This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.

Kamala Harris is in the midst of a media blitz this week, including an interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes yesterday evening and an appearance on The Late Show With Stephen Colbert tonight. But she is also dipping into the world of mega-popular, not straightforwardly journalistic podcasts—notably appearing on the show Call Her Daddy last weekend. I spoke with my colleague Helen Lewis, who covers the podcast-sphere, about why Donald Trump and Harris are both spending time on these sorts of shows, what these interviews avoid, and how independent podcasters became major players in political media.

The New Mainstream

Lora Kelley: How does the value to the viewer of a traditional press interview—one focused on the specific issues and policies of the race—differ from that of a lifestyle podcast?

Helen Lewis: Roughly speaking, there are two types of sit-down conversations in politics: the accountability interview and the talk-show appearance. One focuses on pinning down candidates on their past statements and their future promises; the other, which most podcasts fall into, tries to understand the candidate as a person. The latter aren’t necessarily soft options—being charismatic and engaging while making small talk or fielding deeply personal questions is a skill in itself. (And I found Donald Trump’s appearance on Theo Von’s podcast, where he talked about his elder brother’s struggle with alcoholism, very revealing indeed.)

But only with the accountability interviews do you get candidates pressed repeatedly on questions that they’re trying to dodge. On Logan Paul’s podcast, Impaulsive, Trump was asked about the transmission of fentanyl over the border, and he got away with rambling about how “unbelievable” the German shepherds Border Patrol officers use are. On Lex Fridman’s podcast, Trump asserted that he could easily sort out the crisis in Ukraine—and that was it. Who needs details? When Kamala Harris went on Call Her Daddy, the host, Alex Cooper, gave her a chance to lay out her message on reproductive rights but didn’t, for example, challenge her on whether she supports third-trimester abortions, which are deeply divisive.

Lora: From the perspective of a political campaign, are there any downsides to appearing on a podcast such as Call Her Daddy?

Helen: The obvious criticism of Harris appearing on Call Her Daddy, which has a young, female audience, is that she already has a big lead among young women aged 18–25. You can say the same about Trump appearing on podcasts that are popular with young men. But both groups contain many people who will be undecided about whether to vote at all.

Lora: Harris has done some traditional press interviews during this campaign cycle, including her 60 Minutes interview yesterday. But are we in a new era in which chats with friendly podcasters rival (or even overtake) traditional media interviews?

Helen: Well, quite. An article I think about a lot is John Herrman’s 2015 “Access Denied,” in which he asked why an A-lister—someone like Kim Kardashian—would give an interview to a celebrity magazine if she had something to sell, instead of simply putting a picture on Instagram. Why cooperate with the old guard of media when they are no longer the gatekeepers of attention? Herrman argued that the traditional media was suffering a “loss of power resulting in a loss of access resulting in further loss of power.”

That dynamic has now migrated to politics. The legacy brands no longer have a monopoly on people’s attention, and the online right, in particular, has been extremely successful in building an alternative, highly partisan media. Fox News is no longer the rightmost end of the spectrum—beyond that is Tucker Carlson’s podcast, or the Daily Wire network, or Newsmax, or Elon Musk’s X.

Now candidates tend to talk to the traditional media only when they want to reset the narrative about them, because other journalists still watch 60 Minutes or whatever it might be. There’s still a noisiness around a big legacy interview that you don’t get with, say, Call Her Daddy—even if more people end up consuming the latter.

Lora: Are these podcasts really doing anything new, or are they largely replicating traditional media interviews without the same standards and accountability?

Helen: The better ones strive for impartiality and don’t, for example, reveal their questions in advance—but many political podcasts are wrapped in an ecosystem where big-name guests mean more advertising revenue, and thus bigger profits for the hosts personally; plus, their only hope of getting a second interview is if the candidate feels the first one was sympathetic. Compare that with 60 Minutes, which interviewed Trump so robustly in 2020 that he has asked for an apology.

I’m as guilty as anyone, but we need to stop treating these podcasts as the “alternative” media when they are absolutely the mainstream these days. The top ones have audiences as big as, if not bigger than, most legacy outlets. If they don’t want to hire all the editorial infrastructure that traditional journalism has (such as fact-checkers, research assistants, etc.), or risk being unpopular by asking difficult questions, that’s on them. Joe Rogan renewed his Spotify contract for $250 million. Alex Cooper signed a deal with SiriusXM this year worth $125 million. We should stop treating the mega-podcasts like mom-and-pop outfits competing with chain stores. They’re behemoths.

Lora: You recently wrote about The Joe Rogan Experience, which is the top-listened-to podcast on Spotify and arguably the most influential behemoth of them all. Why haven’t the candidates gone on the show yet? Who from each ticket do you think would make the most sense as a guest?

Helen: As I understand it, Team Trump would love to get on The Joe Rogan Experience. The two politicians that Rogan adores are Tulsi Gabbard and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who are now both working with the Republicans, and Team Trump would hope to encourage some of Rogan’s audience of crunchy, COVID-skeptic libertarians to follow them in moving from the independent/Democrat column to the GOP. But Rogan isn’t a full MAGA partisan like some of his friends, and Trump recently said that Rogan hasn’t asked him to appear.

In any case, I think Rogan would prefer to talk to J. D. Vance, who is very much part of the heterodox Silicon Valley–refugee tendency that he admires. For the Democrats, Harris might struggle to relax into the stoner-wonderment vibe of Rogan, given the tight-laced campaign she’s running. Rogan and Tim Walz could probably have a good chat about shooting deer and the best way to barbecue.

Related:

What going on Call Her Daddy did for Kamala Harris How Joe Rogan remade Austin

Here are three new stories from The Atlantic:

Milton is the hurricane that scientists were dreading. David Frum: Behind the curtain of Mexico’s progress Donald Trump flirts with race science.

Today’s News

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis announced that roughly 8,000 National Guard members will be mobilized by the time Hurricane Milton, a Category 5 storm, makes landfall this week. The Supreme Court appears likely to uphold the Biden administration’s regulation of “ghost gun” kits, which allow people to buy gun parts and build the weapons at home. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed that the Israeli military has killed the replacement successors of the Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, who was killed in an Israeli air strike last month.

Dispatches

Atlantic Intelligence: The list of Nobel laureates now contains two physicists whose 1980s research laid the foundations for modern artificial intelligence, Matteo Wong writes.

Explore all of our newsletters here.

Evening Read

Illustration by Ben Kothe / The Atlantic. Source: Getty.

They Were Made Without Eggs or Sperm. Are They Human?

By Kristen V. Brown

The little clump of cells looked almost like a human embryo. Created from stem cells, without eggs, sperm, or a womb, the embryo model had a yolk sac and a proto-placenta, resembling a state that real human embryos reach after approximately 14 days of development. It even secreted hormones that turned a drugstore pregnancy test positive.

To Jacob Hanna’s expert eye, the model wasn’t perfect—more like a rough sketch … But in 2022, when two students burst into his office and dragged him to a microscope to show him the cluster of cells, he knew his team had unlocked a door to understanding a crucial stage of human development. Hanna, a professor at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel, also knew that the model would raise some profound ethical questions.

Read the full article.

More From The Atlantic

Israel and Hamas are kidding themselves, Hussein Ibish argues. The New York race that could tip the House

Culture Break

Warner Bros. / Everett Collection

Read. Lauren Elkin’s latest novel, Scaffolding, suggests that total honesty can take a marriage only so far, Lily Meyer writes.

Watch (or skip). Joker: Folie à Deux (out now in theaters) has nothing interesting to say about the challenges of fame, Spencer Kornhaber writes.

Play our daily crossword.

Stephanie Bai contributed to this newsletter.

When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.

The little clump of cells looked almost like a human embryo. Created from stem cells, without eggs, sperm, or a womb, the embryo model had a yolk sac and a proto-placenta, resembling a state that real human embryos reach after approximately 14 days of development. It even secreted hormones that turned a drugstore pregnancy test positive.

To Jacob Hanna’s expert eye, the model wasn’t perfect—more like a rough sketch. It had no chance of developing into an actual baby. But in 2022, when two students burst into his office and dragged him to a microscope to show him the cluster of cells, he knew his team had unlocked a door to understanding a crucial stage of human development. Hanna, a professor at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel, also knew that the model would raise some profound ethical questions.

You might recall images of embryonic development from your high-school biology textbook: In a predictable progression, a fertilized egg morphs into a ball of cells, then a bean-shaped blob, and then, ultimately, something that looks like a baby. The truth is, though, that the earliest stages of human development are still very much a mystery. Early-stage embryos are simply too small to observe with ultrasound; at 14 days, they are just barely perceptible to the naked eye. Keeping them alive outside the body for that long is difficult. Whether anyone should is another matter—for decades, scientific policy and regulation has held 14 days as the limit for how long embryos can be cultured in a lab.  

Embryo models—that is, embryos created using stem cells—could provide a real alternative for studying some of the hardest problems in human development, unlocking crucial details about, say, what causes miscarriages and developmental disorders. In recent years, Hanna and other scientists have made remarkable progress in cultivating pluripotent stem cells to mimic the structure and function of a real, growing embryo. But as researchers solve technical problems, they are still left with moral ones. When is a copy so good that it’s equivalent to the real thing? And more to the point, when should the lab experiment be treated—legally and ethically—as human?  

Around the 14th day of embryonic development, a key stage in human growth called gastrulation kicks off. Cells begin to organize into layers that form the early buds of organs. The primitive streak—a developmental precursor of the spine—shows up. It is also at that point that an embryo can no longer become a twin. “You become an individual,” Jeremy Sugarman, a professor of bioethics and medicine at the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics, told me.

[Read: A woman gave birth from an embryo frozen for 24 years]

The primitive streak is the main rationale behind what is often referred to as the “14-day rule.” Many countries limit the amount of time that a human embryo can be kept alive in a petri dish to 14 days. When a U.K. committee recommended the 14-day limit in the 1980s, IVF, which requires keeping embryos alive until they are either transferred or frozen around day five or six, was still brand-new. The committee reasoned that 14 days was the last point at which an embryo could definitively be considered no more than a collection of cells, without potential individual identity or individual rights; because the central nervous system is formed after the 14-day milestone, they reasoned, there was no chance it could feel pain.

But the recent rise of advanced embryo models has led some groups to start questioning the sanctity of the two-week mark. In 2021, the International Society for Stem Cell Research relaxed its 14-day guideline, saying that research could continue past 14 days depending on ethical review and national regulations. (The organization declined to set a new limit.) In July, U.K. researchers put out a similar set of guidelines specifically for models. Australia’s Embryo Research Licensing Committee, however, recently decided to treat more realistic models like the real deal, prohibiting them from developing past 14 days. In the United States, federal funding of human-embryo research has been prohibited since 1996, but no federal laws govern experiments with either real or model embryos. “The preliminary question is, are they embryos at all?” Hank Greely, a law professor and the director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences at Stanford University, told me. Allow one to develop further, and “maybe it grows a second head. We don’t know.” (Having a second head is not necessarily a reason to disqualify someone from being human.) In the absence of an ethical consensus, Hanna is at work trying to cultivate his models to the equivalent of day 21, roughly the end of gastrulation. So far, he said, he’s managed to grow them to about day 18.

Researchers generally agree that today’s models show little risk of one day becoming walking, talking human beings. Combining sperm and eggs the old-fashioned way is already no guarantee of creating new life; even women in their 20s have only about a 25 percent chance of getting pregnant each month. Making embryos in a lab, sans the usual source material, is considerably harder. Right now, only about 1 percent of embryo models actually become anything that resembles an embryo, according to Hanna. And because scientists don’t have a great idea of what a nine-day-old embryo looks like inside the body, Greely said, they don’t actually know for certain whether the models are developing similarly.

[Read: The most mysterious cells in our bodies don’t belong to us]

And yet, in the past few years, scientists have already accomplished what seemed impossible not so long ago. Both Hanna and Magdalena Żernicka-Goetz, a developmental and stem-cell biologist at the California Institute for Technology and the University of Cambridge, have created models for mice with brains and beating hearts. Scientists and ethicists would be wise to consider what qualifies as human before human embryo models have beating hearts, too. The most important question, some ethicists argue, is not whether researchers can achieve a heartbeat in a petri dish, but whether they can achieve one with a model embryo implanted in a human womb. “It's no longer so much about how embryos are made or where they come from, but more what they can possibly do,” Insoo Hyun, a bioethicist and the director of life sciences at Boston’s Museum of Science told me. In an experiment published last year, seven-day-old model monkey embryos were successfully implanted in the uterus of three female monkeys. Signs of pregnancy disappeared about a week afterward, but the paper still raised the specter—or perhaps the promise—of a human version of the experiment.

Building more realistic embryo models could have enormous benefits—starting with basic understanding of how embryos grow. A century ago, scientists collected thousands of embryo samples, which were then organized into 23 phases covering the first eight weeks of development. Those snapshots of development, known as the Carnegie stages, still form much of the basis for how early life is described in scientific texts. The problem is, “we don’t know what happens in between,” Hanna said. “To study development, you need the living material. You have to watch it grow.” Until recently, scientists had rarely sustained embryos in the lab past day seven or so, leaving manifold questions about development beyond the first week. Most developmental defects happen in the first trimester of pregnancy; for example, cleft palate, a potentially debilitating birth defect, occurs sometime before week nine for reasons that scientists don’t yet understand. It’s a mystery that more developmental research performed on embryo models could solve, Greely said.

Better understanding the earliest stages of life could yield insights far beyond developmental disorders. It could help reveal why some women frequently miscarry, or have trouble getting pregnant at all. Żernicka-Goetz has grown models to study the amniotic cavity—when it forms improperly, she suspects, pregnancies may fail. Embryo models could also help explain how and why prenatal development is affected by viruses and alcohol—and, crucially, medications. Pregnant people are generally excluded from drug trials because of potential risks to the fetus, which leaves them without access to treatments for new and chronic health conditions. Hanna has started a company that aims, among other things, to test drug safety on embryo models. Hanna told me he also envisions an even more sci-fi future: treating infertility by growing embryo models to day 60, harvesting their ovaries, and then using the eggs for IVF. Because stem cells can be grown from skin cells, such a system could solve the problem of infertility caused by older eggs without the more invasive aspects of IVF, which requires revving the ovaries up with hormones and surgery to retrieve the resulting eggs.

[Read: Christian parents have a blueprint for IVF]

Answering at least some of these questions may not require hyperrealistic models of an embryo. Aryeh Warmflash, a biosciences professor at Rice University, is studying gastrulation, but the cells that form the placenta aren’t relevant to his research questions, so his models leave them out, he told me. “In some sense, the better your model goes, the more you have to worry,” he said. Hyun told me he cautions scientists against making extremely complex models in order to avoid triggering debate, especially in a country already divided by ideas about when life begins. But given all the medical advances that could be achieved by studying realistic models—all the unknowns that are beginning to seem knowable—it’s hard to imagine that everyone will follow his advice.