>> A media mogul and Internet game changer this week on "Firing Line."

[ The Bee Gees' "Stayin' Alive" plays ] From "Saturday Night Fever" to "Home Alone"... >> Aaah!

>> ...to "The Simpsons"... >> Yo!

Whoo whoo!

I'm up here!

>> Oh, hi, boy!

[ Crashes ] >> ...Barry Diller was a driving force behind some of the biggest hits of the 20th century as the head of Paramount and Fox.

He went on to run QVC, which changed how we shop... >> As I say, lightweight, double handles.

>> ...and dozens of Internet brands through his holding company, IAC, transforming how we book travel, buy tickets for concerts, and date, all after dropping out of college and getting his start in the mailroom.

He's a pro-business Democrat who says what he thinks... >> The "woke" thing swung too far, shutting down healthy talk because it's too sensitive for some.

I abhor that.

>> ...and has been sad to see into the future.

>> No one's going to compete with Netflix.

I believe they have won the game.

And I think that there's nothing that I can see that's going to dislodge them.

>> What does Barry Diller say now?

>> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible in part by... And by... Corporate funding is provided by... >> Barry Diller, welcome to "Firing Line."

>> Well, thank you.

Happy to be here.

>> You got your start in the mailroom of William Morris Agency.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> You went on to run -- this is just a partial list -- Paramount Pictures, Fox Network, QVC.

And I have heard you credit your rise to a combination of serendipity and curiosity.

>> It's true.

I think so.

>> Where does your tolerance for risk factor in?

>> It's very odd about risk because I -- I don't see risk as most people do.

And it's always been true for me.

I don't have that gene.

I'm very lucky.

I see other areas of risk, but I don't see it in terms of -- I never saw it in terms of careerism, my own, or projects that I was involved in.

>> When you were C.E.O.

of Paramount in the '70s and '80s, the best actors, writers, directors, they all wanted to make movies.

>> Yeah.

>> No one was going to television.

But with the rise of premium cable, with streamers, HBO, Netflix, you know, the most creative and the most interesting work is happening on the television screen now.

Top talent, Meryl Streep, Nicole Kidman, Morgan Freeman, they have all gone to streamers, too.

The money to make feature films these days is mostly reserved for repeatable franchises.

"Top Gun" this year, "Avatar."

>> Mm-hmm.

>> Why has this happened?

>> If you just back up 10 years ago, eight, seven, eight years ago, we had a big cable bundle that was getting, every year, priced higher and higher.

Every year, the number of things we were offered were getting more and more in number, and we were paying more and more for them.

And cable companies, the people who warehoused all this, their margins of profit decreased at just the same time, under their little noses, comes a company called Netflix, which says, "We're gonna stream things and deal directly with the consumer, and we got a better proposition than you cable folks do."

>> Mm-hmm.

>> "You can watch things whenever you want.

You can watch all of it at once.

It's on demand, on your personal demand.

And you just point and click, and it streams to you, directly to you."

And out of it, under, as I say, the noses of the entire wisdom of the entertainment business, the ground completely shifts.

And then along comes the pandemic, and that increases the shift because people stay home more, et cetera, et cetera, so there's more subscriptions, et cetera.

The entire movie business crashes because there's no movie theaters because people can't go to the theaters.

And that whole infrastructure of the hegemony, let's call it, of Hollywood, which had ruled for 75, 80 years, it only took three or four years for it to totally disappear.

Totally disappear in the sense that it's over.

There is no hegemony any more of those -- let's call it those major motion-picture companies.

It's -- It's truly finished.

It is never coming back.

>> It brings me the Oscars.

>> Talk about never coming back.

>> There's a British actress, Andrea Riseborough.

>> Yes, yes, yes.

>> She's been nominated for Best Actress for this -- >> For a movie no one saw.

>> ...called "To Leslie."

It's made less than $30,000 at the box office.

>> Right, right, right.

>> What do you think about the fact that she has a nomination for Best Actress without a big studio behind her, and it appears as though her friends broke some of the rules about lobbying for nominations.

>> Probably.

>> What's your take?

>> Well, I think, somehow or other, they promoted themselves to enough people in the Academy to get attention for something that didn't get any attention.

But it's just the -- it's almost a comment on the whole awards process that is just -- it is -- It's an antiquity.

It's from a whole other era.

There really is no movie business anymore.

It doesn't exist.

The whole motion-picture role of let's saying Hollywood producing about 125 movies a year, rolling them out theatrically, that's over.

And all awards ceremonies were based upon this hierarchical process of a movie going to a theater, building up some word of mouth if it was successful, having that word of mouth carry itself over.

And, yes, there were people campaigning with the -- to get awards and to get appreciation for it.

But it was all following a kind of regular path.

That path no longer exists.

So whoever -- whoever shows up on that path, whether it's through a movie that no one saw, through some sort of manipulation or not, and ends up in an award ceremony that, every year, people watch less and less, just tells you that -- that -- that way...

There are people old enough -- younger than me but old enough -- to have been alive during the entire transition right now from a rising world, say, 10 years ago to five years ago, four years ago, three years ago until the pandemic, that was pretty predictable, to one that is completely unpredictable.

>> Is there a reform formula for the Oscars?

>> No.

They are no longer a national audience worth its candle because that audience is really no longer interested.

>> They're not interested in the awards and the showmanship of the awards.

>> They're not interested in the whole process of it.

Just -- By the way, the awards don't reflect their interests, either.

It used to be that there was -- there was congruence between the movies that people went to see and the awards that were given to those movies that were most popular.

Not that they were the most necessarily or the least artistic or whatever, but there was a real correlation between popular movies and the giving of blessings on those movies and the people in them.

But that disappeared a while ago, and the awards went to movies that nobody watched, nobody went to see, and then no one went to see anything because the pandemic came.

So the whole house has kind of collapsed upon itself.

And what I think is, is that the awards ceremony should be for the industry and not for consumers.

And that would change everything.

>> So you made movies for 20 years.

>> I did.

More.

>> Just to name a few, for the sake of the audience, "Terms of Endearment."

>> Mm.

>> "Ordinary People," "Saturday Night Fever," "Grease," "Home Alone."

You have admitted to making movies that you called "horrid" -- your words, not mine... >> Oh, yeah.

>> ...but also some that you say turned out pretty well.

And I've heard you say that the 1981 historical drama, "Reds," starring Warren Beatty, Diane Keaton, and Jack Nicholson, is one that will be remembered 100 years from now.

>> Yeah, I think it will stand the test of time.

>> Don't rewrite what I write, Pete.

>> What the hell's the matter with you, Jack?

The IWW's a bunch of Reds.

Come on.

Got Reds in the IWW.

Got Reds in the village.

Got nothin' but Reds around here.

>> Are there movies that you made that you felt deserved to be remembered but were overlooked by critics and moviegoers?

>> Like other than "Mommie Dearest"?

>> [ Laughs ] That's the only one?

>> I'm kidding.

I will tell you one called "CB."

>> Breaker, breaker!

Shortstack, you got a copy on that Hot Coffee?

How about some of that original 100-mile perk-me-ups?

Sweetie, sugared, full-bodied, and low on calories.

>> It was such a good movie that when we opened it and no one came, I said, "Okay, let's do this.

Let's let people in for free."

So we did for a week, and everybody came to see it and loved it.

The day after we went back to people paying for it, no one came, and no one can ever figure this out.

>> Let me ask you about Alec Baldwin, who has just been charged for involuntary manslaughter.

I mean, for the sake of audience, you know, there was a fatal shooting on the set in which he was handed a revolver that was loaded, and he accidentally fatally shot the cinematographer of the movie "Rust."

Should he be held responsible?

>> No, I think it's really unfortunate.

Listen, what care should he have taken?

If he's an actor and someone on staff hands him a gun, he presumes that that is a safety gun, meaning it can't fire a live bullet.

He's relying on other people, as he must.

And so the idea that he's personally responsible, as if he was careless or negligent, to say he had an extra-special duty, by the way, to do something that he probably had no training for, I think is absurd.

>> I think he's the producer on the film, too.

>> Yes, but he's -- you know, he's a named producer.

He's not really -- he's not the line producer.

He's not the one who's corralling the trucks and all of the stuff and all of the props and all of the equipment.

The responsibility lies with the gun handler... >> Yeah.

>> ...who was either irresponsible or made a mistake.

Certainly was not intent.

>> She has also been charged.

>> Yeah, I understand that.

But I think adding Alec Baldwin in is a bit -- it's a bit grandstanding for -- for public noise.

>> I think it's safe to say that you're not a fan of virtue signaling in corporate America.

>> I think that may be true.

>> But you've said that so-called "woke" capitalism has gone too far.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> You've tried to not have your companies become entangled... >> Yes.

>> ...in the political issues of the moment, the social issues.

>> I don't think it's a company's responsibility to do so.

And I understand that employees, some employees, groups of employees, would like companies to do so.

But I think, generally, they're misguided, that their intent, again, is admirable.

They're wanting to speak out on social issues or have the company.

But I don't think it's the business of a company to do that.

>> There's woke capitalism, which has drawn a fierce backlash on the right.

>> And I'm not on the right, but... >> You're not, but we've seen Republicans threaten retaliation against companies that speak out against the politics.

And in Florida in particular, Governor Ron DeSantis led the Florida legislature to actually revoke Disney's special tax status... >> Yep.

>> ...because they took a stand against him.

What do you make of this news?

>> Grandstanding of the worst order.

>> But there's this new strain of anti-corporate populism in the Republican Party... >> Mm-hmm.

>> ...that to DeSantis is embodying, that Trump sometimes embodied.

And I wonder what you think of it.

>> I think again, that, look, the "woke" thing swung too far.

The beginning process of it, which is we should be more aware and more sensitive, is rational and reasonable.

But when you take it to the extremes that that woke community has taken it, that pendulum got way swung all the way up into the side of the socket.

And it is now starting to come back, and part of it starting to come back is that there's been opposition to it.

Yes, it is a lot from the hard right, but it's also from just ordinary, normal-thinking folk who say, "Well, gee, that's ridiculous.

You know, it's ridiculous to shut off speech because one person out of 2,000, "Well, it would be too sensitive for that person to hear that."

I think that it's just like many things -- it just went too far.

>> In 1993, the original "Firing Line" was hosted by William F. Buckley Jr. And he hosted a debate about political correctness, which is, in some ways, the political antecedent to some of the conversations we're having in this woke culture today.

Take a look at this clip from 1993.

>> We're now a nation that everybody's claiming victimhood and the right to feel hurt by all kinds of things.

And it's that kind of thing which the speech codes try to prevent, which does, I think, suppress speech.

And I want to know if you agree with that.

>> I do.

Lawyers call it a heckler's veto.

I could say something perfectly innocuous, but if one person in this audience got offended by calling them a TV monitor, did that person silence my speech on behalf of all the others?

That is why I am against speech codes.

It's too subjective.

You cannot have any standard that could be uniformly enforced.

>> And the thing that's so remarkable to me is that's very, very conservative judge Robert Bork... >> Oh, yes.

>> ...with the very liberal Mark Green agreeing about speech codes.

It's hard to imagine a conservative populist and a leader on the progressive, woke left... >> Agreeing on anything.

>> ...agreeing on anything, let alone speech codes right now.

How do you reflect on that?

>> I think when you're dealing with these -- these issues that have got such investment on both sides, both extreme sides, I think it's really very difficult.

As far as free speech is concerned, as far as woke is concerned, as far as shutting down healthy talk because it's too sensitive for some, I abhor that.

I also think that it's -- that -- that -- You know, I -- I did not think, as much as I do not like Donald Trump, I did not think that Twitter should shut him out.

And I don't think you can modulate these voices.

I think you've got to...

I think you've really got to let them wash over you and not take them overly seriously.

We have so much media now that, on any topic, the coverage is so pounced right on top of it and extreme in the moment that just that amount of stuff, the amount of voices, the amount of concentration is, in itself, destructive.

>> Is it just that that's destructive or, I mean, in the case of Twitter, when Donald Trump went off Twitter, involuntarily, the incidences of conspiracy theories and the spreading of conspiracy theories dropped precipitously in the weeks after.

And this is -- this is quantifiable.

>> Yes, but they'll spike back up.

>> Because he's back on?

If he gets back on.

>> Him or anyone else.

It is the nature of communications.

Now, can you stop extreme violence, extreme sexuality, things like that?

Sure, you can.

But can you stop really hard, hard-edged opinion and opinion that, while it's not violent, it's repulsive opinion?

I doubt it.

I don't think it's practical.

It is best just to let it go.

Let it out.

You can't bottle it up.

What are you going to do?

>> Unless it causes an attack on the Capitol.

>> You cannot shut it down.

You can shut down violence, and you can certainly shut down things when they get acted upon.

But when you're talking just about voice, just about people expressing themselves -- You get 10 people to express themselves, and one or two of those 10 people are going to say things that offend you.

>> Yeah.

>> Get used to it.

Just like get used to the concomitant, which is a certain loss of privacy.

>> You described Donald Trump's presidency in hindsight in a way that was quite compelling to me as what you hope will, in looking back in many years, be a "accident of history."

>> Mm-hmm.

>> Can accidents happen twice?

>> Well, I think if it does, it is so definitional.

You know, I've always thought, look, once you can make that mistake, there's a four-year limit to that mistake.

If you actually re-up it -- I mean, I was petrified that he was going to win a second term because I said, "Now we know."

>> Yeah.

Well, and that January 6th hadn't even happened.

>> And if we do it knowing it, what is the definition of us as a people, as a country, et cetera?

So I'm very sobered by the consequences that it could happen again.

And I fear that it could.

>> You supported President Joe Biden's campaign in 2020.

>> I did.

>> He's widely expected to announce that he'll run for re-election soon.

Should he run again?

>> [ Breathes deeply ] It's calculus.

It's a calculus that he -- only he can make, in terms of his -- his ability.

And I presume he'll do that honorably because I think he's an honorable man.

But I would hope that there are people who are of a different generation who will be engaged in national politics.

I think that would be a healthy thing for everybody.

And I'd like a lot of them.

>> So it's time for a new generation of Democratic leadership.

>> Absolutely.

Yes, it has to be.

>> Yeah.

>> Last week, the Justice Department filed its second antitrust lawsuit against Google in just over two years.

>> Yep, yep.

>> This one alleges anti-competitive practices with regard to digital advertising.

Your companies compete with Google in some areas, and you have been warning for years that Google is "an absolute monopoly."

What could fix Google?

>> Well, I -- [ Chuckles ] I felt for some time that when you get real market power, there has to be regulation.

I do not advocate breaking up Google or breaking up Facebook or doing any of those things.

What I do advocate is real regulation on the excesses that come to any enterprise that has great market power.

And I think that is now starting to come.

I think that's healthy.

>> I'd like to ask you about digital news.

You launched The Daily Beast in 2008 alongside Tina Brown, the legendary editor.

And I, first, in the interest of disclosure for the audience, you and I know somebody in common, the person who became the editor in chief after Tina Brown left, John Avlon, who happens to be my husband.

You have seen now firsthand how original digital journalism or online original journalism has evolved over the last 15 years.

What have you learned?

>> Ooh.

Um... What we wanted the Beast to be was both kind of high and low.

We wanted to be really serious about investigative journalism, and we also, low, wanted to deal with all the populist subjects that are out there.

And I think we've kind of kept -- we've kept that balance.

And I think it's a good product.

I wish it didn't cost so much money to operate it.

But nevertheless, I think it's -- I think it's done some really good work, and I hope that there's always enough funding for that to happen.

>> Does it have to be funded?

What have you learned about the profitability?

>> It's very, very hard.

I mean, you really -- Yes, it is extremely hard.

>> What does that say about democracy if it's -- >> It says it's a tough road.

It's no surprise to me, to anybody else, nor should it be to anybody else, it ain't an easy path.

But nevertheless, it's what we got, and we better treasure it and improve it -- upon it and not allow it to be captured by either -- either side of extreme forces.

>> Well, is the fourth estate, then -- is journalism and -- and reporting going to be a subject of philanthropy if it can't be profitable.

>> I think, in some cases, yes.

Yeah.

I think there -- there's no question that it does -- it -- I don't know that you could call it philanthropy.

I call it social responsibility, that if you've got a large enterprise, you can devote some of your resources, if you can justify devoting some of your resources to what you feel are socially responsible things to do.

>> Has that been what's kept you in it for so long?

>> Oh, for sure.

Yeah.

I thought it would be...

I thought it would be really bad for us to abandon it.

>> Yeah.

There is a report in The New York Times that you're considering selling.

>> We may.

Not -- by the way, one of the big conditions is sell it into what?

I hope very much that if we do sell it, we will be selling it into an enterprise that will grow it and not strip it.

That I really don't want to do.

I think I -- I will resist that a lot.

>> I see your eyes light up when you talk about public art.

>> Yeah.

>> You were very involved in The High Line, the development of The High Line on the West Side of Manhattan and Little Island, as well.

What is it that you love about public art?

>> The act of making public art, that is free and accessible to all, is kind of miraculous.

And so I'm lucky enough that we have resources and that we could put some of those resources against that.

Because I do believe, like for Little Island and for The High Line and for some other projects we're doing, but I believe that, a long time from now, people will come upon that and -- and go, "Wow.

How'd that happen?"

And I -- makes me feel very good to know this is my little slice of stuff.

I had a part in that.

>> Barry Diller, thank you for your time.

>> Pleasure.

>> Thank you for being here on "Firing Line."

>> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible in part by... And by... Corporate funding is provided by... >> You're watching PBS.