service to the International Space Station. But Musk is also vying for a slice of the Trillion dollar internet connection business.
This month, SpaceX’s plans to launch its first 60 satellites in the Starlink mission to bring fast internet connection to billions of the world’s unserved population. Bullish as ever, Musk’s ultimate plan is for 12,000 satellites in low earth orbit.
Rival, OneWeb, backed by Richard Branson has more modest plans for a 600 satellite constellation. The race is on!
The BBC’s Rob Young started by asking my fellow guest, Liz Gwynn, Prime 7 TV Anchor (from Wagga Wagga, Australia) if she’d take up Richard Branson’s invitation to go for a ride on Virgin Galactic’s VSS Unity. Her answer made me chuckle!
Here’s a transcript of some of our conversation:
Rob Young: Which of the billionaires will win this space race?
Alison van Diggelen: I’d put money on Elon Musk. He’s defied naysayers time and time again. His company – SpaceX – has pioneered reusable rockets which has driven down the cost by a factor of four.
This summer, they plan to be the first private company to launch astronauts to the International Space Station. Previously, it’s just been superpowers.
Rob Young: Is it a serious business, or just bragging rights?
Alison van Diggelen: Elon Musk has had a lifetime ambition. He’s famously said: I want to die on Mars. Just not on impact!
He’s doing it for the adventure, but also as an inspirational objective, and something that can make humans a multi-planetary species. It’s a big dream, a big vision.
***
Find out more
Our BBC conversation moved on to Clean Energy and California’s ambitious goals to decarbonize its energy sources. Listen to the BBC World Service @42:30 when we discuss Governor Gavin Newsom and his bold stance on clean energy.
The “voice of God” A.K.A. Morgan Freeman came to Silicon Valley this month, with an entourage of stars – including Alicia Keys, Jeremy Irons, Sienna Miller, Dev Patel and Vin Diesel – to add some glitz to the tech community’s “Nobel Prize 2.0.” Silicon Valley is not content to impact our lives through driverless cars, tech gadgets and apps; it wants to change the status of scientists too.
Let’s face it, the Nobel Prize is prestigious but the ceremony itself is rather staid and uninspiring. Just days before this year’s Nobel Prize Ceremony in Stockholm, Silicon Valley hosted its own version, called the “Breakthrough Prize.” They gave huge prizes: $3 Million/each (double that of the Nobel Prize) for math and science breakthroughs that they say will change the world. Organizers hope to inspire a new generation of scientists with two disruptive features: big Junior Challenge prizes ($250,000) for young students in math and science; and the “star power” the celebrities bring to the event. Over 6000 teenagers from around the world were inspired to take part and two young students won this year for their remarkable contributions: Deanna See from Singapore and Antonella Masini from Peru (see below). Now in its fifth year, the prize is funded by Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Google’s Sergey Brin, 23andme’s Anne Wojcicki and DST Global’s Yuri Milner.
I talked with Jeremy Irons, Sal Khan, and Vin Diesel about why the glitz matters; the power of technology to change the world; and if they have a message for President Elect, Donald Trump. Vin Diesel had an interesting take on the issue of fake news (see below). Check back soon for my report on Jeremy Irons and California’s Lieutenant Governor, Gavin Newsom’s advice to Trump.
My tech focused report aired on the BBC World Service’s Click Radio on Tuesday. The podcast is available at BBC Click. Here’s a transcript of the report, edited for length and clarity:
Mark Zuckerberg began by explaining the link between science and tech, as he and movie star Vin Diesel presented one of the prizes.
Mark Zuckerberg: Engineers and scientists share this basic mindset that you can take any system, understand it better, then make it much much better than it is today. Scientists look at a problem, break it down, break it into smaller problems, solve, test your ideas, learn from the results, and iterate until you find a better solution. That’s why progress in science is so fast… You might even call it Fast and Furious.
Movie star Vin Diesel – well known from the Fast and Furious film series – told me he wants to highlight heroism of scientists, something we often overlook in pop culture.
Vin Diesel: I have great faith in my friend Mark Zuckerberg who so brilliantly created this global forum for all of us to communicate and to share ideas, namely Facebook. It has allowed the potential for great change.
Alison van Diggelen: But it’s also allowed the propagation of fake news?
Vin Diesel: I think the internet has allowed for the propagation of fake news, but no more so than the writers in the 50s…the world war, the end of the world, the martians coming down.* This was before the internet, before FB. This was journalists. As long as journalism has existed there’s always been the temptation for clickbait.
Alison van Diggelen: I think he’s referring here* to the “War of the Worlds” radio drama, based on HG Wells book of the same name, which first aired in 1938.
This year over 6000 high school students from around the world competed for the quarter of a million dollar “Junior Challenge” Award, and two made it to the red carpet in Silicon Valley. Deanna See and Antonella Masini told me they were inspired by Sal Khan, founder of Khan Academy, the free online math and computer science video series.
Sal Khan was jubilant on the red carpet:
Sal Khan: This is the third year we’ve been and we look forward to it. It’s the celebration that science has always deserved…and the food is good.
Alison van Diggelen: why does science deserve this big occasion? It’s been compared to the Nobel prize “with glitz” Why is the glitz important?
Sal Khan: The things that these folks have done are going to change civilization …that’s not an overstatement, it’s an understatement. The glitz is the least it deserves. Also it should inspire a whole new generation of folks to realize that it isn’t an unsung profession, it’s something that no only can change the world, but that we all appreciate, which we do.
What are his ambitions for Silicon Valley’s Khan Academy?
Sal Khan: There’s a long way to go. We kind of imagine a world in the next 10-15 years where anyone on the planet should be able to self educate themselves with a smartphone and prove what they know and get a job…But ideally they have access to a classroom that can be used by teachers, administrators to supercharge what goes on…A lot more personalization. And a lot more enjoyment from a student’s point of view.
Alison van Diggelen: After the ceremony, I spoke with Anton Wahlman, a Silicon Valley tech analyst who commented on the awards’ relatively low profile, even here in Silicon Valley.
He’s rather cynical of the Breakthrough Prize and draws parallels with the lavish parties hosted by billionaires in New York’s financial sector and Hollywood’s film industry.
Anton Wahlman: The new very rich entrepreneurs in SV who are worth not just billions, but in some cases tens of billions of dollars. It shouldn’t be all that surprising that they should want to start doing some of the things that these other people in NY and LA have been doing for the better part of the last century: throw really big parties, award prizes to people, have people come up and flatter them and tell them how wonderful they are and how philanthropic they are. They get a reason to dress up in a tux as opposed to walking around in a hoodie and be photographed with people who come in from Hollywood… and to be seen in a different light than their regular nerdish Monday to Friday environment would typically depict.
Check back soon for my report outlining Jeremy Irons and Gavin Newsom’s advice for Donald Trump.
Last night, I had the pleasure of meeting the talented and influential author, Michael Lewis. You probably know he wrote Moneyball, The Big Short and The Blind Side and has been compared favorably to literary genius, Tom Wolfe. Lewis revealed that he’s almost finished a prequel to his huge bestseller, Moneyball and it will be published in December 2016. Although his publishing schedule precluded him from accepting an in-depth interview with me last night, he did agree to one in December. So, not a strike out, just a delay in play.
Details of the prequel are under tight wraps, but I did learn this: it’s been eight years in the making, and he’s completed about 45,000 words (about 150 pages). He’ll send his trusty editor at Norton the remaining chunks every six weeks and is on schedule for a September completion. He says “once it’s on track, it’s like a freight train.”
The topic? It’s about sports (possibly just football) and analyzes the distribution of pay across teams. As with most of his books, it’s a character driven story, featuring people who surprised him and are in a situation that forces them to reveal their true character. The only other clue he shared was that he had access to the “brain trust” of the San Francisco 49ers.
On The Big Short Movie: Lewis described it as “a relief” to see how good the movie was and praised the talent and craftsmanship of the production team. He called out Christian Bale for his exceptional performance as Michael Burry, the Silicon Valley financial whiz, whose character “led us through the jungle of complexity.” Lewis explained that Bale spent a day with Burry and was able to channel his breathing and his awkward mannerisms with incredible accuracy throughout the movie.
Lewis also praised the straight to camera moments, especially Margot Robbie in the bathtub and lamented the production limitations of being a mere writer. He didn’t feel ownership of the movie as he’d sold the rights, and didn’t sit on the set since he considered it “a pointless exercise.” He was, however, involved in promoting the movie with the cast and says they’re really “not that good looking,” with the exception of (gorgeous) Brad Pitt. In Lewis’s opinion, their star appeal is more to do with their force of personality and talent. He added, “I’m not a good judge of male beauty.” That got a huge laugh from the audience.
On Politics: Lewis considers Donald Trump a bully and that the race would now be between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, if Trump hadn’t bullied him so hard during the early Republican debates. He thinks that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders wouldn’t be candidates today without the financial crisis of 2008 and mass outrage that followed, with the widespread feeling that the financial system is rigged. He asks: “Is this the beginning of something or the end of something?”
It’s a very good question indeed. He even alluded to a dystopian future where fame rules supreme and the Kardashians become viable leaders of the modern world. A true horror indeed.
Lewis doesn’t like to make predictions, but when pushed, he admits that he thinks Trump will get the Republican nomination and he’ll lose spectacularly to Hillary because “he does dumb things.”
On the Panama Papers: Lewis thinks the biggest leak of the century won’t have big reverberations in the US. He added, “You can go to Delaware to hide money…wait for the Delaware Papers!”
On Upcoming Projects: Lewis isworking on a screenplay pilot re Wall Street in the 20’s; a book on President Obama that explores how leaders make decisions (based on the fabulously insightful Vanity Fair profile); and a book for kids about money: how to make it, use it, and the “social power of money.”
Do check back here in December for my interview with Michael Lewis!
Many thanks to Celebrity Forum founder, Dick Henning for the kind invitation backstage.
This week, Steve Jobs, the movie directed by Danny Boyle and written by Aaron Sorkin, will be released. How will it impact Jobs’ legacy?
Several Steve Jobs allies say the movie portrays him as cruel and inhumane and tried to stop its production. Chrisann Brennan, the mother of Lisa, his first child, witnessed that cruelty. She was marginalized and neglected by Jobs for many years. Last month, she joined me for an intimate Fresh Dialogues interview to share her perspective.
Despite the hardships she endured, Brennan has enormous respect and even forgiveness for Jobs. She says her memoir’s universal message is about the plight of single women and she’d like to see the business world be more family-friendly.
Fergus Nicoll: Whenever a biopic comes out, especially when its subject is not long gone, you better believe there is going to be a noise from those screaming about “Mount Rushmore scale hype” and a counter noise from those complaining that a genius has been traduced. So get ready everybody for Jobs, the Dannie Boyle movie with Michael Fassbender as Steve Jobs, scheduled for November (US release is Oct 9th).
I’ll toss the ball to Alison, because I know you’ve been talking to somebody with a personal interest in this story – that’s an understatement. Tell us first about expectations for the movie.
van Diggelen: It was shown at the Telluride Film Festival to rave reviews. But I did read a Guardian review that said that you have to be an Apple fan to really enjoy it. So take the reviews with a pinch of salt.
I had the opportunity to interview Chrisann Brennan, Steve Jobs’ first love and the mother of his child Lisa Brennan Jobs…they met in high school in 1972 and they had a very passionate affair. She got pregnant and he denied the paternity and she had a very rough life. He was very miserly about looking after her. She talked to me at length about this very painful time in her life and how he treated her, and yet she does respect him in her way.
Chrisann Brennan: I was interviewed for five hours, they told me I was the emotional heart of that movie. I don’t want to judge Steve because he did what he did, it was fabulous… I like the fact that the (movie) spectrum shows we are different people now. We value different things. We will expose these things because we want to have a dialogue in the world about the whole picture…not just the ‘Mount Rushmore picture’ of people who do well.
Alison van Diggelen: So you can contribute that fully faceted perspective?
Chrisann Brennan: Yes, I do feel that.
Alison van Diggelen: You said “I don’t want to paint me as the victim, and Steve as the villain.” Is there an alternate way you’d like to frame it?
Chrisann Brennan: That will continue to evolve. I survived it…I have more than survived it…I survived him…
Alison van Diggelen: And do you feel that is a victory right there?
Chrisann Brennan: I feel it says if you hold onto the truth, it actually starts to amount to something.
Alison van Diggelen: Is there anything you wish you’d done differently?
Chrisann Brennan: Oh, yeah…but I couldn’t have. When I was living with Steve and he was showing me his poetry, I really wish I’d taken it to heart more deeply.
Chrisann Brennan: Mm hmm. When I grew up enough to be an adult and understand that 17-year-old, I felt oh. There’s just so much. If we had a chance to talk now, it’d be great…
Alison van Diggelen: What would you ask him?
Chrisann Brennan: I think I would just express some kind of love…
Alison van Diggelen: You would tell him you loved him?
Chrisann Brennan: In some form…
Alison van Diggelen: That’s beautiful…
One last question: what do you feel was Steve’s greatest legacy?
Chrisann Brennan: Yes, he made a technological device that freed people up…but mainly the message is to be who you are. Now a lot of people are running around trying to be like Steve Jobs. They miss the point…it is to individuate enough, to understand what you need to go out and do. He was just a fabulous example of it in so many ways.
Fergus Nicoll: Well that seems, Alison, like an amazingly forgiving person… From what I’ve seen of the movie, this is very much part of the story of the movie. There are some explosive scenes related to this. But it’s always difficult…there have been massive tomes about Steve Jobs, some have been less revelatory than some hoped for, but (Jobs is) a man who appears to tower over Silicon Valley, even in his absence?
Alison van Diggelen: He’s absolutely idolized here and around the world, and in fact a documentary just came out here in the United States: Alex Gibney’s documentary Steve Jobs, the Man in the Machine. Chrisann was interviewed for five hours for that and she talks at length about just how cruel he was to her and yet, she is incredibly forgiving. She has respect for what he’s done, his visionary powers, but she does describe herself as “a modern day Mary Magdalene…Steve saw himself as a Christ figure,” that’s what she wrote to me this week.
Fergus Nicoll: That’s a pretty powerful image…I’m always amazed that we expect the visionary leaders in tech, in industry, in politics to be good guys. Why should that be necessary?
Alison van Diggelen: Well, I think that’s the ideal. What concerns me about the idolization, almost canonization of Steve Jobs, is the fact that young people might think of him as the perfect role model…i.e. the more “jerk-like” they are, the better. And I think that’s a very dangerous role model. I think it’s important that people like Chrisann Brennan speak up to show the contradictions in his life. She wants to get out this universal message about the plight of single mothers and how Steve Jobs made her peripheral, almost invisible and it plays into this bigger question of business attitudes to families and what are our values?
Fergus Nicoll: Alison, who’s the equivalent now…And are there woman poised to achieve such dominance in Silicon Valley?
Alison van Diggelen: The first person who comes to mind is Elon Musk…Females that I would cite are Marissa Mayer, Sheryl Sandberg.
And of course there’s Bill Gates. He’s probably going to be canonized for the second half of his career as a philanthropist, not a tech guy.
Fergus Nicoll: There’s a parallel there with Jimmy Carter, the most famous ex-president probably because of what he’s done…and Bill Gates has done the same: an extraordinary first career and then this amazing philanthropic career with his wife Malinda and their many campaigns….
Do you buy that Silicon Valley is a counterpoint to Wall Street (making giving money away popular)?
Alison van Diggelen: I’m delighted to hear that the message is getting out about the generosity of people in Silicon Valley. It’s so easy to point fingers and say that the wealth isn’t being shared. It is, but I’d say, probably not enough.
On the question of behavior of CEOs, there is growing transparency, thanks to social media, 24/7 news coverage. CEOs can’t get away with what they used to. Steve Jobs, if he was doing what he did to Chrisann Brennan today – denying paternity and saying 10% of the (male) US population could be the father of this child – he just wouldn’t get away with that today. The evidence would be there.
Fergus Nicoll: Alison, thanks so much for bringing in the interview for us on the Steve Jobs story.
Alison van Diggelen: My pleasure indeed. Thank you.
Chrisann Brennan has been described as the “emotional heart” of Alex Gibney’s new film, Steve Jobs: The Man in the Machine. She came to the Fresh Dialogues studio for an intimate conversation about her relationship with Steve Jobs and their child, Lisa Brennan-Jobs. In this video clip, we discuss why, despite being burned by other journalists, she chose to take part in Alex Gibney’s documentary. She also shares her unique perspective on why the whole truth matters. As Andrew Ross Sorkin explores, Steve Jobs can be both hero and villain.
Here’s the transcript of our conversation (edited for length and clarity):
Alison van Diggelen: What are you hoping to achieve by contributing so fully in the documentary (Steve Jobs: The Man in the Machine)?
Chrisann Brennan: When they first approached me, they said Alex Gibney did not manipulate content and in the spirit of what I intended, he would uphold that. I’ve had a lot of experience, because of Steve, where people…run on their own agenda…but I found that Alex Gibney did uphold what I said.
Alison van Diggelen: What message are you hoping to get over?
Chrisann Brennan: I don’t want to judge Steve because he did what he did, it was fabulous…but I like the fact that the (movie) spectrum shows we are different people now. We value different things. We will expose these things because we want to have a dialogue in the world about the whole picture…not just the ‘Mount Rushmore picture’ of people who do well.
Alison van Diggelen: So you can contribute that fully faceted perspective?
Chrisann Brennan: Yes, I do feel that.
Alison van Diggelen: You said “I don’t want to paint me as the victim, and Steve as the villain.” Is there an alternate way you’d like to frame it?
Chrisann Brennan: That will continue to evolve. I survived it…I have more than survived it…I survived him…
Alison van Diggelen: And do you feel that is a victory right there?
Chrisann Brennan: I feel it says if you hold onto the truth, it actually starts to amount to something. This was twisted love…we would have done better if we could have.
Alison van Diggelen: Is there anything you wish you’d done differently?
Chrisann Brennan: Oh, yeah…but I couldn’t have. When I was living with Steve and he was showing me his poetry, I really wish I’d taken it to heart more deeply.
Bite in the Apple – Chrisann Brennan and daughter Lisa Brennan-Jobs — Steve Jobs – from book from PR/author
Chrisann Brennan: Mm hmm. When I grew up enough to be an adult and understand that 17-year-old, I felt ohhhh. There’s just so much. If we had a chance to talk now, it’d be great…
Alison van Diggelen: What would you ask him?
Chrisann Brennan: I think I would just express some kind of love…
Alison van Diggelen: You would tell him you loved him?
Chrisann Brennan: In some form…
Alison van Diggelen: That’s beautiful…Now I want to find that passage…(that shows) the side of Steve that is not well known: this goofiness.
Chrisann Brennan: (Reading from her memoir, The Bite in the Apple) Running into the kitchen one day, he took the phone off the hook, pressed the # key and told me he’d just blown up the world! (laughter)
Alison van Diggelen: It’s very powerful…
One last question: what do you feel was Steve’s greatest legacy?
Chrisann Brennan: He showed people how to free themselves up…how to be who they were. Yes, he made a technological device…but mainly the message is to be who you are. Now a lot of people are running around trying to be like Steve Jobs. They miss the point…it is to individuate, to understand what you need to go out and do. He was such a fabulous example of it in so many ways.
Alison van Diggelen: Chrisann Brennan, thank you so much.
***
Read more at Fresh Dialogues about Brennan’s perspective: “I am a modern Mary Magdalene, the truth of who I am was blacked out. Steve fancied himself a Christ figure…”
Mark Zuckerberg: Engineers and scientists share this basic mindset that you can take any system, understand it better, then make it much much better than it is today. Scientists look at a problem, break it down, break it into smaller problems, solve, test your ideas, learn from the results, and iterate until you find a better solution. That’s why progress in science is so fast… You might even call it Fast and Furious.
Sal Khan was jubilant on the red carpet:
On Politics: Lewis considers Donald Trump a bully and that the race would now be between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, if Trump hadn’t bullied him so hard during the early Republican debates. He thinks that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders wouldn’t be candidates today without the financial crisis of 2008 and mass outrage that followed, with the widespread feeling that the financial system is rigged. He asks: “Is this the beginning of something or the end of something?”
