Hey there, podcast listeners. It's Ann here.

Given the president's former business ties, can you just reassure the American people that there are no conflicts?

For a guy who's a multi-billionaire isn't a, I don't think that's at the top. I don't know that that's true.

No, I don't know. But I mean, huh? Excuse me? To those concerned about potential conflicts.

I think he has no conflicts.

By law, he can't have conflicts.

For journalists, the first days of Donald Trump's presidency have been a bit on the surreal side.

Getting yelled at by the press secretary, presented with alternative facts, arguing with your editor about which word best fits the president's last statement.

Falsehood or lie?

Here, to the best of our knowledge, we've been wondering how legendary muckrakers might have

reacted to some of these first press briefings.

So today we're revisiting a conversation with Daniel Shore.

He was a titan among journalists.

He covered the administrations of 12 presidencies. During his work with Edward R. Murrow's investigation team, he clashed with both

Kennedy and Nixon. He later reported on and critiqued administrations as a senior news analyst for

NPR. And when he spoke with C. Paulson, this was back in 2008, he used the

outgoing Bush administration as an example of the long tradition of audacity among incoming presidents.

And as a reminder of the role journalists play in holding their feet to the fire of facts.

You have been covering politics and politicians for a very long time, and I suppose

politicians have always had a tendency to shade the truth.

But do you think our political leaders are any more audacious nowadays than they used to be

in terms of what they try to get away with?

...