Jodi Cantor's careful language on the podcast isn't just caution; it's a strategic necessity. She operates under the assumption that her sources, or even the subjects of her reporting, could be listening. Every word is weighed to avoid giving the "wrong impression" and jeopardizing hard-won reporting access.

NYT's Jodi Cantor explains her focus isn't leaking decisions that will eventually be public. Instead, she uses her limited time and capital to move information from the "secret side of the ledger" to the public side—facts and context that would otherwise remain hidden forever.

Jodi Cantor, who broke the Weinstein story, identifies the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation as the turning point for the #MeToo movement. Before it, there was broad factual consensus and figures from both parties faced consequences. The Kavanaugh allegations politicized the issue, splitting public perception along ideological lines.

Much of government functions on decorum and unwritten rules. When political actors attack these norms—like challenging procedural traditions—it creates a cycle of retribution that destabilizes the entire system more profoundly than any single illegal act could.

As a defense against powerful adversaries, public figures can package sensitive documents and communications and give them to multiple trusted parties. These parties are given instructions to release everything if something happens to the originator, creating a powerful deterrent.

Unlike traditional justices who maintain decorum, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson uses dissents to speak directly to the public. By using words like "disillusionment," she breaks the unwritten rule against criticizing the institution itself, signaling a belief that the court's integrity is compromised and attempting to reach a mainstream audience.

People surrounding a so-called genius, like Picasso's friends or employees at cult-like startups, often tolerate terrible behavior. They rationalize the unpleasantness by telling themselves they are part of an extraordinary, history-making experience, which creates a toxic enabling environment.

When faced with sustained political attacks and threats, a media organization may strategically shift from cautious appeasement to aggressive, adversarial journalism. This pivot reflects a calculation that defending journalistic integrity is a better brand and survival strategy than attempting to placate a hostile political actor.

Using legal attacks against political opponents ("lawfare") is a societal gangrene. It forces the targeted party to retaliate, turning elections into existential battles for survival rather than policy contests. This high-stakes environment creates a powerful incentive to win at any cost, undermining democratic norms.