I recall that when I was a reporter years ago at publications like Federal Computer Week (now Nextgov/FCW) and Government Computer News (deceased), we often divided the newsroom into two complementary sections: one group of reporters focused on policy and the business of government and the other group immersed in the nuts-and-bolts of technology.
Steven Overly, the editorial director of POLITICO Live and host/producer of the “POLITICO Tech” podcast, does both. Wearing multiple hats, he covers what he calls “the seismic shift” in the role of the tech industry in Washington. On his weekly podcast, he interviews newsmakers about the policy and political issues that are shaping our digital future. And as editorial director for POLITICO’s live events, he oversees all editorial programming in North America across all policy areas, not just tech. On top of that, he still finds time to teach communications and journalism grad students at Johns Hopkins University.
On this episode of Gov & Beyond, Steven talks with hosts Luca Pagni and Joyson Cherian about his job at POLITICO, his background, the topics that he finds most interesting, and his approach to both podcasting and live events. You’ll also hear about how he hates olives as well as the 1960s pop group that, in the opinion of this writer, wrote and recorded what is arguably the greatest song of all time (no, it’s not by The Beatles).
The Topics That Grab His Attention
Discussing the “POLITICO Tech” podcast, Steven noted that artificial intelligence (AI) has been the overriding theme of his interviews recently. Even issues that at first glance might feel completely separate from AI – jobs, data privacy, states’ rights, energy consumption, the U.S. relationship with the European Union – all seem to circle back to a discussion about AI, he said.
Given the predominance of AI across all of these areas, it isn’t surprising that Steven told Luca and Joyson that technology has become an important aspect of just about all of the news covered by POLITICO. “I think every election cycle, or the last several election cycles, tech has come up as an issue,” he said. “It has not necessarily been what people vote on when they actually get to the ballot box, but nevertheless, I think you’ve seen it in subsequent elections really emerge as something that is on the mind of voters.”
Steven also discussed the type of guests he prefers to interview for the podcast: mostly those who hold the levers of power in government and industry but also others “who just have interesting perspectives on technology and its effects, and whose voices really should be heard in the debates that are happening in Washington and beyond.”
With regard to the topics he prefers for POLITICO’s events, he said his focus is on the areas the publication usually covers – national security and defense, energy, technology (including, of course, AI) and the economy. He added that POLITICO events have expanded into state-level issues, including their first ever California summit in Sacramento this year. Steven said next year will see POLITICO expanding into additional California-focused events in Los Angeles and San Francisco as well as launching a New York summit in Albany.
Fundamental Advice for PR Pros
Whether it’s PR/communications professionals who pitch to him or the students whom he instructs on media literacy, Steven’s main piece of advice is simple: Know the audience you’re trying to reach. If you’re pitching Steven, that means not only knowing what interests him but also what might interest the people who listen to his podcast or read his articles.
He told Luca and Joyson that he rejects pitches when it’s evident that the sender didn’t put thought into what the audience wants. “Because if you don’t, that’s most of the bad PR pitches I get,” he said. “It’s a very clear audience alignment issue, like what’s being pitched to me would not be of any interest to me because it would not be of any interest to the audience that I’m communicating to as a journalist. And so I just think it’s such a fundamental step that is still overlooked so often. And so that’s why I try to hammer that again and again in the classes that I teach.”
You can hear the full podcast below or read the transcript for the full interview with Steven.
Timestamps
0:35 – Steven’s background and career path
2:28 – On the POLITICO Tech podcast, everything comes back to AI
7:34 – What Steven looks for in his podcast guests
10:24 – Focus and Expansion of POLITICO Live events
13:39 – Events to keep an eye out for in 2026
17:17 – Guiding the next generations of communicators
23:04 – Let’s “Clue” you in on Steven’s favorite movie
24:04 – No dirty martinis for Steven
25:16 – He’s “California Dreamin’” about a world without The Beach Boys
Transcript
Intro: Welcome to Gov & Beyond. I’m your host. Luca Pagni, here with my cohost Joyson Cherian. This podcast features conversations with the newsmakers and influencers at the center of today’s public sector news cycles from our studio at W2 Communications, let’s go Gov & Beyond.
Luca Pagni (LP): Welcome everyone to “Gov & Beyond.” I’m your host Luca Pagni, here with my cohost Joyson Cherian. We’re excited to be joined today by Steven Overly, editorial director of POLITICO Live and host/producer of “POLITICO Tech.” Steven, welcome to the show.
Steven Overly (SO): Hey guys, thanks for having me.
LP: Yeah, of course. Steven, we’d love to start off by learning a bit more about your background, your career and role at POLITICO. Could you tell us a little bit more about yourself?
SO: Yeah. So I’ve been a journalist professionally for 15 years now. I started my career at The Washington Post, which is actually where I first met Joyson many moons ago. But I started covering tech and covering startups. That was kind of my first job in journalism. And since then, I’ve covered tech through a bunch of different lenses. So at The Post, I mostly covered kind of the local tech industry and eventually covered some federal tech policy. And that led me to join POLITICO shortly into the start of the first Trump administration, which was just such a seismic shift in terms of how the tech industry was treated in Washington and approached in Washington. And so I joined POLITICO to really cover that change. Did that for a number of years, then covered global trade and economics for a number of years, which I thought meant I was leaving the tech beat. And I sort of soon learned, well, actually, a lot of our trade these days and a lot of our global commerce, is very dependent on digital and very dependent on data. So I was still a tech reporter in many ways.
And then for the last two and a half years now, I’ve hosted our tech podcast at POLITICO, which is a weekly show interviewing newsmakers about sort of the big policy and political decisions that are shaping our digital future. And then, more recently than that, I’ve now added this title of editorial director for our live events, which has me seeing all of our editorial programming in North America across all policy areas, not just tech. So that’s kind of the career trajectory that I’ve had. And so it’s all been journalism, but I’ve done it in print, I’ve done it digital, I’ve done it audio, now I do it for the stage. And tech seems to be a recurring theme in all of that.
Joyson Cherian (JC): Steven, let me pull on that thread a little bit. It’s been a long time since the Capital Business section in The Washington Post. And obviously in that time, the media landscape has evolved as well in terms of how people get the news and how people dissect the news. And you touched on it right there with your “POLITICO Tech” podcast. So you know, for the podcast, what are some of the topics that have been top of mind this year, and what are some of the issues and trends that you’re hoping to uncover more as we head into the new year?
SO: I mean, every episode of the podcast feels like it’s about AI in some way. We do talk about other topics, of course, whether it’s things like data privacy or states rights or even the US-EU relationship, microchips. But even all of those roads it seems lead back to AI these days. And so there’s a few recurring themes I’ve been digging into a lot lately, one of which is the nexus of AI and energy. You know, the Trump administration and Congress have really zeroed in on energy as sort of a key input for AI and a really competitive advantage that the U.S. needs to try to exploit. And so conversations around data centers, conversations around the energy demand for AI and how to meet that, whether it’s through traditional sources like oil and gas or, you know, sources that don’t even really exist yet, like fusion, you know, that’s, I think, a really fascinating conversation that is ongoing and will continue into next year.
I also think this tension between the regulation of AI on the federal level and the state level has been a fascinating storyline this past year that will continue into the new year. I mean, we saw, for instance, Congress flirt with this idea of putting a moratorium on AI state laws. Now the Trump administration reportedly has an executive order dealing with this issue. And so the federal government right now really is trying to make sure it takes its foot off the brake, and if anything, puts its foot on the gas when it comes to developing AI. And they seem to be willing to knock down anything that will get in the way of that, and that now may include states and their own regulation of the technology. And so that’s another storyline that I don’t think we’ve seen. I know we haven’t seen the end of. And I think as we get into the new year, we’re going to face really interesting questions about who has the authority to legislate and govern this fast moving, very wide, sweeping technology.
The last thing I’ll just say as I look ahead to the new year, being POLITICO, is we will have a midterm election that I think could be very consequential. I think every election cycle, or the last several election cycles, tech has come up as an issue. It has not necessarily been what people vote on when they actually get to the ballot box, but nevertheless, I think you’ve seen it in subsequent elections really emerge as something that is on the mind of voters. And I think that will be true going into 2026 as well.
JC: You know, that’s an interesting way to think about it. People haven’t thought of it as something top of mind. And it seems, though, in the last two, three years, especially tech and the tech industry, has become much more of an influencer in the political realm. How has that driven the way that you covered things and the topics that you’re interested in?
SO: Yeah, I mean, that’s a fascinating angle that we dug into a lot around the 2024 election, for instance, where you saw influencers through social media and podcasts play a very outsized role in shaping political narratives. And that election cycle, we’ve seen that continue. And I think in 2026 kind of the role of internet influencers and our politics is going to be a really fascinating storyline to follow.
The other storyline that I’m…there’s many, I guess, that I’m interested in, but one that comes to mind is the economic impact of AI, particularly when it comes to jobs. I think if there’s one issue with AI that really resonates with voters right now, it is anxiety about the impact on jobs. And we’ve already seen some early suggestions that maybe that AI is having an impact in employment. And so I think how politicians handle that in the 2026 midterms, and then certainly in the 2028 election, will be very important, because it is something that people increasingly care about.
I would also maybe put data privacy in that category as well. That’s something that people in general have trepidation about, kind of how their data is being used, how their information is being used. I don’t know that it’s ever really been a defining issue in an election cycle, but as we continue to see cyber breaches, as we continue to see AI get more sophisticated in terms of impersonation and some of these concerning uses of it, I do think that is something that people will really start to focus on and feel like they want their government to address in a meaningful way.
LP: That’s awesome. And as you mentioned, there are many topics that you’re interested in learning more about and covering and discussing. Just looking at it from the podcast perspective, we’re sure that you get hundreds, if not thousands of pitches a day of people wanting to be on the podcast to be a resource to you for those topics. What do you typically look for in those guests, and what helps them stand out or really make them compelling sources for you?
SO: Yeah, I feel very fortunate that a lot of people are interested in coming on the tech podcast. That’s great, and it means we’re reaching an important audience. I look for a couple of things when booking a guest. I mean, first and foremost, what makes for any kind of good interview, especially at POLITICO, is somebody in a position of power. Do you actually have the capacity to make decisions? And that includes officials in government. That also includes industry executives, you know, who we’ve had on the podcast as well. So people who when they sit down at a table in a meeting and they make a decision, it affects all of our digital lives. That, to me, is always going to be a fascinating interview. Short of that, I also look for influence. You know, people who don’t have direct decision making but have a voice that people want to listen to. And they have the capacity to shape the decisions that are getting made. And so, you know, we’ve had luminaries like Yoshua Bengio on the podcast, who’s like, one of the godfathers of AI and now a big AI skeptic. We’ve had, you know, the heads of unions. We’ve had film directors on the podcast, people who just have interesting perspectives on technology and its effects, and whose voices really should be heard in the debates that are happening in Washington and beyond.
And then, you know, podcasting, I’ve learned, as you all know as well, is just a unique format. You know, it’s one thing to be able to speak intelligently on a topic. And it’s one thing to be able to give a few good quotes on a topic. It’s quite a different thing to be able to do a 20-minute interview that will actually hold people’s attention, that they will want to listen to. And so the other thing I look for is guests who are not going to be afraid to share opinions and take stances, people who are going to have bold predictions or bold ideas that maybe we have not heard before. I think it has to be compelling listening at the end of the day in order to really work in podcasting. And so, that’s something that I also look for as well. You know, if I was listening to this podcast on my 30-minute commute to work, is this how I would want to spend my time? Is this who I would want to hear from? And if the answer to that question is yes, then I’m much more likely to book that person on the show.
JC: Let me dig into one of the many hats you’re wearing right now – editorial director of POLITICO Live. A couple of years ago after the pandemic, people were saying events are back. And people were going out and about. And again, I would argue, in the last year, events have exploded. There’s so many things to do, so many places to go, so many activities. When it comes to the events that you guys are creating and covering, how do you determine the focus and topics that will resonate most, and how do you choose?
SO: It’s a great question, because you’re right. I mean, it has exploded. Events in journalism, especially events in such a competitive space now, I do think there’s a recognition that there’s a benefit to convening people in person, especially coming out of the pandemic, like having everyone in a room, having those conversations happen live is really appealing to people. And it’s a very dynamic way to make and tell news. And so I think, at POLITICO, we’re really driven by wanting to convene decision makers and wanting to get them to talk about very relevant, very current events. And so we do, I sort of in my head break it up into our Washington events and our non-Washington events. So we do a number of policy summits in D.C. every year focused on big topic areas that are not only important for our audience but are also areas where POLITICO has a very strong journalistic presence – so security and defense, energy, tech and AI, the economy. These are really areas of focus for us and also where major decisions are happening, where the Trump administration, especially now, is making really seismic change to how we approach policy in those areas. And so we do very large gatherings on all those topics.
We’ve also expanded into the states. So in this past year, we had our first ever California summit in Sacramento. And next year, we’re expanding that into Los Angeles and San Francisco. We’re also launching a New York summit that will be in Albany. And I think that’s a recognition that, for as powerful and influential as the federal government is, we all know that states are the laboratory for democracy, as they say. Especially a state like California is really driving a lot of the national political conversation. And so it’s important for us to have a presence there and a convening power there. And so that’s really motivating some of our new events as we look to 2026.
JC: Makes complete sense, especially as the Trump administration is also trying to give more responsibility directly to the states to have these events to figure out what each of them are doing and how they’re approaching these, not just added responsibilities, but different issues and trends that may be affecting one state but could be affecting other states in the future.
SO: Yeah, without a doubt. I mean, and you know, the whole Gavin Newsom-Trump right rivalry now is just a fascinating microcosm of this broader tension. And I think as we look at the midterms for 2026 and kind of how what’s happening in the states will influence the makeup of Congress, there’s so many fascinating stories at the state level. And so we’re really looking to capture those in the events that we have.
JC: You touched on some of the state events, but what other big picture events heading into next year are you guys really excited about?
SO: We’re doing also a number of international partnerships. So, for instance, last year and then this year again, POLITICO will have a large presence at the Munich Security Conference, because the transatlantic security relationship has changed so dramatically, especially with the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. That’s just a storyline that is so important, and I think in ways people don’t even realize how this sort of global security alliance between the U.S. and the EU is more important than ever. And so POLITICO, we’re looking to tell that story.
You know, we have a very large presence in Canada too. And I think for a long time, the U.S.-Canada relationship was something that was just taken for granted as, you know, friendly allies. And you know, along comes President Trump, dubbing Canada the 51st state and changing the nature of that relationship, too. And so I think there’s just, you know, it’s cliche to say I guess, but there’s so much change right now. I feel like we’re kind of living through the most breathless time of change that I’ve experienced being a journalist just the last 15 years. And so we’re always looking to harness that and capture that and figure out, okay, how can we use our live journalism as this physical manifestation of the journalism we do and the events and the stories we want to tell? And so I think those are going to be really big storylines to follow as well in the new year.
LP: And I feel like we hear this typically whenever we’re talking about journalism and just, you know, topics for the new year, but do you feel like with how everything is rapidly evolving and how there are these new focus areas, new topics to be explored and, I don’t want to say necessarily things coming out of left field, but how do you feel like that typically impacts your or the team’s ability to determine the events for the next year?
SO: It’s hard. I mean, we try to, sort of the way we approach it, I guess, is to think about what are the big themes that we can predict will matter in 2026. Even that can be hard to do, but you do kind of have to start at a high level, because everything just changes at such a rapid pace that, if I’m planning an energy event for June 2026, there’s a lot I can’t know until June 2026 rolls around. And so we kind of have to build our events in a way that they can be flexible and adapt to whatever the issue is that will be newsiest at that moment. And I think when we invite speakers to our events and when we invite audiences to our events, there’s an expectation that we will be on the news and that we’ll be talking about what is most relevant. And, you know, it’s funny, because this year, like we call that luck, I guess, but a lot of our summits just happened to hit at really newsy times. For those topics, I can remember our 2025 Security Summit was the same week that President Trump made his trip to the Middle East and the whole, you know, got the promise of a new Air Force One from the Qataris. And that was a whole storyline. And so they’re inevitably like the news will find you is kind of how I approach it now. And so we build the smartest events we can with the expectation that we’re going to have to make some pivots at the last minute to make sure that we reflect the news of the moment. And so far, we’ve been able to do that.
LP: Got it. And I know that we’ve been talking about a couple of the different hats that you wear on a day to day, but I feel like we didn’t talk about one of the other ones that we know that you also teach PR classes outside of POLITICO. So we’d love to touch on that a little bit of what is it like teaching the next generation of communications and journalists?
SO: Yeah, so that’s my like side hustle, if you will, to my main job and my other main job. I do teach communications classes to grad students at Johns Hopkins, which I love to do. It’s fascinating because both classes that I teach regularly, one is on journalism and publishing and one is on media relations. I mean, they’re effectively like media literacy and the change of media class, right? Because even just this semester alone, when I’m teaching things like the independence of the American media, well, that has been challenged quite a bit in the last calendar year, in terms of sort of how journalists tell stories and their freedom to tell those stories. I mean, when I talk about journalism ethics and the line between advocacy and, you know, fact telling, that is being blurred by this emergence of influencers who are kind of quasi journalists, quasi activists, quasi, you know, socialites. And so I look at this class and the approach to it very much now teaching students like a fundamental skill set about how to engage with the media and how the media functions. But even more than that, try to equip them with skills to keep pace with how media is changing, because whatever I teach them could be irrelevant a few years from now with the pace at which change is happening. And so I think I view it as the best thing I can equip them with are the skills to figure out how media is changing and then how to position themselves to take advantage of that with whatever narrative they have to tell, or whatever type of communications they engage in. And you know, that’s hard to do, because teaching for the future is always a roll of the dice. But it makes for fascinating discourse, especially hearing from students, all of whom are much younger than me at this point, kind of how they approach the media and the way that they look at the news. I think I learn as much from them as they do from me probably.
LP: That’s awesome. Yeah, definitely agree that it’s hard to predict the future on what you’re teaching there. But I feel like there’s definitely plenty of valuable skills and lessons that you are teaching them. I guess, what would be the one piece of advice that you feel like you frequently are giving your students that may even resonate to young professionals entering the workforce now too?
SO: In the communications context, I think one of the most important things I try to reinforce again and again is that you have to know your audience. Because regardless of what platform you’re speaking through, regardless of how the technology changes, you have to understand who your audience is and make sure that your message meets that audience. Because if you don’t do that, nothing else really matters, frankly. And so that is kind of a fundamental truth that I think will endure through all of this change. And so I do really try to reinforce that.
I mean, the other thing that I teach, which I think is applicable to any person getting into any industry today is really adaptability, especially when it comes to technology. You know, I am actually very limited in how I let students use AI at this point, because for students who are learning the fundamental skills, I still believe it’s important to know how to do these things yourself. However, it is a useful skill to know how these emerging technologies work, and it’s also useful to or to kind of develop into your DNA, the idea that you’re going to have to constantly be adopting new technology and evolving your approach. And so I think setting that expectations for students at the start of their career hopefully sets them up for success longer term, with whatever changes the industry throws at them.
JC: Honestly, that guidance is valuable for anyone in any career that’s early in their professional lives, because so much is changing. So much is not just from a technology perspective, but as you said a little bit earlier, from a personality perspective, and the various opinions that people have. And so the way to make sure you find that what you’re saying is resonating with the people that you’re targeting is really learning those audiences well and learning what makes them tick. And then that’s how you relate and connect to them most effectively, because there’s so many platforms in which to make an audience now.
SO: Right, absolutely. And your audience. I mean, I see this a lot with professional communicators where, like, you have to put thought into where your audience gets their information, where they live online, what resonates with them. Because if you don’t, you know that’s most of, like, the bad PR pitches I get. It’s a very clear audience alignment issue, like what’s being pitched to me would not be of any interest to me because it would not be of any interest to the audience that I’m communicating to as a journalist. And so I just think it’s such a fundamental step that is still overlooked so often. And so that’s why I try to hammer that again and again in the classes that I teach.
JC: Changing topics slightly, we like to close the conversation with a few get-to-know-you questions to help our listeners get to know the human being, the person behind the articles that they’re reading and the podcast that they’re listening to. So we’re going to jump into some of our get-to-know-you questions. First, what is one of your most frequently watched movies? If you come across it, you’re going to stop what you’re doing and immediately start watching.
SO: Yes, I’m trying not to overthink or psychoanalyze my answers and go uncut. And the first movie I thought of was “Clue.” I don’t know if you’ve ever seen the movie “Clue.” It’s a classic comedy. Madeline Kahn, Eileen Brennan, Tim Curry. It’s just such a fun adaptation of the board game. It is hilariously written. The ending has, like all of these fun twists. It’s just like a solid comedy that I enjoy every time I see it.
LP: I can’t say that I’ve seen it, but I definitely will have it on my to-watch list coming up soon.
SO: It’s so funny. You have to see it.
LP: And I will say, switching gears, something that Joyson I have learned as hosting the podcast is that you ask someone what they like, they’ll tell you that they’re usually pretty excited about it. But if you ask them what they hate, it is a very passionate answer. So to that end, what is a dish or food ingredient that you hate? It can be, you know, a meal itself, the single standalone ingredient, anything.
SO: My number one aversion is olives, olives in any context. And I have to, you know, say it is a little bit a betrayal of my heritage, because I’m Middle Eastern on my mother’s side, and I feel I should genetically be predisposed to enjoying olives. But if an olive has even been in a dish, even if it’s been removed, I can taste it and it just…it kills it for me. So black, green, any kind of olive, it’s no go.
JC: Fair enough. So I’m taking it we’re not getting martinis after this.
SO: No. You have all the dirty martinis you want. I’ll keep mine to a twist, thanks.
JC: Fair enough. Well, let me ask another question. If you never had to hear this song again, you would be extremely happy. What song is that?
SO: Okay, I don’t know if this is a controversial answer or not. So listeners, forgive me. Really, any song by The Beach Boys, which, again, betrayal in some ways maybe of like Americana music. But like, I just, I don’t need to surf in the USA. I don’t need any Beach Boys music in my life. No hate to those who love it, but I just cannot get behind it.
JC: We love an original answer.
LP: I was gonna say, dare we say that “Wouldn’t It Be Nice” to not hear Beach Boys again?
SO: I’m just saying, just saying I could do without it.
LP: Well, Steven, thank you so much for your time today. If any of our listeners wanted to learn more about you and the work that you’re doing at POLITICO, what would be the best way to get in contact?
SO: They can connect with me on LinkedIn. They can connect with me on X/Twitter. I’m pretty active there and always open to DMs. And then, of course, you know by email soverly@politico.com.
LP: Perfect. Well. Thank you to everyone who tuned in to this episode. And thank you, Steven, for helping us go “Gov & Beyond.”
SO: Great. Thanks for having me.
Outro: Thank you for joining us on today’s episode of Gov & Beyond to learn more about our podcast and hear all of our episodes, please visit us at w2comm.com/govandbeyond, and make sure to follow us on LinkedIn and Twitter at govandbeyond. You can also subscribe anywhere podcasts are found.