Citations Needed

Latest Episodes:

Episode 107: Pop Torts and the Ready-Made Virality of 'Frivolous Lawsuit' Stories Apr 22, 2020

Show notes

"Woman Sues TripAdvisor After Falling off Runaway Camel," reports the Associated Press. "Red Bull Paying Out to Customers Who Thought Energy Drink Would Actually Give Them Wings," eyerolls Newsweek. "Tennessee man sues Popeyes for running out of chicken sandwiches," scoffs NBC News.

We see "frivolous lawsuit" stories all the time and have for decades. Seemingly absurd cases of get rich quick schemes often with catchy headlines, a caricature of a plaintiff friendly legal system run amok. These stories play into faux-populist tropes of a country full of lazy poor people looking to cash in and a sleazy legal system that leeches off hard-working Americans.

But how organic are these "pop torts"––or popular stories of frivolous lawsuits––and more importantly, how true even are they? What organizations are behind cherry-picking and teeing up these shameful tales of greed for uncritical writers, editors and producers? Who's backing them, and what, perhaps, may be their ulterior motives?

Moreover, what are the human stakes to so called "tort reform" and how did it come to be that the vast majority of Americans came to accept the premise that, at some point in the 1980s, we all became amoral lawsuit happy scumbags out to shutdown mom and pop stores and grab a quick buck?

We are joined by the Center for Justice & Democracy's Joanna Doroshow.

Episode 106: The Sanitization of Sanctions Apr 15, 2020

Show notes

As COVID-19 continues to endanger the health of people throughout the world, it also magnifies a long-existent global humanitarian crisis: The use of sanctions by the United States and other powers as a weapon of war. In Iran, one of the countries most devastated by the contagion, sanctions have strangulated the supply of medical equipment crucial to testing the population and treating those who are infected, inspiring some members of the political establishment to call for sanctions to be eased. While these pleas are necessary, they're woefully inadequate and long overdue. Sanctions aren't just a problem when there's a pandemic. Iran had been subjected to U.S. and UN-imposed sanctions long before the appearance of the contagion—as had Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Iraq, and far too many other countries deemed Official Enemies of the United States and its allies, resulting in economic destabilization, vulnerability to U.S. militarism, starvation, illness, and mass deaths. Amid these life-or-death stakes, media and think tanks' responses to sanctions range from mere handwringing to outright bloodlust. Rather than decisively condemning sanctions as ruthless acts of economic warfare, American media largely perpetuates the narrative that sanctions are a necessity, and often a force for good, in the effort to punish and "change the behavior" of some perceived "rogue" government. Meanwhile, little criticism is offered outside of tepid suggestions that those sanctions should be tweaked. On today's show, we'll examine how the U.S. levies sanctions to undermine countries opposed to U.S. hegemony, how sanctions are laundered as benign in the media, and how the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the preexisting, decades-long barbarism of U.S. foreign policy. We are joined by guests Keyvan Shafiei and Hoda Katebi.

News Brief: Widespread Indifference to Covid-19 in Prisons Apr 08, 2020

Show notes

In this extended News Brief, we discuss how the rapid increase of Covid-19 in prisons and jails is being met with indifference by lawmakers and US corporate media.

News Brief: Top 10 Worst Covid Crisis Takes (So Far) Mar 29, 2020

Show notes

After over 100 episodes, scores of News Briefs, and almost three years of content production, Citations Needed has finally done it: reduced itself to a listicle. On this News Brief, we examine the top ten worst COVID-19 takes to date (not including the celebrity 'Imagine' video). Proceed with caution.

News Brief: As a Social Democracy Response Fails, Likelihood of Martial Response to Covid19 Rises Mar 23, 2020

Show notes

In this News Brief, we detail recent reports the National Guard and US military may be used in a law enforcement capacity and what this says about the failures of the liberal state. With unemployment potentially reaching 30 percent and an urgent, robust social democratic response from the federal government unlikely, a debate about safeguarding against martial order––especially from an administration with a well documented inclination towards abuse of power–-is urgently needed.

Episode 105: Pandemic, Pelosi, and the People We Consider Human Mar 18, 2020

Show notes

The COVID-19 pandemic is ravaging the globe, leaving immeasurable human suffering in its wake. Who is left behind, struggling to survive on the frontlines of precarity, is – as with all things – determined primarily by wealth, privilege, and access to resources and political capital. This fact has been starkly on display in recent days, as Congressional Democrats began debating their response to the crisis: corporations, wealthy investors and industry were prioritized, formal wage workers were given crumbs, and the undocumented and informal economy workers – such as domestic caregivers; undocumented workers; sex workers; and freelance, contract, and off-the-books workers – were ignored completely. On this week's episode, we analyze a 48-hour time period of coverage in The New York Times and The Washington Post when the discussion of who was going to be prioritized and aided – and who wasn't – cemented in popular discourse with little logic or meaningful debate. We are joined by Fahd Ahmed, Executive Director of Desis Rising Up and Moving (DRUM).

Episode 104: The Pete Peterson Austerity Empire and the "How Will You Pay For It?" Lie Mar 11, 2020

Show notes

"According to the Bipartisan Policy Center," "a recent study by the Concord Coalition disagrees," "One review of your budget by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says." We've seen these seemingly benign Official Sounding sources hundreds of times—from presidential debates to 60 Minutes to countless articles in The Washington Post and The New York Times.

But what the average person can't reasonably know is that these organizations—Bipartisan Policy Center, the Concord Coalition, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, and PR projects like "The Can Kicks Back" and "America Speaks"—are all veiled front groups for a single, far-right billionaire whose entire life mission was to privatize social security, medicare and other entitlement programs under the auspices of fighting a so-called "deficit timebomb." For decades, a web of Pete Peterson-backed front groups—often funded in concert with other like minded billionaires—has used the faux neutrality of think tanks, institutes, and academia to launder "anti-deficit" messaging for American pundits, reporters, and politicians, entirely capturing the narrative around deficits and their alleged pending destruction of society as we know it.

This week, we explore the origins of Pete Peterson's austerity propaganda machine, his web of influence, how he helped co-opt both conservative and liberal knowledge production, and how he and spent hundreds of millions of dollars to undermine what little liberal government the United States has left.

We are joined by David Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect.

Episode 103: The Glib Left-Punching of "Purity Politics" Discourse Mar 04, 2020

Show notes

"Obama Warns Against 'Purity Tests' In Democratic Primary," Spectrum News reports. "Spare Me the Purity Racket," Maureen Dowd opines in The New York Times. "'Purity Tests' Divide Democrats," US News & World Report announces. "Political purity tests are for losers," bellows The Hill. We hear it all the time: progressives, leftists, radicals — and even liberals — are told they must not engage in the siren song of "purity politics." Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, we are told. We must be pragmatic, realistic, we must lay down our ideological arms and stop pining for Nirvana when so much is on the line in November. Evoking purity politics functions — more often than not — as a catch-all defense against any and all criticism of establishment Democrats. In 2016, Hillary Clinton partisans used it against Bernie Sanders supporters; in 2020, Bloomberg's flacks use it against Sanders again, and even Sanders partisans use it against leftist skeptics of electoralism. Put simply, purity politics is a Get Out Of Jail Free card, a perennial lesser of two evils narrative of an inherent impossibility of anything other than incremental change. At their core, charges of purity politics are ahistoric and anti-intellectual, pathologizing alternative theories of change that don't require political compromise as youthful vanity. Indeed, how to balance compromise and ideals has been, for centuries, the central question of the Left, everyone from French revolutionaries to Russian socialists, Black American radicals and Indigenous struggles in North America to Third World liberation movements around the globe have struggled to answer: when do we compromise and when do we not? But "purity politics" ignores this essential and rich question altogether, brushing aside morally fraught debates about political strategy and reducing anything short of the path of least resistance to unserious solipsism and juvenile stubbornness. On this episode, we discuss how demands that people drop "purity politics" only go in one direction; how moral urgency has historically been pathologized as youthful narcissism; and how our jaded, broken media elites routinely conflate preemptive defeatism with political savvy. Our guest is attorney and writer Malaika Jabali.

Episode 102: The Conservative Sanctimony of Journalistic Impartiality Feb 26, 2020

Show notes

One of the most prized professional norms for journalists, particularly the United States, is the preservation of neutrality in reporting. While the concept of "objectivity" has fallen out of fashion among mainstream reportage in recent years, related concepts that convey a similar idea such as "impartiality" and "neutrality" have come to replace it. In their mission statements and codes of ethics, corporate and government owned outlets routinely proclaim the importance of impartiality and balance, in the sanctified pursuit of fair, unbiased reporting. In theory, this can be a healthy idea. Distinguishing between so-called opinion or editorial versus neutral, down-the-middle reporting –"objectivity" or "impartiality" can give the reader a sense that a series of facts are being reported rather than some guy's opinion. The fundamental problem is when this vaguely aspirational genre morphs into an unchecked ideology––an ideology that requires one to think we live in a world where said facts are curated and created outside of long-existing power structures; that those who produce, on an institutional scale, knowledge products via think tanks and academic institutions are without bias. That journalistic institutions, funded by large corporations and billionaires themselves, don't decide which neutral facts are important and which aren't. "Objectivity" that doesn't calibrate power asymmetries or attempt to account for its own institutional ideology isn't a mode of reporting, it's conservative conditioning that––if not in intent, in effect––does little more than advance prevailing ruling class ideology. Indeed, anyone who's ever studied marketing or PR or propaganda will tell you the most effective messaging is that which appears unbiased and impartial. On today's show, we'll examine how objectivity came to be a defining principle of Western journalism and how U.S. media's understanding of impartiality provides an urbane veneer for racism, homophobia, anti-poor policies and other reactionary currents. We are joined this week by journalist Lewis Raven Wallace, author of The View from Somewhere: Undoing the Myth of Journalistic Objectivity.

Episode 101: The False Universality of "Common Sense" Feb 19, 2020

Show notes

"145 CEOs Call On Senate To Pass 'Common-sense, Bipartisan' Gun Laws," NPR states. "Local Democrat pushes back on NY bail reform law: It's about 'common sense,' not politics," a Fox News headline reads. "The Only Thing More Dangerous Than Trump's Appeal to Common Sense Is His Dismissal of It," The Nation warns. Everywhere we turn we are told by pundits and politicians that "common sense" demands we support their preferred policy prescription. It's a common appeal: a political issue—whether health-insurance, immigration, foreign policy, or gun violence—reaches a real or perceived extreme, and, in reaction, media pundits and political figures claim the most appropriate response must be ostensibly neutral, reasonable "common sense" reforms. But these claims are insidious. While "common sense" may appear to be a constructive guiding principle, there is no meaningful definition of the concept and when it is evoked, it's almost always an appeal to status quo ideology. What's sensible to a member of the Tea Party isn't the same as what's sensible to an activist seeking to end police violence. So, whose "common sense" is really being promoted when we hear these calls to action? On this week's episode, we explore how appeals to "common sense" present politics as a matter of rationality rather than of morality; how these demands reinforce centrist and right-wing ideologies and how the Left can work to build an alternative common sense. We are joined by cultural anthropologist Dr. Kate Crehan, Professor Emerita at College of Staten Island and the CUNY Graduate Center.

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected