Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Ynet Columnist and Columbia School of International and Public Affairs Adjunct Professor Nadav Eyal; Interview with Eurasia Group Managing Director for Middle East and North Africa Firas Maksad; Interview with The New York Times Chief Africa Correspondent Declan Walsh; Interview with Sudanese Political Analyst Kholood Khair; Interview with The New York Times Reporter Sheera Frenkel. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired September 16, 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]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
As Israel's ground offensive in Gaza begins, a U.N. inquiry alleges the country is committing genocide. We have the details.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): It's a difficult situation. No medical treatment, no food. People are suffering a lot in Al-Fajr.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- Sudan's spiraling civil war. I ask regional reporter Declan Walsh and Sudanese analyst Kholoud Heir about the desperate choices people
are facing there.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SHEERA FRENKEL, REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: It's going to spread everywhere. People are going to share it. People are going to watch it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- a murder watched by millions. In the wake of Charlie Kirk's shooting, New York Times reporter Sheera Frankel tells Hari Sreenivasan why
violent videos go viral.
Plus, the passing of a Hollywood legend. We revisit Christiane's 2018 conversation with the late Robert Redford.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Israel's long-threatened ground offensive into Gaza City has begun. More than 100 Palestinians have been killed across the enclave in less than 24
hours, that is according to local health authorities. Shaken by an intense night of airstrikes, many residents are now carrying what remains of their
belongings as they attempt to flee further south. It comes as a United Nations independent inquiry has concluded for the first time that Israel
has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. The Israeli government rejects the findings, maintaining that it's acting in self-defense against
Hamas.
But in the face of global anger, Prime Minister Netanyahu admitted that the nation is sliding into isolation on the global world stage, an isolation
that could worsen as he presses on with a ground incursion that put 1 million Palestinians at risk.
Israeli journalist Nadav Eyal joins me now from New York. Nadav, you call this the most controversial operation in the history of the IDF. The
military brass and leadership in their opposition that perhaps had been vocal behind closed doors had now been made public. Even today, the IDF
spokesperson said the IDF chief of staff, Eyal Zamir, has responsibility to speak the truth amid his opposition to the Gaza City offensive. How unusual
is this division given that this operation now is ongoing?
NADAV EYAL, COLUMNIST, YNET AND ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, COLUMBIA SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Look, Bianna, this is not unusual for
Israel's military brass to show their concerns or even debate the government. They don't do this usually on the record. And they're not doing
this on the record right now.
But what they are doing, which is very unusual, is voicing their concerns again, again, and again. You know, the chief of staff, besides standing in
the main square in Tel Aviv and basically making a speech against this operation in Gaza has basically done everything in his power, spoken with
members of Knesset and the relevant committees, spoken with the cabinet several times. And it's definitely not the recommendation of the IDF to go
through with this operation in Gaza.
The IDF in Israel, the army in Israel, of course, is under the government. And the dictate comes from the government. So, they are doing that. But
they're also voicing their concerns mainly for the hostages, but not only for the hostages.
GOLODRYGA: You mentioned the hostages. Noa Argamani, who was one of the hostages rescued last summer, just posted on X, something that I want to
read for you and our viewers. I cannot breathe watching the fighting inside Gaza City. As a former hostage, I know exactly what these moments feel
like, the booming blast, the gunfire, the walls shaking, the helplessness and despair that take over. The emotions come rushing back all at once, and
it is unbearable. And she speaks not only as a survivor and former hostage. Her boyfriend also remains held hostage in Gaza, one of 48 there.
We heard from President Trump today, once again, threatening Hamas that there will be severe consequences if they use hostages as human shields, as
so many are worried as this operation is unfolding. Talk about the risk to these hostages and the concern among the Israeli public about that.
[13:05:00]
EYAL: So, the Israeli public again and again, according to the polls that we're seeing, and I don't know if any polls that say differently, say that
the return of the hostages is the most important thing. And even if they are asked to prioritize, this is their first priority. And in terms of what
the defense apparatus is telling the government, they're saying that in such an operation, there are chances, and unfortunately good chances, that
hostages will be hurt, will be used by Hamas.
Families of hostages have said to the Israeli media that hostages have been moved to Gaza by Hamas to serve as human shields in Gaza. And of course, as
you said, Bianna, we've heard President Trump reacting to that, threatening Hamas not to do so.
But one can only imagine, and not grasp, the feeling of the hostage families right now. Their loved ones have been tortured in these dungeons
of Hamas for two years. There's a possibility for a deal on the table, and they're seeing this operation in Gaza. And this is why this operation in
Gaza is so controversial within the Israeli public, although I need to stress that it's not controversial, that, it's first and foremost, the
responsibility of Hamas to make sure that these people are returned back home. And Israelis are not blaming their own governments, according to the
same polls, with this war. They are still blaming Hamas.
GOLODRYGA: No, of course. And these threats, though, from President Trump publicly against Hamas, one has to question how effective they will be,
because obviously Hamas has stood by for nearly two years and watched how many of their own civilians have been slaughtered as well, and still
deciding it's not time to end the war.
Prime Minister Netanyahu said that there would be additional routes open to enable faster aid to get in for the civilians in Gaza. Notable that he
didn't mention the hostages in the last few minutes as one of the stated goals.
I do want to get your reaction to this U.N. commission report that officially accuses Israel of genocide. That is the harshest accusation yet.
Israel has called this false and fake. Here's what one of the panel's leaders said to CNN earlier today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NAVI PILLAY, CHAIR, U.N. INDEPENDENT INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY: I expect them to challenge our factual findings in that way. Instead of
that, they make personal attacks. They are now repeating what has been said about us from the time we issued the first report. I've only been labeled
anti-Semitic by these lobby groups when I became chair of this commission. I was never called anti-Semitic for the six years that I was high
commissioner for human rights, in which six years' time I was invited by the government of Israel to conduct a mission in Israel because they said
that I exercised balance in the way I reported.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So, as noted, Nadav, Israel dismissed this, called this fake, continues to say we have the support of the United States and essentially,
that's all that matters. But what does a report like do -- like this do to Israel's global standing outside of the United States? Because obviously
it's been isolated and been condemned by a number of other countries for its war, including by countries that have been traditional allies.
EYAL: So, I do think that the Israelis or the Israeli government for now is denying the isolation that Israel is facing in many corners of the earth
right now. And Prime Minister Netanyahu has said that only yesterday, he spoke about some sort of isolation. He was blaming China and Qatar for
trying to demonstrate this kind of a campaign against Israel. And this report is just another brick in that.
Now, the report, as far as Israel is concerned, is completely discredited. Even in the Israeli opposition, you won't find people who are going to
follow this kind of a report and these kind of experts or so-called experts that are part of the U.N. We all know what's the record of the U.N., for
instance, Human Rights Council.
But at the end of the day, there are results in the ground for the Israeli economy, for Israel's presence on the global arena. And again, even Prime
Minister Netanyahu, who's spoken yesterday about Israel as being both Athens and a super Sparta, so-called super Sparta, understands that this
means something in Israeli politics. This means something in this election year. And it's an election year in Israel, Israelis don't like to hear this
kind of prophecies of doom. And they do not want to be a pariah state, the sort that they're labeled right now by some countries or some circles in
the world. And that could have an aftershock in Israeli politics.
[13:10:00]
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And the market as well, there was a significant sell-off following today, following those comments yesterday after the market had
closed at the time. Let's play that sound for our viewers. Highly unusual.
EYAL: Completely erased, Biana. I need to say that it was completely --
GOLODRYGA: Is it back? Has it recovered?
EYAL: Yes. Completely erased and recovered in the same day.
GOLODRYGA: Highly unusual for a prime minister to say the country needs to lean into autarky now, given how much pride he took in being at one point.
The country's finance minister, reviving the economy, turning it into a start-up nation, then leading to these words yesterday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER (through translator): We will increasingly have to adapt, in some respects, to an economy that has
autarkic characteristics. We are Athens and Sparta, but we are going to be Athens and super Sparta. We have no choice, at least in the coming years,
in which we will be required to face these isolation attempts. We will first and foremost need to develop our capabilities to defend ourselves and
attack our enemies.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Is this kind of language about survival from this prime minister politically, or is this his attempt to rally a beleaguered nation
nearly two years into a war?
EYAL: Well, first of all, it's mainly a political mistake by the prime minister. He acknowledges it, and that's the reason that he had a
clarification to the Israeli public, and he's going to have a press conference in a few hours from now, Bianna, trying to clarify it to the
Israeli public.
He was talking specifically about military industry, or this is at least the way that he's, you know, trying to radiate right now, trying to spin
this right now. I think that at the end of the day, even Netanyahu, seeing what's happening globally to Israel's position in the world, needs to start
talking about it. He needs to start giving answers, and the answer that he attempted to give yesterday about a super Sparta was not accepted well, not
only by the opposition, but generally by the political sphere.
It was a general agreement that if this is the direction, if this is what he's going to sell to the Israeli public, the Israeli public isn't going to
buy. And because of that, he's trying to somehow change and have some damage control, internationally speaking and also domestically. But the
facts are there, and the facts are that the continuous war in Gaza is causing massive damages to the Israeli position in the world, and some
argue within the cabinet room, senior ministers who have told that to the prime minister, that whatever Israel gets in Gaza, it will not equal the
type of damages done to its international legitimacy right now. These are not my words, these are words quoted by the Israeli media to senior
ministers in Netanyahu's cabinet.
GOLODRYGA: And some of these messages come from ministers after they have traveled abroad, specifically to the United States, and expressed what they
have heard from some of their colleagues here as well about how quickly this war needs to come to an end. Nadav Eyal, thank you so much for joining
us.
EYAL: Thank you, Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: Well, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is making a short visit to Qatar, tasked with convincing the nation to continue playing a
role in ceasefire talks just one week after Israel's strike in Doha. It comes after Gulf states gathered in the Qatari capital on Monday, calling
on Washington to use its leverage to restrain Israel.
Let's bring in Firas Maksad, managing director for the Middle East and North Africa at the Eurasia Group. Firas, it's good to see you. So, notable
that out of this summit yesterday, some harsh words condemning Israel for their actions, but nothing tangible in terms of perhaps a loosening of
relationships or anything of that sort between Abrahamic accord nations and other countries that have alliances with the Israelis. What do you make of
the response? Was it weaker than expected?
FIRAS MAKSAD, MANAGING DIRECTOR FOR MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA, EURASIA GROUP: Well, I'll be on a couple of things here. First, I think the
Qataris in particular, but the GCC states more broadly, are very cognizant of the fact that they need not undermine their relationship with the United
States. In their mind, perhaps a key objective of that Israeli attack against Doha, which we now know because of reporting and multiple citing
that President Trump and others in the administration in Washington, D.C. did get a heads up, did have an opportunity to stop an attack by an
American ally against another American ally, but did not. There's a recognition that an undermining of that Arab-American relationship would be
to the benefit of Bibi Netanyahu and Israel.
[13:15:00]
So, very key, those who met in Doha, not to have that come out and play out in the interest of Israel. It puts them in a difficult position, because on
one hand, they're doubting that iron-clad American commitment to their security, one that costs them billions of dollars, billions every year, I
should say, and certainly on the back end of a momentous visit by President Trump, his first during his second term, to that region where he was in
Qatar, but also in the UAE and Saudi Arabia. So, that's one thing that they were very much weighing in their mind.
They did come out, although, with a statement in which they called on these countries that do have a relationship with Israel, the UAE being one of
them, Bahrain, Morocco, that key achievement of President Trump in his first term, the Abrahamic Accords, did communicate, did call on them to
reconsider those relationships with Israel.
These countries are going to be hard-pressed. My sense is that the Abrahamic Accord will bend. It will not break, not just yet. However, if
Israel does cross the tripwire of annexing West Bank territory, that might be the death knell in the Abrahamic Accords, which are right now hanging by
a string.
GOLODRYGA: And that is what some members of the prime minister's cabinet have threatened to do if, in fact, some of these European nations do as
they pledged and recognize a Palestinian State next week here at the United Nations General Assembly in the UAE, for one, has said that would be
crossing a red line. We'll continue to follow that narrative.
In terms of this new operation in Gaza City, how does this affect how Arab nations are viewing the strength or weakness of Hamas' hand at this point?
Israel had threatened just this a few weeks ago in preparation and hopefully tightening the screws and pressure on Hamas to release the
hostages and end the war. That hasn't happened. So, what position does Hamas find itself in?
MAKSAD: Well, first, it's very important to point out that there's no love lost for Hamas in any of these capitals. Most of these Arab partners of the
United States have designated Hamas as a terrorist organization. Many of them have outright condemned the October 7th attacks. And so, their
criticism of Israel and what Israel is doing and about to do in Gaza City doesn't mean anything in terms of potential affection for Hamas, far from
it.
And everybody recognizes that Hamas has miscalculated time and again. But first, there's the October 7th, which has precipitated a disaster for the
Palestinian people. But then, when they came back around and they accepted the so-called Witkoff proposal, that American proposal for a temporary
ceasefire, they accepted it too late. And they gave Benjamin Netanyahu the opportunity to brush it aside. And as we saw with that attack on the
negotiators in Qatar, they very -- he very much killed any attempt at a ceasefire through negotiations and then wanted to commence with that
offensive in Gaza.
But where the Arabs are focused is the diplomatic fight. And that's why we are leading up to one hell of a diplomatic showdown next week, next Monday
in New York, on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly, that conference for the recognition of a Palestinian State and support for a two-state
solution. And what this announced offensive in Gaza is going to do is going to turbocharge that diplomatic showdown next week, in which many of
Israel's traditional Western and European allies, countries from around the world, are going to stand up in support for the two-state solutions and the
Palestinians, together with many of the Arab nations that would be pushing for it.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, all coming ahead, really a split screen tomorrow, what's going to be happening here at the United Nations General Assembly in New
York, and obviously what happens with the offensive in Gaza City. We heard from Secretary of State Rubio really expressing a lack of optimism at this
point of a deal happening within the next few days or weeks. He said it's just down to that for a ceasefire hostage deal in the midst of this ongoing
offensive there.
What are you hearing from Arab mediators? Do they think there is still an opportunity for a deal?
MAKSAD: Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case, not anytime soon. It's important to point out that there is tension there and there's a
difference in timelines and time horizons between what the U.S. is saying, what President Trump is telling and telegraphing to Netanyahu. If you're
going to do this, go ahead, get it done and get it done quickly.
Netanyahu and some of those close to him in his circle are saying this will take at least until the end of the year to get this complicated and messy
military operation in Gaza City done with. Even then, the fighting will probably go on. There is a no-knockout blow to delivered Hamas. There are
the central camps in Gaza. There are other places. And Israel is trying to play a game of whack-a-mole in Gaza. And we've seen time and again when
they take over an area, we see Hamas mushroom and come out in another area. So, the timelines are different here. And I think Bibi Netanyahu is
vulnerable in terms of his relationship with Donald Trump because of that.
[13:20:00]
GOLODRYGA: Yes. In some are even saying that at the end of the war, by the end of the year, at this point, maybe a bit too much optimism expressed.
Hopefully that is wrong and it can come to an end much sooner. Firas Maksad, thank you so much for joining us. Good to see you.
MAKSAD: My pleasure.
GOLODRYGA: And do say with CNN, we'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Now, trapped, under attack and with little to eat but animal feed. This is the reality of life for at least 260,000 people in the
Sudanese city of Al Fashir, that's according to a new report in the New York Times. The capital of North Darfur is one of the worst battlegrounds
in the war between the Sudanese army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces. U.N. convoys have been unable to deliver food to the city, facing
drone attacks when they try. This is just one chapter in a two-year conflict that has seen millions of people displaced, tens of thousands
killed and a famine declared.
Let's bring in Declan Walsh, chief Africa correspondent for the New York Times, and Kholood Khair, a Sudanese political analyst. Welcome, both of
you.
Declan, let me start with you. You spoke with residents of that besieged city in Al Fashir. What are they telling you about what daily life is like
for them and the extremes that they are having to go through just for survival?
DECLAN WALSH, CHIEF AFRICA CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Tales of desperation and heartbreak, Bianna. The people that we reached on this sort
of handful of satellite phone connections that are still operating in the city explained to us, first and foremost, the daily struggle to find food.
What little food is available in the markets costs 10 or 15 times more. Many people now have been reduced, as you said, to eating animal feed,
including malnourished children in the last functioning hospital in the city.
It's also a city that people said is under constant bombardment by these paramilitary fighters who have surrounded it for the last 18 months, but
they've stepped up the intensity of that siege in recent weeks. And since last May, they've been constructing a large earthen wall around the
perimeter of the city, and that makes it very hard for people or supplies of food or medicine to go in or out.
So, it's truly a dire situation. They described, as they put it, they face an impossible choice. If they stay in the city, they risk being bombed or
starved. And if they try to leave, they risk being killed by fighters on the perimeter of the city or for particularly for women who escape, the
only safety is down a desert road about 40 miles long, where there have been many, many reports of sexual assault.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. As you've reported, the RSF has encircled the city now with a 20-mile berm. How close is the city from your reporting to collapse?
WALSH: It's very difficult to say. People have been predicting the -- you know, fall of the siege for quite a while now. But what we do know is that,
you know, the shape of the war is changing. Those paramilitaries, the RSF, they held most of the capital Khartoum until last March. They were expelled
from the capital at that point, and now they have really doubled down on the province of Darfur -- sorry, the region of Darfur, where many of them
are from. And Al Fashir is the last obstacle to what would be almost entirely unchallenged control of the Darfur region.
[13:25:00]
So, certainly it seems to be, you know, a priority for them. And the folks that we spoke to said that they have advanced further through the city in
recent weeks. And, you know, leaving the Sudanese military and these allied Darfuri fighters really just controlling now about one quarter of the
city's area.
GOLODRYGA: Kholood, the U.N. calls Sudan the worst humanitarian crisis in the world right now. And I'm going to ask you a question that I've sadly
asked you the previous times, the handful of times we've had you on this very program talking about this very crisis, about this conflict not
getting the headlines and getting the world's attention the way it should be. And I'm going to ask you again, why is that?
KHOLOOD KHAIR, SUDANESE POLITICAL ANALYST: I think I would have to give you the same answer I gave you last time, which is that, you know, frankly
speaking, the world is pretending that it has all these other conflicts in the world that are on its docket, which is true. But frankly speaking, the
world can walk and chew gum at the same time.
This is the world's largest humanitarian crisis. It's also the world's largest hunger crisis. It's also the world's largest displacement crisis,
and it's also the world's largest protection crisis. There is no good reason other than racism, frankly, at this point, that means that Sudan is
not getting the attention it deserves.
GOLODRYGA: There are no good guys in this fight. This isn't a made-for-TV movie that we are watching here. The U.S. has accused RSF of genocide in
Darfur. Sudan's army is also accused of war crimes. Kholood, how do the civilians view these two warring factions?
KHAIR: Well, what the both warring parties are trying to do and have been doing relatively successfully is pull civilians into their camps. I mean,
when this war started, I was in Khartoum. And much of the conversation that dominated the first few weeks of the conflict was, you know, maybe we
should just let them fight it out and let them fight it out somewhere in the middle of the desert, and then we'll deal with whatever shape of the
security sector is left, remembering that both SAF and the RSF are part of the same security sector created by the Bashir government that ruled for 30
years.
But both sides, particularly SAF and RSF, recognized that actually they needed to make it people's problem. And the best and quickest way to do
that is to ethnicize the conflict. And we have seen the result of that. And so, what is also happening simultaneously is that you have these groups on
the ground that are trying to push back against this polarization narrative, trying to push back against the hatred and the ethnicization
that is creating these distinctions and these distinct groups. And that is effectively civil society and local responders, mutual aid groups, et
cetera.
And for those people, they just want the war to stop, but they also want to see the kind of political system in Sudan that stops wars of these kind
happening. In all of Sudan's history, there have only been maybe a decade where Sudan has not been embroiled in war precisely because of its
militarized political system.
GOLODRYGA: Declan, the Sudanese army has accused the UAE of arming, even deploying mercenaries from Latin America to the RSF. The RSF and the UAE
have both denied that. But in terms of intervention here, I'm just curious to get your reaction. Is this having even more of a negative effect in
stopping this war when you're having other countries essentially choose sides?
WALSH: That's right. Yes. I mean, to continue on what Kholood was saying, you know, part of the problem is that so many different -- this war has
become ethnicized within Sudan. But the other factor that's really fueling the war is the involvement of so many foreign countries. You know, you've
got countries like Russia, Iran, Turkey, which have supplied weapons to the Sudanese army. But for the RSF, by far and away, the largest foreign
sponsor is the United Arab Emirates. Our own reporting has confirmed that and so has U.N. reports and indeed many parliament -- sorry, congresspeople
in the U.S.
So, you know, that's just another factor. This is no longer just a fight between two factions or two parts of the security force in Sudan. Now, the
interests of foreign countries are involved as well. And they're bringing money. They're bringing very powerful weapons. We're seeing the deployment
of powerful drones on both sides that are becoming a huge focus of the fight.
And it's -- you know, it's just making it really, really into this intractable conflict that, you know, everybody says does not have a
military solution. And yet, the two sides seem to be determined with this foreign backing to continue, you know, fighting right now in Darfur and in
the neighboring Kordofan region. And unfortunately, it's civilians who are really paying the price.
[13:30:00]
GOLODRYGA: That is an ever-growing statement for any war. But sadly, especially as it relates to this war, it's the civilians that are really
paying the price. The numbers of the death toll, the number of rapes there all underreported because it's so difficult to get any sort of aid groups
on the ground, to get a number, an accurate number on any of this, that these aid groups are also attacked, we know, and many have died as well in
trying to help. Declan Walsh, Kholood Khair, thank you so much for joining the program. We will continue to focus on this crisis as well.
KHAIR: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And we'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Now, just moments after conservative political activist Charlie Kirk was shot, videos of his assassination reached millions across the
globe. This is just one example of the alarming spread of violent content. New York Times reporter Sheera Frankel joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss
this phenomenon and the failure of companies to regulate the issue. And to note, this conversation took place before President Trump filed a
defamation lawsuit against The New York Times.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Bianna, thanks. Sheera Frankel, thanks so much for joining us. Just last week, within moments of
the assassination of Charlie Kirk, we saw videos of that instant gain so many views on different social media platforms. And I guess the first
question is why?
SHEERA FRANKEL, REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: We see this almost every time that there's a violent incident caught on camera. People want to know
what happened. And there's a kind of a morbid fascination to see it for themselves. If the incident happened in public, if there was a moment of
violence that happened in public, you can be sure these days that someone was recording. And those videos seem to take less and less time to find
their way to social media.
SREENIVASAN: You know, this, people opened up their phone and opened and clicked on an app, and then it was just like, there wasn't even a choice.
It was just there in their face. It was automatically playing.
FRANKEL: I think what was so important about what you just said was the word choice. People had to choose to watch this sort of content, even, you
know, 15, 20 years ago, you had to navigate to it, you had to select, you had to make a decision to say, I want to watch something violent, and click
your way through to that even in the earliest days of the internet.
These days, as you said, you just open up a social media app, and it could be Instagram to see what your friends are doing. It could be X, because you
want to check a news bulletin. It could be any of these sites. And these videos autoplay. Almost all the social media sites have put in a function
where automatically when you're using their platform, videos will autoplay. And they do that because it's good for engagement, it's good for their
numbers, it's good for their metrics to have a video just automatically showing in your feed.
Unfortunately, in this case, the video was an incredibly sort of gruesome and bloody view of a man's death, of the moment a person was killed. And
people did not get that choice to say, I want to watch this, or I don't want to watch it, unless you happen to be incredibly quick and navigate
away from it. But at least in my case, I know when I opened up X, I didn't know what I was first watching when the video just -- you know, you saw
Charlie Kirk sitting there, in the next moment you saw his death.
SREENIVASAN: You know, look, you have covered this for a number of years now, and put it -- put this in some perspective for us, the context of
these kinds of videos, especially in social media, how has it evolved over the years? Because this isn't the first and probably won't be the last.
[13:35:00]
FRANKEL: Yes. As a reporter, I've covered this for going on a decade at this point. And in the very early days of really sort of violent videos
making their way to social media, for me, at least my remembrance of that was ISIS. There was a time when the extremist Islamist group that was
trying to conquer Iraq and Syria were posting very, very graphic footage on what was then called Twitter, of beheadings, of shootings, of people being
thrown off buildings.
And a number of social media companies got together, this is about a decade ago and said, we're not going to allow this, we're going to put an end to
it, we're going to stop violent content from spreading on our site, because we don't think that's good and healthy for society. And you heard them very
sort of earnestly say that they were going to do something about this type of content.
In the 10 years since then, I think I've written eight stories about the way that violent footage has spread online after an event, after whether
it's an assassination or a school shooting or some other sort of tragic event. And every single time the social media companies say they're taking
action, and we hear a lot of promises and yet these videos continue to circulate.
SREENIVASAN: So, if they've known about this, if they've made public pledges to do better, is there a way to measure whether or not they are?
Because most of us see another example of a lack of responsibility, that whatever tool that they built, didn't work well enough?
FRANKEL: So, in the cases of some platforms, and here I'm thinking about Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, and Google, which owns YouTube, we
have seen in the days following Charlie Kirk's death a number of labels put on these videos. So, there's a warning for people saying, hey, this is this
is violent content. And some age restriction has been put in place asking that people are over the age of 18 before they watch that.
So, we are seeing, I would say, some incremental steps from some of the companies. I would note, however, that X, which used to be Twitter, has
taken a very different approach, they are not labeling the content. In fact, their owner, Elon Musk, has been sharing a great deal about this
moment. And those videos are very widely available on X, where they autoplay, and I think have been viewed tens of millions of times at this
point.
So, I think people who study the internet look at that and say, it's not enough for just some of the platforms to be doing something. As long as
this lives, one platform that is accessed by billions of people all over the world, it's going to make its way everywhere, it's going to spread
everywhere, people are going to share it, people are going to watch it.
SREENIVASAN: So, how much of this -- I guess, this specific video and its far reach has to do with the politics of the day, and whether or not
platforms want to be seen as censoring content versus letting it run? How much of it has to do with who Charlie Kirk was, specifically?
FRANKEL: It's clear we're living in a deeply polarized moment where people are going to point to this specific tragedy and say, you know, someone was
assassinated, and that's a tragedy. They're going to point to it and say, someone was assassinated. That proves what he had to say, or disproves what
he had to say. Everyone is kind of looking at this event and saying -- drawing a conclusion from it, as it were.
I think that -- again, I look at psychologists, and especially child psychologists, who speak a lot about what watching violent footage does to
our brains. And especially for young people, especially for people who are perhaps not opting to watch this, it could trigger trauma in them, there's
no doubt that psychologists do not think it's good for us to be watching violent content.
And that for the people that are arguing that this furthers a goal, that this furthers an agenda on the right or the left, I think those
psychologists would say that there should be discussion at this point in time, that political assassinations are something we should be really
thinking seriously about as a society, but watching a moment of violence is not really going to advance anyone's agenda.
SREENIVASAN: Have any of these platforms chosen to remove the video outright?
FRANKEL: Some of the platforms, Meta and YouTube, as far as I know, have removed versions of the video, have labeled versions of the video. I think
the ones that I saw that were removed were ones which were manipulated to make the footage even more gruesome. And so, I think I've only seen a
handful that were actually removed. For the most part, they've just labeled them.
SREENIVASAN: I also wonder technologically how feasible that is. I mean, if it's a digital artifact, pretty easy, so to speak, to copy and paste it
and upload it again, right? And I'm sure they probably have better stats on how often or how many variations of that same video are being uploaded.
FRANKEL: Right. I mean, inevitably, whenever one of these moments happens, we hear from social media companies how quickly people uploaded those
videos and how many millions of times those videos were manipulated or shared or tweaked in some way to make them spread further online. I think
that people -- when people decide to share content, it's very, very hard for the social media companies to take them down in their entirety.
[13:40:00]
SREENIVASAN: So, is there a through line into why people -- choose to share something like this? I mean, what are the rationales? What are the
reasons? Why do people think that it's important for it to exist in the digital space or even as an archived moment?
FRANKEL: I've seen people who post this video online say that they're sharing it because they think it proves their political agenda. What's
interesting is I've seen people both on the right and the left make that claim. I've seen people on the left say that it shows that the person who
decided to kill Charlie Kirk was a conservative person, a right-winger, gun owner, and therefore it proved X, Y, and Z about their political views.
I've seen people on the right say that they're sharing it because they see Charlie Kirk as a martyr and because they want his moment of death to serve
as some kind of political warning. You know, I think people can justify the sharing of violent videos in lots of different ways if they think it
furthers their cause.
SREENIVASAN: You know, recently we had the Utah Governor Spencer Cox say that social media is a cancer on our society right now. And I wonder as
people look at these platforms to try to take more steps to prevent this sort of proliferation of this type of video, is there any kind of
collective sense of responsibility that they have, whether the executives that you speak with, because it ultimately adds to their bottom lines? They
profit from the virality of these images, these videos, increases their, as you said, engagement, the time on site, the metrics that advertisers look
for to see if I should invest in putting ads in a platform.
FRANKEL: I think that depends on how cynically you want to look at the words and the public kind of speeches that have been given by some of these
executives at companies like Google and Meta and TikTok. They all talk about how important it is to them to reduce hate speech, reduce
disinformation, reduce violent content.
And five, six years ago, we even saw them joining global forums to kind of stop this content from being spread. We heard Mark Zuckerberg talk about
the thousands of people that were being hired at Meta to try and stop this problem. And yet, the problem persists. And then I think you have to ask
yourself, well, is it as important to them as developing A.I.? Is it as important to them as superintelligence? Are they dedicating anywhere near
the amount of resources that they spend dedicated to data centers or to something else? And I think, you know, you can pretty quickly come to the
conclusion that it's not. That the amount of money that have been spent by the tech companies on other projects doesn't come close to what they've
spent at tackling disinformation, hate speech, and violent content online.
And so, have they done something? Yes, they've applied labels. They've put in age restrictions. They've done some work towards, you know, labeling
these videos. But you cannot look at this and say that this is a problem that's been solved.
SREENIVASAN: Meta and X have decreased the number of human beings involved in their trust and safety departments, right? I mean, maybe for different
motivations, but compared to the amount of money that these companies are spending right now on A.I. chips and data centers, scaling back on the
ability for humans to be smart about this and help in the process of taking these videos down seems directly oppositional to what they say in front of
Congress.
FRANKEL: Exactly. I think that all the tech companies have reduced the number of people that work on trust and safety, and some like X, I think,
have gotten rid of them entirely. And so, you see where they're spending money, where they're developing resources.
I would note that the trust and safety people were typically the people at these companies that were at the forefront of saying, this is good for the
platform, this is good for engagement, this is bad for engagement, this is bad for the platform. And they were the ones that were some of the most
outspoken kind of opponents to some of the policies put in place by executives that they thought would increase engagement, but perhaps affect
the overall health of the platform.
SREENIVASAN: In those hours right after, when we don't exactly know what happened, it just seems like there's just so much conspiracy theory, in
this case, help our audience understand what happened to different people who were thought to be the suspects, the suspected shooter, even well
before that shooter was actually identified.
FRANKEL: There's always a bit of an internet manhunt that happens after these moments in time where people get together, whether it's on X, or on
Reddit, or on Discord, and decide that they're going to be the ones that find the shooter, they're going to be the ones that figure out. And
sometimes they're looking at photos of the event and saying, oh, well, that person that looks like a popular YouTuber that we don't like, or that looks
like a TikTok influencer. And you see them sort of gather around and you see quite a bit of a witch hunt happening in those moments where
individuals are targeted and blamed.
In the hours after the Kirk shooting, we saw this, I think I saw six or seven different people being named as suspects. And some of those people
had their places of work called, they had their homes called. They, of course, had their, you know, internet profiles made public as accusations
flew that it them.
[13:45:00]
I would note that in all the years I've been covering this as a reporter, I have never seen an internet mob correctly identify the person behind a
shooting before the police or the FBI were able to do so.
SREENIVASAN: Considering that so many more people are getting their news or at least some part of their news from social media today, how do the
social media platforms see their role kind of going forward?
FRANKEL: I think it depends who you ask. I think if you look at someone like Elon Musk, he thinks it's a positive that people are sharing
information as they want. He considers it free speech, I think is the way he kind of frames it and discusses it, saying that journalists were
arbitrators of truth and that he thinks it's good that people share with one another and that there is a, what he calls it, like a free flow of
information.
I think there are other people like Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, who looks at his platforms and says, well, we're not really a
news site. That's not really our responsibility. We don't want to be making the kinds of decisions that a news organization has to make.
And so, I think in general, you're seeing the chief executives of these tech companies veering away from kind of taking the sorts of responsibility
that editors and that journalists would have taken and would have talked about taking when we make decisions about what to show, what not to show,
how to discuss an active manhunt, how to discuss a situation in which a political figure has been assassinated.
I think there's a lot of thought and experience that goes into how news, traditional news media covers that, that isn't necessarily happening in
social media.
SREENIVASAN: Sheera Frenkel, reporter at The New York Times, thanks so much.
FRANKEL: Thank you so much for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, Robert Redford, the iconic actor and Oscar-winning director, has died. He was known for his starring roles in movies such as
"Butch Cassidy" and "The Sundance Kid" and "All the President's Men." And as director for films like "Ordinary People" and "A River Runs Through It."
His passion for moviemaking led Redford to found the Sundance Institute, forever changing the face of independent film. Christiane spoke with Robert
Redford in 2018 upon the release of "The Old Man and the Gun," his last starring role. It was during the first Trump term when journalism was under
fire from allegations of fake news.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Robert Redford, welcome back to our program.
ROBERT REDFORD, ACTOR AND DIRECTOR: My pleasure.
AMANPOUR: We have talked a lot over the years about your amazing brilliant film career. You've done quite a few outlaw-ish films, I mean, the best,
most famous one of course is "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid." And then there was "The Sting" and you paired up with Paul Newman. But what I was
fascinated about reading, you know, a lot of the stuff about you, is that you were kind of like that as a kid. You were a bit of an outlaw yourself,
you were a rebel.
REDFORD: Yes, that's true. As I got older and went into acting, I was drawn to the idea of outlaw characters. What's really interesting though,
but I don't how many people have picked up in terms of Paul Newman and I that when we did "Butch Cassidy" initially, he was offered "The Sundance
Kid." And I was going to be Butch Cassidy. And then, I met with the director, and when I met with George Roy Hill, I said, well, yes, I could
do that but I'm much more drawn to "The Sundance Kid." And he got convinced of this. So, I played Sundance. So, they switched the title. It was
originally going to be "The Sundance Kid and Butch Cassidy."
AMANPOUR: That gave you a whole new exposure. I mean, that was what launched you into the career that you're now, you know, apparently retiring
from. Are you really retiring?
REDFORD: No, I don't --
AMANPOUR: Is this really your last film?
REDFORD: No, no. I think that's a mistake. I should never have said anything like that. I think just moving into a different territory. I've
acted long enough, you know. But I didn't want to make a big deal out of it because I thought that distracted from the value of the film and the cast.
It was a wonderful cast that I was working with.
AMANPOUR: So, can I just get it straight. Is this the last film you plan to do as an actor?
REDFORD: Maybe. Rather than retiring, you just move kind of slip easily into another territory.
AMANPOUR: And particularly a territory that you want to slip into now is which?
REDFORD: Directing. Directing and producing, yes.
AMANPOUR: There's such a lot of existential questions right now about what does the world have for me? What am I going to do? I mean part of it is
your non-acting life, and that's about the climate and the environment. And you are really dedicated to that.
REDFORD: Very much so.
AMANPOUR: You've been to the United Nations, you've tried very hard to move the world along on this, particularly your own country where the
current government sort of denies the seriousness of climate change. Tell me about what you do in your personal and public life to move this along?
REDFORD: Well, I think you have to look at where it all started, and for me it started when I was a kid growing up in Los Angeles. And a the end of
the Second World War, it was a wonderful city to me.
[13:50:00]
And then once the war ended and money came back into the picture, things changed. And suddenly, there was development out of control and they had
green spaces that were suddenly wiped out by buildings and so forth. And where Santa Monica Boulevard had a trolley cart going down the center of
it, it was gone, suddenly was a freeway. And I thought well wait a minute, what's going on? They're -- in order to progress, they're wiping out
something really valuable.
AMANPOUR: You know, it just so happens that one of the greatest films you made, "All the President's Men", is all about investigating, holding
accountable and looking for the truth. What do you think about "All the President's Men" and having done that film?
REDFORD: I think we're in a similar spot now. I think that the powers that's out there that's taken us to the brink where you no longer know what
the truth is, and so if you don't know what the truth is, how can you talk about what is truthful or not? So, I think we're right at that brink. And I
guess I see it metaphorically as it used to be that two sides would come together, they were across the aisle so to speak. They would cross the
aisle to work together to teach something that would benefit the public. And now, there's no longer -- it's no longer an aisle to be crossed, it's a
moat. There's a gigantic chasm between two points of view, and they're not crossing to work with each other, they're getting ideologically rigid and
stuck. And we're the losers, and I think that's got to change.
AMANPOUR: The whole MeToo movement, which started in your industry in Hollywood, which is I think fascinated for the flood gates that it opened.
Had you any inkling that this was sort of de rigueur in Hollywood, that big producers or directors or others were using this power over so many people,
including presumably a lot of your co-stars?
REDFORD: Yes, I was very much aware of that. I think I probably took it somewhat for granted because it was so pervasive, it was just part of the
deal.
AMANPOUR: Really?
REDFORD: Yes, I think so. I think it was just there and has been for a long time. I didn't pay much attention to it. I wasn't a part of it
obviously, but I didn't -- I just considered that's what it is, you know. The only thing I was interested in was creating an alternative, that was my
ambition. But yes, I was aware that that existed, yes. (INAUDIBLE) the casting couch.
AMANPOUR: Would you -- might you have said something if you knew -- because some people say well if you knew about it, why didn't you say
anything about it?
REDFORD: Because it didn't come close to home. It didn't come to me. It didn't come to my feed. You know, it just was out there. And I didn't pay a
lot -- I just said that's the way it was. I didn't like it, but I didn't see it was my job to do anything about because it was just so pervasive.
You know, I just focused on creating an alternative. So now, it's different --
AMANPOUR: So, do you think now the moment is important --
REDFORD: Yes.
AMANPOUR: -- this historical moment?
REDFORD: I do. I think it's really important, particularly for women.
AMANPOUR: Yes, of course. And what I'm interested in also women who age and who age out of great roles and obviously women who don't get paid equal
to men for the roles that they play. I guess for a man, it's kind of easy. You're a heartthrob. You're so handsome. You've had all these roles and you
can go on having roles for as long as you want. But Sissy Spacek, who's a brilliant actress, and all those people and women of her generation have
found it very difficult to keep getting roles.
REDFORD: That's sad. If you look at -- for example, if you look at European films and you look at actresses like Joan Merol (ph) and you see
films like "Jules and Jim" and you see older actresses having key roles, and they do beautifully and they're aged -- they've aged, and I think
that's one of the downsides of Hollywood is that for -- at least for a while, it may be changing now, but at least for a while it wouldn't accept
aging. Everyone had to be eternally young.
And think of a loss of actors, actors that we lost that could have kept acting if we would have followed the European example.
AMANPOUR: Well, I wonder if you learned that in Europe? I mean, obviously not when you were young man, but you did very, very -- at a very young age
you went to Europe --
REDFORD: Yes.
AMANPOUR: -- and you wanted to be an artist.
REDFORD: Yes.
AMANPOUR: You were thinking about acting at that time.
REDFORD: No, no, no.
AMANPOUR: What was it like? Were you accepted as a young American in Europe at that time? Were you --
REDFORD: No.
AMANPOUR: What was it like?
REDFORD: No, it was just the opposite because I wasn't aware that we -- the Suez Crisis happened at that time.
AMANPOUR: It was 1957 just when you got there, right?
REDFORD: Yes, yes, and I wasn't aware of that. I was paying no attention into politics. So, I wasn't aware that we were the villains in that, you
know. So, when I got to Paris, I thought, oh, I'm getting the place I'd dreamed about. And suddenly I was treated horribly because it -- somehow I
was symbolic of what had gone wrong. I had not idea what was going on until slowly I realized it was kind of our fault.
[13:5:00]
We'd alienated a whole culture, and I wasn't even aware of it. I was blind to that because I wasn't -- I wasn't interested or aware of politics in
those days, but it made me aware.
AMANPOUR: Was that the education of Robert Redford?
REDFORD: It certainly was in the beginning. Yes, that was part of it, yes. Yes, for sure. It was a sort of shock. And it was a shock that I needed,
and I'm so glad that I did go to Europe and I witnessed other cultures and how they thought and how they saw the world.
AMANPOUR: Robert Redford, thank you very much.
REDFORD: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: What a legendary icon and a gift for all of us, all of us who have been his fans for so many decades. Robert Redford, dead at the age of
89. Actor, director, philanthropist, and environmental activist. As I noted, a legend who will be missed.
Well, that is it for now. Thank you so much for watching and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
