CounterSpin, FAIR’s weekly radio show, provides a critical examination of the major stories every week, and exposes what the mainstream media might have missed in their own coverage.
This week on CounterSpin: One outlet says “it’s unclear if war is back on”; another says “Trump mulls restarting war”—as though you can start and stop the harm bombs bring, to people, to power plants, bridges, airports, hospitals. US corporate news report the US war on Iran as if it were a playground altercation. And the Washington Postcalls the illegal violation of another sovereign state a “political problem” Trump “can’t shake.”
If war were a football match, we could have a different conversation, and who takes the L would be a different story. But war is not a sport, and dead people are not afterthoughts.
As a corollary, people worry that the war on Iran has pushed the genocide in Gaza out of corporate media’s attention. But media outlets make their own choices about what to present to us.
And: Media attention isn’t change. Being on the front page guarantees nothing. There will never be a substitute for our learning about what’s being done in our name and with our resources, and if your paper of record isn’t doing that, you should seek other sources.
This week on CounterSpin: A former UK Prime Minister famously sniffed:
I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand, “I have a problem, it is the government’s job to cope with it!” Or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the government must house me!” And so they are casting their problems on society, and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women, and there are families, and no government can do anything except through people, and people look to themselves first.
That idea, from Margaret Thatcher, seems important to keep in mind as we watch corporate news reporters whistle past a directive from the Trump administration’s Department of Justice that says: That whole thing about policies encouraging disabled people to be able to live in community, with family, with friends—yeahh, you don’t need to do that. You can just lock ’em up.
Why are establishment news reporters uninterested in this memo from the Office of Legal Counsel that says that no laws “require states to treat mentally disabled patients in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs”? The memo, as folks like those at Disability Scoopremind us, does not alter current law, but could impact how federal agencies enforce it. But is that the reason that elite media don’t care? Or are disabled people, their lives, their possibilities, just off the screen? When states start forcing folks into institutions because they’ve been told they don’t need to provide services, will it be a story then? And what kind of story will that be?
We talk about it with Mia Ives-Rublee, senior director of the Disability Justice Initiative at the Center for American Progress.
This week on CounterSpin: Do you disagree with anything that the Trump administration is doing? Are there other people that share that view? Do you think you should get together and use your voices to say something? Well, you might be a terrorist!
Do you think we’re joking? Do you want to test that?
We talk about the criminalizing of dissent with Seth Stern, director of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, this week on CounterSpin.
This week on CounterSpin: The way we hear about the stock market is quite different from the vision many people still hold: that businesses strive to serve people’s real needs or desires, and investors are rewarded by that metric—not by convincing people that they might make a lot of money in the future, or by conspiring with powerful entities to ensure that shareholders profit, by whatever means.
This longstanding confusion and conflict are being showcased right now in the unasked-for push of artificial intelligence into so many aspects of our lives, and the aggressive build-out of energy-gobbling data centers to serve it—whether communities want them or not.
Now, questions are arising around whether the promises of endless growth of the AI industry actually make any sense. Is there an AI bubble? How would we know? And what happens, and to whom, when it bursts?
A new project engages questions, not just about price-to-earnings ratios, and historical comparisons, but about the predictable impacts—on, for example, workers’ retirement accounts—when the AI exuberance falls to earth.
This week on CounterSpin: PBS Newstold its audience “What to Know About the Protests and Arrests Outside a New Jersey Detention Center.” What to know, evidently, is that protesters “say they are showing up in solidarity with detainees inside over accusations of poor living conditions.”
Maybe they aren’t showing up in solidarity; that’s just what they say. And poor “living” conditions?—because it’s their home now?—that’s also just an “accusation.” Why can’t we see what’s true? Oh, because reporters who try to see what’s happening are being kept from doing so with rubber bullets and tear gas. But for PBS News, that means: We just can’t know!
“Delaney Hall detainees say they are being given moldy and expired food,” the article (from AP) reads. But you know what? “President Donald Trump and his deputies have defended the center’s operations and denied there is any hunger strike, abuse or poor conditions inside.” We hear from Homeland Security secretary Markwayne Mullin: “The fact is, we’re giving them the calories they want.” And we get a quote from Tom Homan, described as “Trump’s border czar,” saying he got to visit, and “the spaghetti was good.”
PBS News tells readers that Attorney General Todd Blanche “shared images of bloody wounds and bruises” sustained by ICE officers. There is not a single quote from a protester, an immigrant rights advocate, or even a journalist who says that people should be able to see what is being carried out in their name. But PBS News assures: That’s “What to Know”!
We’ll have a different conversation about what’s happening at Delaney Hall, and the bigger systems and structures in back of it, with Silky Shah, executive director at Detention Watch Network.
And: Yes, times like these make you wish for brave reporters who go to where the darkness is and shine a light. And we have them. They just aren’t at the traditional media you may have learned to look to. We’ll talk about the crucial role of frontline reporting with Vanessa Maria Graber, senior director of journalism and media education at the group Free Press.
This week on CounterSpin: Luddites didn’t hate machines: Historian (and online educator) Casey Fiesler reminds us that the Luddites, who were 19th century English textile workers, were not anti-technology, they
were anti the unaccountable deployment of technology by those who stood to profit from it at the expense of those with less power…. They were anti the use of technology to deskill labor, to take work that took years of craft knowledge and render it performable by anyone, who was then dispensable. They were anti the imposition of technology on communities who had no say in how it was deployed, or who would bear its costs.
Words to keep in mind as commencement speakers and politicians and pundits tell you that artificial intelligence is a train leaving the station, and your only choice is to pick your seat. But also yeah, democratic decision-making is still a thing, why do you ask? Also, if you ask, your name goes on a list.
We talk about the proliferation of data centers that are very much brick and mortar—against the backdrop of press coverage that suggests that artificial intelligence all happens in the ether somewhere—with Melissa Garriga, communications and media relations manager at the feminist grassroots organization CODEPINK.
This week on CounterSpin: It’s a safe bet that a majority of US citizens know that “we” are currently at “war” with Iran. I am equally confident that very few people could explain why. Or what “war” means. Or what it has to do with their day-to-day life, much less how it could possibly make it better. That’s a problem of this boldly anti-intellectual administration, and the, let’s say, incurious posture of so much of US corporate news media—the ones tasked with telling the truth and letting the chips fall where they may.
We have alternative sources of information, that we need to seek out and support, perhaps no time more importantly than when “we” are “at war”—when not only US lives, if that’s all you care about, are at risk, but also many other human lives, as well as the standing of the United States on the world stage (which evidently is super important to many supporters of this war.)
Why is the US at war with Iran? What is the hoped-for outcome? Who is hoping for it? And will we hear from any of the millions who got something they didn’t hope for?
This week on CounterSpin: You may have seen videos of college commencement speakers telling students who’ve spent time and money learning how to read, write and think critically that that was dumb, cuz AI is going to be doing that from now on, so just get on the train or else—wait, why are you booing? That’s far from the only disconnect between students and teachers who think higher education means engagement with a range of perspectives, and right-wing politicians and their administrative acolytes saying “not so fast.” We’ll hear from Karma Chávez, professor at the University of Texas at Austin, at the center of this assault on academic freedoms.
Also on the show: There is a US State Department memo that calls for “a line of action which, while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.”
Thing is: That memo is from 1960. So while Trump is making everything old, new—and ugly and violent—again, he isn’t inventing it all. We try not to do media criticism by counterfactual, but consider: What if another country were cutting off resources to the US, in an explicit effort to cause us misery, in hopes that would make us overthrow our government? We’ll talk about what sounds reasonable as long as it’s about Cuba with Alex Main, director of international policy at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
FIFA, the governing body of association football, concocted a “FIFA Peace Prize”—described as recognizing “individuals for exceptional contributions to peace and unity”—in order to award it to Donald Trump. Alongside revelations of deep-seated corruption—collusion, bribery—involving official bodies and executives, and now ticket prices for this year’s World Cup being called not just excessive but “extortionate,” you might say more folks are “following” football (or soccer) these days, but not necessarily as fans.
Sports has always been a big part of news media, but typically segregated into its own section on stats and personalities, ignoring the economic, social and environmental impacts sports have always had. Think about cities enticed into building new arenas with promises of jobs and commerce that never arrive. Or whole communities uprooted for temporary “Olympic Villages.”
Jules Boykoff has been following the relationships of sport and society for years now; he’s a former professional soccer player himself, as well as a critic and writer, now teaching political science at Pacific University. He’s author of a number of books, including What Are the Olympics For? (Bristol University Press, 2024).
He joins us to discuss his latest: Red Card: The 2026 World Cup, Sportswashing and the FIFA Greed Machine, out now from OR Books.
This week on CounterSpin: In 2023, the group Media Matters reported that social media platform X was placing ads for major brands like Apple and IBM alongside content touting Hitler and the Nazi Party—despite the claim of X’s CEO that brands are “protected from the risk of being next to” toxic posts on the platform.
Musk threatened a “thermonuclear lawsuit” against Media Matters for reporting the truth, and many in state and federal government were happy to take that work on. Three years and several court cases later, Media Matters announced victory in what wound up being Media Matters v. Federal Trade Commission. The case and the victory are not just hopeful but instructive, offering what the group calls a “roadmap” for other newsgathering and nonprofit organizations facing, or at risk of, government retaliation.
We hear about the case and the outcome from Media Matters president Angelo Carusone.
Also on the show: Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the dominant method of abortion in the US has become mifepristone, particularly as it can be administered by telehealth, without the need for an in-office visit. But now Louisiana, which has a near-total abortion ban, sued the FDA over telehealth, and though it got support from a federal appeals court to block remote prescription, a visit by the drug’s makers to the Supreme Court led to a temporary stay on that. As the debate continues, we revisit a conversation we had a few years ago with Rachel K. Jones, principal research scientist at the Guttmacher Institute, who knows more than most about mifepristone.
Our TOPPODCAST Picks 
Stay Connected
